Cloverfield Review

I think it takes great self constraint as a movie maker not to give the audience everything it wants. This movie did this from square one, with its teaser trailer this summer. The teaser didn't even give away the movie's name, let alone the plot - which, only salivated audiences.
As the movie's opening date approached, I did my best to stay away from previews, spoilers and gossip. Too often, those things take away from the movie experience.
I'm afraid people who go see "Cloverfield" expecting a movie they have already seen will be sorely disappointed. If they want a regular three-act movie with a center, core character and an ending that ties everything up, then they are going to be sorely disappointed.

Aside from some small qualms, like a script that was too lose and acting that was not great, I was very happy with the movie.I rolled my eyes a little when it came to the "we have to risk four lives to rescue one" story plot.

Not to give anything away but the character Chad was going back into the heart of the monster-infested city to save a girl he was never going to see again before the monster came.

The pacing of it was perfect. It didn't take too long for you to get to know the character and get into the action. And unlike most monster flicks, which usually only one money shot to give of their monster and then has nothing to follow, this movie was able to keep showing the monster and keep the suspense. And concerning the monster, kudos to the filmmakers. They had the daunting task of creating a monster that didn't remind people of the horrible Godzilla. And they pulled it off! I won't mention "the other horrible things" but those were great too.

Again, I think people's initial reaction to the ending is that they hated it because it wasn't what they were expecting and I would like to challenge moviegoers to let the ending sink in and then decide that just because it wasn't the ending they wanted, does it make it a bad one? Sure, it left you wanting more but isn't that good?


UPDATE: After reading Peter Travers' Rolling Stone review, I have to agree with him. Though the movie was entertaining, it didn't have anything below the surface - no subtext, no deep meaning.