Few filmmakers are as hot right now as J.J. Abrams. The writer/director/producer seems to be everywhere these days, from his mega-hit TV show “Lost” to the much-anticipated Star Trek prequel. Busy as he is, he must not have had time to sprinkle a little of his fairy dust on his latest production, Cloverfield, which fails to live up to either the hype of its advertising or Abrams’ reputation.
Cloverfield offers a relatively uninteresting monster-attack flick through the story of a ragged group of friends trying to survive. Its hook is that all of the footage is shot by one of the survivors on a handheld camera, which means no cuts, no shot composition, no non-diegetic music and no steady camera movement. Picture Godzilla meets The Blair Witch Project.
We begin at a going-away party for Rob (Michael Stahl-David), which is being videotaped by his best friend Hud (T.J. Miller). After some brief character introductions, the monster attacks New York City and our heroes begin to run for their lives. Rob must fight his way uptown to save the woman he loves; Hud and the rest of our heroes seem to be along for the ride, though their numbers predictably dwindle along the way.
While the home-movie aspect of the film does little for its overall effect, the principle behind it is interesting. Most monster/disaster movies involve the scientist who sees it coming, his failed attempts to warn the president/military and his brilliant plan to resolve the crisis. Cloverfield is slightly different as a case study in blind panic. Its characters have no idea what is happening, or why. They are solely focused on survival.
This is also one of the most frustrating aspects of the movie. We never find out what the monster is, where it came from, or what it wants, which leaves the movie with a disappointing sense of incompletion, as though the theater forgot to include the last reel where everything gets explained.
Cloverfield is a by-the-numbers monster movie. It is fairly good, building a reasonable amount of tension and release throughout the film. The monster is revealed slowly enough to make us want to see it, but not so slowly that we get bored and give up — people always seem to die at the right moments; iconic structures are destroyed.
But it all remains just a little flat. The characters are not particularly interesting or appealing, and their story, though not unreasonably predictable or cliché, is hardly original. The whole thing passes by so quickly (the film runs less than 90 minutes) that we hardly have time to engage with it before it is gone.
All this would make it a fine but forgettable disaster film if J.J. Abrams’ name was not attached. “Lost” fanboys have been drooling over Cloverfield trailers for months, dreaming of the clues or references it might hold to the series. And the film’s advertising, from its cryptic, title-less teaser trailer last summer to its widespread viral marketing campaign seemed to promise a mystery on par with “Lost.” In reality, Cloverfield is just a decent, but unimpressive, film.
Perhaps the Abrams hype is unfair. After all, he is only the producer. Cloverfield was directed by Matt Reeves and penned by Drew Goddard (although he has written a number of “Lost” episodes”). But association is unavoidable, especially since the marketing highly touts the involvement of Abrams and his Bad Robot Productions company. So while the first weekend box office numbers may be boosted by J.J.-fever, the film ultimately suffers for it.