Cloverfield 3.5/5 reviewed by Mike

I have a theory about J.J. Abrams. That theory is that the man in brilliant at coming up with cool concepts, but drops the ball when it comes to developing them. It could be an interesting new premise, or a quirky twist on an old mainstay, but he's got a lot of ideas. Good ideas. The problem is that ideas are a dime a dozen. The idea is the easy part--it's the development of that kernel of an idea into something meaningful that makes an artist (writer, director, musician, etc.) into something great. Unfortunately, this is where Abram's often fails--as shows like 'Lost' and 'Alias' attest--the great ideas coming out of Abram's mind never seem to go anywhere, never get resolved, and end up spinning into labyrinthine trails of plot instead of something powerful. And Cloverfield is the same way, but even so, it sure is an entertaining ride.

The kernel of an idea for this flick is simple: take an old school monster movie, ala 'Godzilla' and the like, and tell it from an "on the street" perspective. What's it like to be on the ground during the monster's attack through the city? To further this effect, the film is simulated to look as if it were shot by a tiny handheld camera (which, in addition to having the longest battery life EVER also has 5.1 digital surround sound...). We meet a shallow group of young yuppie New Yorkers, who, at the verge of evacuating, find that they must go back into the heart of the city to rescue their trapped friend, who our protagonist is in love with.

You're forced to swallow a few ridiculous pills--the battery life, a large handful of seemingly impossible coincidences, army officers acting in a way no army officer ever would... But for me, those impossibilities were ok--after all, we're talking about a monster movie here, so it's all part of the suspension of disbelief. And aside from this, the movie is executed wonderfully. The camera style--although nausea inducing for many people--does a great job of really capturing the terror that an event like this would create. The effects look pretty good, and everything feels like it's really happening. There's a sense of scope, and a powerful, tangible sense of actually being in the city that a lot of action movies fail to grasp. The acting is what it should be, and, although there's no music in the film, the end credits have a great piece of music thats a fantastic tribute to the scores of old monster movies, if you're into that (I'm a closet Godzilla fanatic, so the piece really stood out to me).

Ultimately, though, as great as the execution is, the idea is flawed from the start. There's no resolution, you never find out what the monster was, where it came from, or if it gets stopped, or really anything else--because there can't be. If that happened, the film would betray it's own idea and be the weaker for it. But the severe lack of resolution or closure makes it weak as well. Although I felt incredibly disappointed by the film's ending, I can't imagine any other, better way for it to end (well, there's a few deatils I might change, but I'm nit-picky) without betraying itself.

All said and done, the movie was very entertaining and I felt like I got my money's worth. It's a monster movie that's scary and exciting the way most monster movies aren't. And although ultimately, it's not really a story as much as an exercise in film making, it's still a good time at the movies.

See this movie if:
-You're a monster movie fan--monster movies are scary again!
-You want some good escapism to get your mind off something
-You want a short, yet satisfying experience--this clocks in at just above 80 minutes.

Don't see this movie if:
-Lots of shaky cam makes you nauseous. Seriously, about 1/3 of the viewers with me had to leave. It's EXTREME.
-You're expecting deep characterization, relationships, or thematic material
-You want something deep to challenge your thinking. This is a fun saturday afternoon flick.