Cloverfield" (2008) was a terrible movie. Sure, I watched it in theaters for maximum immersion and, thus, maximum awesomeness. I Chris Tucker−screamed a few times here and there, and I may or may not have had some interesting dreams with people's chests blowing up in bloody mists.
It was an effective movie, I'll give J.J. Abrams that much. It was suspenseful, pretty unique and ran in the vein of many of his other works, like "Lost" (2004−10). You could also argue that "Cloverfield" reinvigorated the monster movie genre in a way that is important and fresh. But really, J.J., this whole "mystery box" concept you have going is just annoying and exhausting.
For those (normal people) of you that don't know what the mystery box is, it is the basis for most of Abrams' movies. He highlights the story by tricking us, getting us interested in the mystery box first and then using the box to get us to care about the characters. The mystery is only a means, not an end — the real point of his stories is to invest his viewers in the plight of the characters. See Jack and the gang in the "Lost" series finale, which was grounded in character resolutions but didn't tie up the bigger mysteries in any conclusive ways.
In the specific example of "Cloverfield," the problem is that when the movie is over, you feel hollow. Sure, the characters finish their arcs: Hud grows up, Marlena warms up to him and Rob and Beth reconcile. Stories are concluded and wrapped up, but what if you don't give a crap about the characters? (Also, if any of you really knew the character names before I just named them, I'll buy you a beer.) The most memorable person in "Cloverfield" was the dude behind the camera (Hud, get it? "Heads Up Display" … har, har, har), and that was because he was kind of funny in a goofy−bastard kind of way.
What I'm saying is, when you are supposed to care about the characters, but you don't give a crap about what happens to a group of upper−class professionals stumbling through the wreckage of New York City, all you are left with is a ticket stub and an irritatingly large number of questions. For instance, did you even remember that the main dude's brother got killed? NO, YOU DIDN'T. That should have been a really emotionally powerful scene. But hey, that's just me.
Compare "Cloverfield" to another recent entry in the monster movie genre, "Monsters" (2010). Made on a budget of well under half a million dollars (compared to roughly $25 million for Abrams' movie), "Monsters" had way less action but made up for it with more characters. I don't want to spoil the plot for anyone who hasn't seen it, but the basic premise explores what happens after the initial shock of a monster attack on Earth, when people get back to living out their lives and two people try to run through the worst of it in Mexico.
The characters were the focus of "Monsters," so that when the action rolled around we really cared because we knew the danger involved. "Cloverfield" mixed the focus up; J.J. messed up his own formula and was shown up by some unknown director (Gareth Edwards). Abrams forgot that we need to care about the characters first and foremost; otherwise explosions and chase sequences are just flashy special effects and gross noises. I would watch "Monsters" again but I can't say the same for "Cloverfield." Action is cheap — you can get it from a Jason Statham movie — but meaning is hard to find.
Let's hope Abrams learned something from "Cloverfield" and liberally applied those lessons to his upcoming movie, "Super 8" (2011). I WANT to like your movies, J.J., but you make it so difficult sometimes.
--
