Cloverfield

By Liem Vu
January 21, 2007

Standing in the tight corridors of Innis Town Hall at the University of Toronto (home of our advance screening), it is difficult to ignore the scent of anticipation, excitement, and perhaps, even some body odour as more and more people begin to pour into the lobby to get a sneak preview of the J.J. Abrams produced - Cloverfield.

Last year, the Cloverfield teaser was released with the same amateur camera work found in The Blair Witch Project. Like Abrams' past projects, the teaser was plagued with mystery, intrigue, and expectedly, no answers. What movie-goers did get was footage of a goodbye party that was abruptly disrupted with a momentary earthquake. Rushing to the roof, the relatively unknown cast witnesses an asteroid like object hitting a New York skyscraper. The teaser ended with a chaos stricken street as the decapitated head of Lady Liberty landed in the middle of it. With a monstrous howl, the trailer cut to a date.

With no name attached to the project, the internet stratosphere was thrust into a flurry of speculative theories ranging from a new Voltron movie to a Godzilla remake. However, Abrams adamantly denied these theories while simultaneously staying mum about the details.

While The Blair Witch Project failed at meeting the expectations that they had set out to meet with their early campaigns, the question is whether Cloverfield fell into the same trap. But when all was said and done, I can only sum up my feelings of the film in one short sentence. Cloverfield is a good - yet bad - movie.

Starting off with the good. The writer of the film, Drew Goddard, successfully depicts characters that are realistic and still challenge the typical "horror" archetypes. For instance, conventions usually dictate that the female protagonist is in constant distress, or the comic relief is relegated to the "token black guy."

Fortunately, Goddard transcends these regular pitfalls and crafts a script that is effective in characterization, humour, and horror. A prime example of this is Goddard's writing for the character, Hud, played by T.J. Miller. Miller plays the individual who is filming the whole attack. Although he is rarely seen on camera, his voice is behind each shot. And surprisingly, by the end, the viewer can't help but root for his survival.

However, beyond that, the film just doesn't deliver or fulfill expectations. By the movie's end, the viewer has no more information than what was given to them in the trailer. The monster's origin is never discussed nor is the final outcome of the conflict. It appears as if the film's growth never progressed beyond an interesting concept.

Leaving the theatre, I was left with a mix of emotions. While some declared their love for the film, others moaned scornful feelings of a film that failed to meet their expectations. Cloverfield doesn't tread new ground with its monsters, direction, and concept, which have all been done before. The only redeeming quality is the characterization that many horror movies lack. Only with a sequel could this arbitrary film ever become something more.

Wide Release Date: January 18, 2008
Running Time: 1 hour, 24 minutes
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Director: Matt Reeves
Producers: J.J. Abrams and Bryan Burk
Executive Producers: Sherryl Clark and Guy Riedel
Screenplay: Drew Goddard
Director of Photography: Michael Bonvillain
Editor: Kevin Stitt