Reviews by Matt

Viral marketing, for those who do not know, is when fans of a director, actor or just about anything flood the Internet with information or propaganda to drum up hype for a particular passion. In the case of “Snakes on a Plane,” it was the death of the movie. People were so burned out with the stupid parody videos and other fan made material that the movie flopped.

Now we have “Cloverfield.” The hype really began when before “Transformers” there was a trailer for a movie. It was all handheld video camera footage and there was some sort of attack on New York City. At the time, only a date, “1-18-08,” and a name, J.J Abrams (“Lost,” “Alias”), was given. No title, no idea of what the movie was really about. Then the hype was out of control. Dozens of official and unofficial (but looked official) sites popped up on the web. Finally January 18, 2008 came and it was time to see just what this mystery was.

The mystery of “Cloverfield” turned out to be, as most suspected, a monster movie.

What starts as a good-bye party for Rob (Michael Stahl-David) turns into a terrifying night for the city. Rob’s friend, Hud (T.J Miller) gets the job of filming the party and getting good-byes from Rob’s friends. When an oil tanker is destroyed near the Statue Of Liberty, the party turns into a mad dash to escape the city and the monster that is attacking. Hud keeps filming because, as he puts it, “people are going to want to know how it all went down.” The movie follows Rob, Hud, Lily (Jessica Lucas) and Marlena (Lilly Caplan) as they make their way to rescue Beth (Odette Yustman) and get out of the city.

If there are two things I keep hearing over and over about why some dislike this movie, it is the camera work and the fact that no questions seem to be answered. I will now address both of these seemingly movie-ruining issues.

First and foremost, the camera work seems to be a bone of contention with a lot of people who have seen it. Some say they felt nauseated; I did not. I did find myself straining my neck as the camera moved, something I have not fully recovered from three days later, but I never felt sick. While I agree that it is tough to watch at times, I also know it would have been a completely different movie without it.

The shaky camera work is what makes the movie scary and suspenseful. If it were shot like every other movie, there would have been something lost. To only catch a glimpse of things, like the monster, made it more suspenseful. It allowed the viewer to discover things as the characters did. As an audience, we know what they know, we see that they see and we do what they do. Keeping the viewer in the dark made the movie that much scarier and dramatic.

The second thing that most were angered by was the lack of answers. Most of the questions you could have come up with are answered within the movie; all you have to do is pay attention to what is being said. It is just as simple as that.

True, there were a few things that remain unanswered, but as a huge fan of producer J.J. Abrams’ show, “Lost,” I have become used to not getting the answers I want when I want them, so maybe that is why I was not a bothered as many others.

The story is not about the monster; it is all about the people dealing with the events that are unfolding. Rob is trying to get to his friend’s apartment and get her out. He and his friends go into the heart of the city and find themselves caught between the army and the monster.

With all that people seem to hate about the movie, I thought it was great. It is not what one expects when paying to see a movie these days. Some have said the movie has revolutionized filmmaking-- that is a stretch. It is still a good movie that is enjoyable, especially if you are not prone to motion sickness.

8 out of 10
Rated PG-13or violence, terror and disturbing images
85 min