A Modern Spin on the Monster Genre

In the digital information age it can be difficult to keep a secret. But I have to hand it to the guys behind "Cloverfield," Paramount Pictures' new handy-cam monster movie, who did an impressive job of keeping everything under wraps. The first teaser came out of nowhere last summer when it was attached to prints of "Transformers." The decision to omit the title of the film just made it all the more mysterious.

The problem with the Internet and its denizens is that sometimes they - or perhaps "we" - will spin ourselves into a frenzy when given the smallest glimpse of something we like. The theories about the plot of "01-18-08" - as it was known for a time - ranged from the intriguing (a Cthulhu or other H.P. Lovecraft monster story) to the downright ridiculous (I hope no one actually believed it was a Voltron movie). Regardless of what the facts were, there was an immediate interest across the Internet and the less we knew the more we made up.

"Cloverfield" directed by Matt Reeves and produced by J.J. Abrams.

The inherent danger with that kind of marketing is that the swirling cauldron of ideas on what the movie could be about end up being more interesting than the film itself. I remember reading a lot of theories about "The Matrix" during the time between the second and third films and I'd have picked any one of those over the real ending. Depending on your expectations, many of you may feel the same way about "Cloverfield" after you see it. There's no giant mystery or hidden message. It's just a monster movie with a unique perspective and a ho-hum story. The entire film is in the execution and either it will work for you or it won't.

"Cloverfield" opens with some graphics detailing that what you are about to see is the property of the Department of Defense and references the codename "Cloverfield" as the "case designate." From there you're right into the actual tape and we meet Rob - who will act as the protagonist for the duration of the tape - and his friend Beth. Since the entire movie never gives up on the premise that you're watching a single unedited tape, there are several jump cuts to different times. Sometimes we see Rob and Beth talking about going to Coney Island and other times we see people preparing for Rob's going-away party. It's actually a clever storytelling use of the film's gimmick; the idea being that they are recording over an old tape and previously recorded scenes from that tape pop in between cuts. It gives a little back story on Rob and Beth without betraying the continuity of the film's premise.

The setup for the movie is that the camera was recovered from "the area formerly known as Central Park" sometime after a towering behemoth ravaged New York. Prior to the attack, the camera was used to record people saying goodbye to Rob during his going-away party. There's some interpersonal drama at the party that the camera captures and then the wheels come off when an apparent earthquake hits.

After a few minutes, the news starts reporting on an earthquake in New York and an overturned tanker in the harbor. The party moves to the roof for a better vantage point where they see an incredible explosion before being forced to flee to avoid raining, fiery debris. The movie takes off from there as Rob and a few of his friends decide to venture into the middle of the city to save his friend Beth - who left his party early after a fight. Of course, it's more complicated than that but I'd hate to spoil what little the story has going for it. The big question about the movie is who is watching the tape and why?

The characters are light on development but the one you'll grow attached to is Rob's friend Hud played by T. J. Miller, who spends most of his screen time off-camera. This is partly a device of the movie because it's Hud who is running the camera throughout the attack so it's Hud's perspective we see. It's not that he's written incredibly well or follows an interesting arc, it's just that he is the audience. His experience is ours. Hud's the kind of guy who deals with panic and terror through humor and it's his interjections that keep the movie light at times. My feeling is that we all have a friend like Hud. If you can't think of who he is then you probably are a friend like Hud.

It's difficult to say much about the monster without giving something away so I'll just say that you do get a few good looks at it but it doesn't dominate the movie. The flaw of the film is that it's basically a small human story that isn't that interesting set to the backdrop of a monster attack on a city.

If you're looking for an action-packed monster film, this isn't it. It's more of an experience or a ride than a complete film. The complaint that I will voice is about the smaller monsters that accompany the big one. Their inclusion in the film feels a bit lazy as they only act as a device to push the characters around and keep them moving. They don't affect the story in any way and don't offer us any clues as to the monster's intentions or origins.

"Cloverfield" directed by Matt Reeves and produced by J.J. Abrams.

Comparisons to the "The Blair Witch Project" are inevitable but not entirely fair. "The Blair Witch Project" was made for approximately $20,000 by a very small group of people and the trick of their marketing was to convince people that those kids really disappeared in the woods. "Cloverfield" had a budget of about $30 million with studio support, and we know it isn't real. Not to say that the money was wasted on "Cloverfield" but it does feel a little bit like a big bully splashing around in the kiddie pool. "The Blair Witch Project" is the way it is almost out of necessity while J. J. Abrams and Paramount have the money to do something enormous and opt to use an indy-film gimmick. It is a unique twist on the monster movie but I think it could have been handled better.

"Cloverfield," like "Blair Witch," never takes the audience outside the experience of the main characters but unlike "Blair Witch" it doesn't give you a sense of the bigger picture either. The early scenes of "Blair Witch" set up not only the relationships of the characters but also the nature of the antagonist and foreshadow the ending. "Cloverfield" quite deliberately only focuses on the here-and-now of the characters without offering much information about what is really going on. It's an immersive way to tell a story and passes the confusion of the characters onto the audience. They don't know what's going on, why should you? Still I can't help but think that director Matt Reeves and screenwriter Drew Goddard could have given us more of the story without betraying the premise.

Ultimately, I'm ambivalent about "Cloverfield." It didn't quite work on me the way it was intended but I wasn't completely bored by it either. I didn't take any great expectations into the film and those that do may come out sorely disappointed. The film's an interesting new take on a classic movie cliché but a weak story and point-of-view action scenes may leave you wanting.

Join our discussion on this topic