Cloverfield is not a giant monster movie. Going in with the expectation to see a monster rampaging through New York is not the proper way of thinking. This disaster movie happens to be caused by a massive hulking beast shot from the innovative POV of a handheld camera.
If anything, Cloverfield answers the question “what if” to the classic movie scenario. What if an unidentified monster suddenly and unexpectedly showed up in a major city? Undoubtedly, they would play out much like what happens here. The performances, unique style, and proper amount of action give off an immense sense of authenticity to a ridiculous concept.
Cloverfield has a few obvious, glaring problems. The love story that serves as the basis for the story is a mess of clichés, giving the core of the film a familiar feel. The only thing separating it from a dull drama is the camera. Its purpose is simply to push the characters from place to place, even though the disaster occurring around them should have been enough.
Secondary, many of the scenes are taken out of any disaster movie. As the cast struggles to survive, there are shots plucked out of numerous ‘70s disaster epics. The danger would have been as effective with an earthquake at the heart of the problem and not a giant monster.
Thirdly, this is occasionally frustrating to watch. Anyone who walks into the film expects to see the beast, and yet the audience is mostly stuck listening to the attack in the background. Other times, the cameraman is focused on the wrong target, the worst case being the military assault. If you’re goal is to film this “so everyone should know how it all went down,” why are we looking at your friends and not the once-in-a-lifetime moment occurring down the block?
Stunning images are abound, and those sensitive to the 9/11 disaster should be forewarned. The destruction leads to some eerily similar footage, and a late rescue attempt leads to a shot that is an obvious correlation. Like the original 1954 Godzilla in which the Japanese found an allegory for the Hiroshima bombings in their film, it’s not hard to pull the similarities here with an American one.
![Gojira / Godzilla Deluxe Collector's Edition (Gojira/Godzilla [1954] / Godzilla, King of the Monsters [1956])](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HEXHBZ4VL._SL120_.jpg)
Article comments
1 - robert
worst movie ive ever seen ,must have cost at least one hundred thousand to make
2 - Matt Paprocki
It cost $30 million, and you apparently haven't seen many movies if this was the worst.
3 - Quinn
I want to see this movie and I think I will enjoy it. Rob, can you make a movie and then I will compare it to Cloverfield, cheers.
4 - pochy
dont fight like girls. respect each others opinion.
5 - CallmeMaddy
Don't fight like GIRLS? Classy. Sexist.
And, no, I don't think that statement was due to me overracting.
6 - Phillip Winn
For $100k, you don't buy even a single camera. The director doesn't step on set. For $100k, everyone works for free using a TV-quality camera. So that's just a hyperbolic statement intended to convey displeasure. And "worst?" Sorry, no, that's still To Die For.
7 - Daniel
movie was good
the ending ruined it though
the camera man made the movie better, he was funny as out
8 - terribleMovie
I thought it would be good as the Lost series; but the movie started my head-ache within the first minute cuz it was 'moving' so much. Movies are like photographs, you LOOK AT THEM. If you can, you even do 'SLO-MO' to get the details. The whole F*!#ING movie was MOVING ALL THE TIME! Story was terrible also. A few people 'Boo-ed' when it ended cus it was really BAD! It was a waste of $10 and time!
9 - kevin
this movie was so incredibly bad, it had a horrible plot and was so pointless. waste of money
10 - Mike
Worst movie of all time. The whole crowd in the theater sat there after the movie waiting for something else to happen. The usher had to come in and tell everyone that the movie was over. I am still stunned that this made it to the big screen.
11 - Tom
I thought the camera was double edged, on the one hand it made the movie more intense and more credible, you don't question the fact the guy is running a digital camera while jumping across buildings. It also made everyone feel sick at some point though. My biggest problem is that you never know what the monster is without reading the whole internet. Was it made? Was it woken up? Is it a weapon? Is it deliberate? What are the smaller things? Are they part of? Just answering a few would of made the film a little more engaging.