“Cloverfield,” the latest production from “Lost” and “Alias” mastermind J.J. Abrams, is something fans and critics alike know so little about. But the mystique is exactly what keeps this old-fashioned monster movie above the lines of mediocrity and predictability that so many in its genre have fallen to before (such as, most recently, the Internet-revered and box-office bomb “Snakes on a Plane”).
Monster movies such as the classic “King Kong” seem exciting in their pre-release buzz of mysterious posters and previews, but once you’re actually in the theater with popcorn in hand and the opening credits are rolling, there are only so many ways the plot can turn.
Luckily, Abrams and director Matt Reeves make the most of their 90 minutes, hooking viewers in with a powerful storytelling style of handheld camera-like shots.
The movie starts out set around a group of uninteresting and overtly aesthetically pleasing 20-somethings filming testimonials for their friend Rob before he moves to Japan.
Then suddenly as the first explosions hit the city and the Statue of Liberty’s head barrels its way to the group’s front stoop, all bets are off and the sentimental testimonials turn to something much more depressing. Main character Hud explains, “People are going to want to know … how it all went down,” as he films the destruction.
While my friend complained of nausea after having to sit through at least a straight half an hour, if not more, of shaky and shots before some steady frames enter the picture, it’s through the eyes and ears of the characters that the monster and the movie itself become close to feeling larger than life.
It’s through this style that the filmmakers also save themselves from what could have been the biggest letdown of the film besides the empty subplot of two of the characters’ unrequited puppy love for each other: showing the creature in its entirety.
While the filmmakers create an interesting and impressive villain, this element of the monster movie genre generally seems to disappoint. By only showing bits and pieces of the monster for most of the film, viewers are kept on the edge of their seats a little while longer.
Without spoiling the film for anyone, since most of the enjoyment comes from the element of surprise, many may leave disappointed without a more fulfilling conclusion. However, once again, it simply comes down to the constrictions of a narrow story. Is this thing powerful enough to destroy all of New York City, including the characters whose survival the audience just invested 90 minutes in? Do they manage to survive and “defeat” it, undermining the threat and danger that carried the entire movie?
In its “open” ending, “Cloverfield” manages to keep a bit of dignity after the last shot, as much dignity, that is, as there can be in a monster movie.
– Kate Stanhope
E-mail Stanhope at kstanhope@media.ucla.edu.