"Cloverfield" is a film that has been gaining a lot of press for its unconventional storytelling style, using one handheld camera to bring the audience into a virtual reality of mayhem and panic.   While that alone is not truly compelling, the fact that this experience unfolds during a giant monster attack of New York City is. Or, at least, that's what the pundits would have you think.

 

There are a few reasons why "Cloverfield" didn't work for me.  To start off with, I am no longer excited by seeing the destruction of major cities on film.  In this case, I can almost guarantee you that the production team must have used fragments of the 9/11 tragedy to storyboard at least one specific sequence that took place during the monster's rampage on the city.  The sequence I am referring to is when a landmark skyscraper collapses, the citizens scatter about while those featured on camera take refuge in a street front shop.  The manner in which the building collapsed, how the people fled and the eventual aftermath all seemed similar to some handheld footage captured during the collapse of the Twin Towers.  The handheld camera effect only added to the comparison.  All one had to do is substitute a terrorist attack in place of the giant monster and the results would have been the same.  Not cool.

 

The next reason why "Cloverfield" failed is a more traditional one -- the dreadful acting.  I am sure that the actors were given instructions to ad lib, and true, I don't know how I would react to a monster bearing down on me, but this ensemble was totally unconvincing and annoying.  Even if their dialogue had been fully scripted, I don't know if they could have done any better.  Their emotional responses were illogical even in this completely fictional setting.  Had their been better chemistry among the leads, than that would have added a better value to this film and might have even saved it for me.

 

The last key reason as to why I didn't enjoy this as a cinematic event is simply due to the fact that this whole production could have been packaged as a first-person video game experience.  At least, that's what it felt like.  While many have said that commercially driven CGI films play like video games, I venture to say that "Cloverfield" tows that line closer than most. In my opinion, if you could ever link up your favorite game console to a movie theater screen, than I am sure the end result would feel about the same as what I got out of this flick. 

 

While "Cloverfield" fell short on many levels, one of the bright spots about the film is the technical achievements it offers.  How these digital artists were able to pull off special effects shots with a shaky handheld camera as a source is something I marvel at.  Likewise, it takes a very skilled technical director to ensure all these images are rendered in a way that is in line with the camera view.  Kudos to the team on this front.  Another positive notable is that the scenes involving the military battling the creature were also very cool and offered genuine excitement.  I would have much preferred to seeing this story develop from the Army's perspective than from a bunch of whiny 20-somethings.

 

All in all, if you're 21 and younger, you will probably love this film since it was made with the online social networking users in mind.  For more old-school, battle hardened cinema goers like myself, however, "Cloverfield" will fall short; even if the mass media seems to have fallen in love with it.