Implicitly promising to be the Godzilla of our time, Cloverfield was eagerly awaited by fans of the giant monster subgenre. This subgenre had been mostly dormant for some time and was revitalized by South Korea's The Host, released about a year and a half before Cloverfield. Aside from being a giant monster movie, Cloverfield's main draw is that it is a "found footage" film, a film told entirely in first-person via a character' camera. As it turns out, this tactic, which was a good method of differentiation, is also the film's chief restraint. Cloverfield is a good exercise and a thrilling experience, but it lacks the depth that warrants repeat viewings.

The concept of the movie is that one character, Hudson, is filming his friend Rob's surprise party -- a last hurrah before Rob relocates to Japan. During the celebration, however, something unexpected happens: first an earthquake-like jolt, then a massive explosion. After evacuating the apartment building, the characters find that the source of the problem is something they could never have guessed (but that most viewers already know): a monster is attacking Manhattan. While Manhattan is evacuated, Rob, Hudson (aka "Hud"), and a couple others head back into the city to find Beth, a girl for whom Rob has strong and ambivalent feelings, and who is now trapped but possibly alive.

What makes this film work is its completely realistic approach to the monster attack. Due to the filming technique, there are no artificially dramatic reveals or twists. Of course, the film is deliberately paced, but everything unfolds naturally so that it does not feel manufactured. The best example of this is the showing of the monster itself. For most of the first half of the film, we are given nothing but glimpses. This builds up a good deal of tension, as other aspects of the film do, but it is due to the incidental position of the characters rather than clever editing (or at least it is meant to seem that way). So, instead of thinking, This director is doing a good job of creating tension, the viewer feels, Oh my goodness, what is happening? One has no problem believing that the events are actually happening.

That's not to say the film accomplishes this perfectly. There are indeed moments at which it seems odd that Hudson is filming the people around him -- his friends, the military -- rather than the enormous monster destroying the city. There are also some blatantly measured edits in the film. The events of the film are actually being recorded over a previous recording of a day that Rob had filmed with Beth. Every now and then, there are spaces in the monster attack footage through which the original recording pops up, but it is always at a dramatically convenient time. Perhaps the most flagrant of these occurrences happens at the end of the movie. When all is said and done (I won't spoil anything), we get one last peek at that original recording. Per Rob's request for Beth to say something at the end of their day together (this being another rather large coincidence itself, that each recording ends at almost the exact same time), Beth happily says, "I had a good day." It is so precisely placed and so perfectly ironic that it fractures the verisimilitude of raw, unedited, tape. Note that these little cut-ins also conveniently never happen during any type of action. To director Reeves' credit, this recording-beneath-a-recording is indeed a good idea for creating dramatic effects without stepping outside of the first-person format, but it does come off as noticeably calculated several times.

The acting is exceptional, and it is the glue that holds this film together. Keeping with the film's style, the acting is all perfectly natural. As great as strong, dramatic acting can be, it does not have a place in a movie like this. These are everyday people stuck in an extraordinary situation, and they act accordingly. They stutter, they repeat things (especially Hud), and they ignore each other. At the same time, they all retain their own distinct qualities. The actors stay true to realism and true to the characters. Even the background actors do a great job of invoking a true sense of panic. Granted, at times it can be too obviously natural, but I suppose that is unavoidable in a filming technique such as this.

Then there is that one element of all monster movies in which we all demand a strong delivery -- the monster itself. When Cloverfield was being promoted, there was speculation as to whether the monster would even be seen in the film. The monster is shown intermittently throughout the movie, more and more as it progresses. As I said earlier, this pacing, though good for building tension, does damage the film's verisimilitude a bit; however, when watching the film, one is more likely to be caught up in that tension than to be distracted by the slight flaw in technique, so perhaps it is for the better. Due to the secretive nature of the film's production and marketing, many were expecting the monster to be a mind-blowing achievement of creativity. Though the monster is fairly original and is also larger than any other that I remember seeing, it is not a great feat in originality. I will not describe it here because it is better to see for yourself, but, more or less, you get what you expect -- a cool, enormous monster.

Cloverfield is a film about how we act during times of monumental disaster. In fact, it reminds me of Night of the Living Dead, a film in which the world is turned on its head, not by one enormous bloodthirsty monster, but, of course, by numerous bloodthirsty zombies, filmed in with a documentary-like camera style only one degree removed from the style of this film. Cloverfield essentially accomplishes the same goal, only this time for the YouTube generation . Why do we feel the need to record everything, particularly disasters? Hud claims he's doing it because "People are gonna want to know how it all went down," but that explanation does not seem sufficient. An observation of all of the main characters, including Hud behind the camera, reveals the desire to offer what you can to the world. I do not know whether this is necessarily an altruistic desire because some of the characters arguably would have much to gain from their actions -- a loved one for Rob, money and fame for Hud (don't worry, the film doesn't take it that far). What does seem clear is that the characters need something meaningful to do for others. Perhaps the immediately unlikable looters that show up shortly after the events begin are meant as a counterexample to the good that bad events can bring out of people; there are those that try to do something helpful, and there are those who seek only profit.

Also along the thematic line, it would be impossible to ignore the visual parallels between the events of Cloverfield and the scenes of panic from September 11 -- large buildings collapsing, plumes of smoke and dust rolling through streets, crowds running and screaming, people hiding in shops while debris blows by, and amateur footage of it all. It does not seem that this film is any sort of commentary on those attacks; rather, it works with our memories and fears of that unforgettable day so that we can observe and ponder such events without the anger that that date naturally conjures. Therefore, Cloverfield's use of this imagery is not a cheap or distasteful way to get a rise out of audiences. It is a vehicle for us to more objectively think about such happenings.

Though Cloverfield is not the masterpiece many (including myself) hoped it would be, it is definitely a film worth watching. It has a number of flaws, but it also has plenty of thrills. If you want to see a great modern day giant monster flick, watch The Host. If you want another modern day giant monster flick that's not bad at all, watch Cloverfield.