Cloverfield is a monster movie of our times
By
Derek Malcolm
31 Jan 2008
On the surface, this looks like ludicrous sci-fi fun. But Matt Reeves's monster movie is a good deal better than that, using the simple expedient of hand-held camerawork throughout and showing us only what its human characters would see as they flee the strange creatures who threaten Manhattan.
It isn't always an easy watch for those who find shaky, off-kilter photography too much to take. But the idea behind the film - that, were its audience in the same predicament as the characters, we would be as confused and terrified as them - comes over better and better as the tall tale progresses.
There is not a very auspicious beginning. We see two lovers (Michael Stahl-David and Odette Yustman) using a camcorder to detail their burgeoning romance. Later, a friend (TJ Miller) is assigned the task of recording on the same machine the young man's party, organised before he leaves for Japan.
This lasts for some 20 minutes and since none of the party people, let alone the lovers, seems more than marginally intriguing, you begin to wonder what on earth the film is going to be about.
Then comes the bombshell. The lights go out, the building shakes and the group begins to think an earthquake is on its way.
In the dark streets buildings topple, the head of the Statue of Liberty falls at the screaming party-goers' feet, looters grab what they can from devastated shops and a vague outline of the monster appears overhead.
We never see it clearly, though it seems to be spewing out small, crab-like creatures as troops move in and aircraft unsuccessfully strafe it.
It's a menace that can be glimpsed only as much as the fugitives might have managed, nervously pointing their camera into the night sky.
The friends find sanctuary first in an underground tunnel and then in a National Guard helicopter which arrives to save them. But that crashes and they are back trying to find an ever more unlikely escape route out of the city.
Not a great deal of acting is required of anybody, bar looking suitably terrified and running like mad. And there are several scenes which remind one a little too closely of 9/11 to be entirely tasteful.
But the camcorder records and we watch. It's an audaciously original roller-coaster ride which delivers even if at first it doesn't look as if it's going to.
Details are correct at the time of publication - please check with venue before booking.
Reader views (2)
I found the movie to be slightly exciting and random. Although the suspense was killing me the entire movie, the ending was less than fufilling. I believe there is rumour for a second and if that's a fact I can say right now I will not be attending. This article is more than correct when it says little acting was required. I wouldn't suggest to anyone to spend the time or money to see this film.
- Danielle, san francisco, US, 01/02/2008 05:40
Report abuse
"And there are several scenes which remind one a little too closely of 9/11 to be entirely tasteful." - a rather silly comment - yes, they are running down a dusty street in lower Manhattan. And yes, that also happened on 9/11. Guess what - that will happen any time there is a disaster in Manhattan - it is unavoidable. Unlike 9/11, in Cloverfield it was nighttime, and, although buildings do collapse, there are no shots of a huge building pancaking a la the WTC.
Overall a pretty good review of a pretty good movie, but it is not for the faint of stomach - several people had to leave the theatre to throw up when I saw it. If you think you may become queasy, sit well back from the screen.
- Mike, New York, NY, 31/01/2008 21:42
Report abuse
Tonight:
5°c



















