I like monster movies a lot, including both "The Blair Witch Project" and "Godzilla" (the Japanese one, not the Matthew Broderick one). So I guess it was inevitable that I'd see "Cloverfield," which is frequently described as the love child of those two films.
Unfortunately, I didn't find "Cloverfield" to be as good as its source material. This movie, unlike the Blair Witch or Godzilla films, focuses an awful lot on character development. That might work, except the characters in "Cloverfield" are mainly annoying yuppies involved in really shallow, neurotic romances. I felt sympathy for them during certain scenes, yes, but that was only because they were suffering - not because I especially liked them as people.
The other disadvantage "Cloverfield" has in comparison with its predecessors is that it features a sort of lame monster. I mean, sure, Godzilla looks fake and all, but at least I can identify him as a dragon-dinosaur hybrid, which is cool. Without giving too much away, the beast in "Cloverfield" just looks...bizarre. Icky. Messed up. I didn't think that it had a particularly iconic or memorable design, in short. I doubt that anybody will remember what it looked like 10 years from now.
I guess I'm being a little harsh, though, because "Cloverfield" has some good suspense moments and memorable apocalyptic imagery. And the characters aren't a total loss - at least they're loyal to each other, and occasionally one of them gets a good line.
It's just not a great movie, that's all. I'm a little tired, I guess, of horror films that focus on 20-something "beautiful people," and I long for the days when monster movies featured wise middle-aged professor characters and plucky journalists instead of rejects from "Dawson's Creek."
Still, if you're interested in enjoying a few scares and experiencing mild nausea in the process, "Cloverfield" will deliver for you.
Unfortunately, I didn't find "Cloverfield" to be as good as its source material. This movie, unlike the Blair Witch or Godzilla films, focuses an awful lot on character development. That might work, except the characters in "Cloverfield" are mainly annoying yuppies involved in really shallow, neurotic romances. I felt sympathy for them during certain scenes, yes, but that was only because they were suffering - not because I especially liked them as people.
The other disadvantage "Cloverfield" has in comparison with its predecessors is that it features a sort of lame monster. I mean, sure, Godzilla looks fake and all, but at least I can identify him as a dragon-dinosaur hybrid, which is cool. Without giving too much away, the beast in "Cloverfield" just looks...bizarre. Icky. Messed up. I didn't think that it had a particularly iconic or memorable design, in short. I doubt that anybody will remember what it looked like 10 years from now.
I guess I'm being a little harsh, though, because "Cloverfield" has some good suspense moments and memorable apocalyptic imagery. And the characters aren't a total loss - at least they're loyal to each other, and occasionally one of them gets a good line.
It's just not a great movie, that's all. I'm a little tired, I guess, of horror films that focus on 20-something "beautiful people," and I long for the days when monster movies featured wise middle-aged professor characters and plucky journalists instead of rejects from "Dawson's Creek."
Still, if you're interested in enjoying a few scares and experiencing mild nausea in the process, "Cloverfield" will deliver for you.