Motley reviews for Cloverfield, but it still sets records!

I've been rather excited lately... anxious to see a new film that reuses the old plot device of a monster terrorizing Manhattan. The makers of Cloverfield have put out some rather intense previews, none of which shows the viewer what exactly is doing the damage that we see on screen. When Lady Liberty's head comes rolling down the street, demolishing buildings and automobiles on its way, we come to realize only that whatever it is, it is big, and apparently rather angry.

So, being that I have not gone and seen the film myself, I have instead gone online to read the reviews of those reviewers who got the media sneak peek at the film. Many of these reviews give away spoilers about the movie, so instead of reading them yourself (unless you WANT to know), I have read them for you and will tell you the gist what the critics thought about it... hopefully without spoiling the movie for you.

If you've seen the previews at all, you get the idea. Something has been let loose in Manhattan and is very frightening indeed. We've all probably seen movies just like this before, including the many Godzilla movies of the past 50+ years, but this one has its differences in that it is shot as if it were a documentary, but actually is purported to be an accidental "caught-on-film" experience. While friends are recording their goodbye wishes to the main character Rob, all Hell apparently breaks lose and somebody is obviously not scared enough to drop the camera, which some normal people might think would slow down their attempted escape.

Time Magazine reviewer Richard Corliss contends that, while exciting, many of the actions of the "cool, attractive, upmarket young professionals" are simply too absurd to imagine. Whereas most people would try to find a safe place to hide, the majority of the city acts in panic and reverts to trying to outrun the beast. Corliss continues to describe many scenes in the movie that reflect this sudden loss of intellect on the part of the majority of Manhattan Island and goes on to decide that the predictability is a bit much.

Peter Hartlaub, Pop Culture Critic for the San Francisco Chronicle, makes many statements that would agree with Corliss, but he does state his opinion of the movie overall in (nearly) plain English, "even though "Cloverfield" isn't the Godzilla-for-the-YouTube-generation picture that everyone may have been hoping for, it's still a terrific movie, filled with spectacle and a surprising amount of humor, which makes up for its lack of terror or emotional impact."

Chicago Daily Herald writer Dann Gire begins his review with an equally open, if not mildly confusing, opinion: "The heavily hyped science-fiction horror movie 'Cloverfield' is a scary, unabashedly cheesy, in-your-face thriller that cheerily picks the scab off our still-fresh memories of 9/11 to remarkably realistic effect."

While we won't go into why more than one source has said this movie might be insulting to the history of 9/11, we will say that we have read reviews that say, as Gire did, that the way the film handles 9/11 is actually not so bad, and perhaps in good taste.

Moving right along, About.com reviewer Rebecca Murray warns that if you feel like walking out after the first few minutes, that the anticipation is worth the wait. She commends the CGI monster effects and admits that, while the shaky hand camera might bother some, its really worth it. "It’s not that bad. Honest. You actually get used to it and, more importantly, it’s absolutely the right way to tell this tale."

Murray also commends the use of largely unknown actors in the lead roles and gives the film a B+.

In stark contrast, though, New York Sun reviewer Grady Hendrix paints the movie as predictable (again), unimpressive, and tiring. Hendrix pins the acting/directing style on the directing staff's television background, claiming that, "feature films demand a level of engagement that television doesn't, and what passes muster on the small screen looks ridiculous on the big one." Hendrix passes the film off as a made-for-TV film that should have stayed that way, and delivers a very irritated review

Finally, Hollywood Reporter writer Michael Rechtshaffen argues that, "the people they are playing aren't particularly interesting or developed, but who has time to exhibit intriguing character traits when you're trying to outrun a monster?" Rechtshaffen also resounds Rebecca Murray's opinion that the shaky hand-cam really helps to make this movie more intense.

All in all the reviews are exactly how I like them - starkly opposed. In my experience, a movie isn't worth seeing (inasmuch as its only possible to see so many movies in one's lifetime) unless it carries the weight of both strongly negative and positive reviews. In those cases, we tend to find the best of cult-classics, and that is what I hope for in this movie. I expect to find myself and my brother stumped by the question, "Why don't we own this movie?!" only to find it setting on the DVD shelf shortly thereafter, where I'm still confident it should be.

UPDATE - January 20, 5:19pm

Well it seems that despite a few negative reviews, and hopefully because of the glowingly positive reviews, Cloverfield has set a few records this MLK weekend. Not only did it beat the Along Came Polly MLK opening weekend box office draw with $41 million (with a day still to go) over ACP's $32.5 million, it also beat the all-time January box office opening record from the rerelease of Star Wars in 1997. Star Wars had held the record at $35.9 million. Read the article on Entertainment Weekly's website, EW.com (click here).