One of my favorite aspects of Cloverfield was that they didnâ€™t give a lot away in the previews, so Iâ€™m going to try and review it without giving a lot away as well, because I think that you should go see it with as little information about it as possible.
Thus, a brief synopsis:
(Warning: Though Iâ€™m trying not to, this may contain some small spoilers, so if you want to go in with a pure mind, I suggest you read this after you see the film.)
- Like I said, I knew little to nothing about this film going in, because they decided to go with vague trailers as opposed to the current trend of using the trailer as a mini-version of the movie.
- The â€˜Blaire Witchâ€™ style camera work added to the sense of realism, and kept you on edge the whole time.
- The pace and tone of the film was so good that for an entire hour and a half, no one in my theater spoke a word. No one. I canâ€™t remember the last time that happened.
- The monster had a bit of a scale issue. One minute itâ€™s tearing down building; the next itâ€™s going after individual people. Perhaps it just changed tastes half way through, but it seems like it couldnâ€™t pick a size.
- They donâ€™t explain much. Where did the monster come from? Why is it unaffected by our counter-monster measures? Why is the film named Cloverfield?
All in all, Iâ€™d say it was about as good as a monster movie can get. They kept you on the edge of your seat the whole time, they kept things somewhat believable, and they didnâ€™t oversell any of it. While I donâ€™t think that this was the â€˜Movie of the Yearâ€™ by any means (and I’ve already basically give that nomination to Juno), it was a very entertaining film, and I definitely suggest going to see it.
Theater Worthy: Yes
Note: For a great article on how Cloverfield advertised without advertising, check out MTVâ€™s coverage of the Cloverfield viral-marketing campaign.