Review of Cloverfield (2008) by Rickey F — 13 Jan 2013

I assumed this would be dumb when I saw the preview last summer before Transformers. Fortunately, I had forgotten my assumption by the time I got around to seeing it. This movie was surprisingly good, and it kills me that people rag on it for being like the Blair Witch so much. Who cares if it's from the POV of a handheld camera? If anything, that makes it more interesting. If you go into this movie looking for a run-of-the-mill horror story, you'll probably be disappointed. This movie is not a third person story-telling (like every other horror movie), but rather a first-hand account of what happens to a group of people when a monster attacks the city of Manhatten Island (think of it as what Godzilla would've been like if Matthew Broderick had simply filmed the whole thing with his camera). There's a reason you never find out a lot of details about various things: neither do the characters in the movie. Too many people expect to be spoon-fed an entire story with complete plot details, character development, and no loose ends whatsoever -- this is why people hated No Country For Old Men (which is a ridiculous reason). What they miss is that, while many movies that lack those traits suffer because of it, not every movie needs to have the complete package to tell an engaging story. I do agree with Roger Ebert, though, when he said, "Hud couldn't hold the steady or frame a shot if his life depended on it.".

*End of rant*.