‘Cloverfield’ is an experience

“Cloverfield,” J.J. Abrams’s new monster-attacks-New-York movie is a masterfully crafted, detailed, and deeply disturbing picture. And by deeply disturbing, I mean that this is the first movie in a very long time that has stuck with me so strongly after seeing it.

The basic premise is this -“Cloverfield” is the story of a group of friends as they try to survive a monster attack on New York City. The story is told from a first-person camera, that is, one of the characters is carrying the camera that’s telling the story. This means no different angles, no cutting between characters, no different perspective. What you would see is what you get. There are few similarities to “The Blair Witch Project” and 1998’s “Godzilla,” but if somebody ever actually makes that comparison, they’re really overreaching-it’s like saying an M1 Abrams is the same as a Sherman because they’re both tanks.

Getting from the beginning to the end is an arduous process, and the 85 excruciating minutes are all intense. Producer J.J. Abrams and director Matt Reeves have painstakingly put together a number of images that hit a touch too close to home for me (you’ll recognize them when you see them), all which work to make the movie that much more visceral. Critic Peter Canavese felt that some of these references turned the movie into “9/11: The Thrill Ride,” but I’m not sure that I agree. Yes, both are incomprehensibly massive disasters, and people’s reactions would generally be similar. But that’s it.

The camera itself helps make the movie all the more stunning and real. Rather than an omniscient all-seeing perspective, you’re in the action, moving with the characters as they fight for their lives.

There are no major flaws in this movie - short of its checklist format. Despite the excellent acting, realistic dialog, and impressive CGI, the beginning of the movie transparently reveals a checklist format. I can just imagine Abrams and Reeves sitting at a table going, “OK, do we have a scene in the dark? Do we make reference to all the famous New York landmarks? If we don’t make indirect reference to them through dialog, do we visit them in person? Check. Check. Check.” Fortunately, Abrams and Co. get these tropes out of the way quickly (like, 30 minutes post-first contact). After that, it’s all new. Although, I should note that if you suffer from motion sickness, may I suggest that you avoid this particular film for something whose camera work is more conventional. And, no, I’m not just saying that to be funny. There are NO steady shots in this movie.

As for it’s side-effects: perhaps I don’t have as strong a constitution as many of you, or maybe I have an unhealthy ability for empathy, but I haven’t experienced this sort of reaction to a movie for many years - the first time following my first screening of M. Night Shyamalan’s “Signs.” In much the same way, “Cloverfield” gives you but glimpses of the goriest or scariest moments, therefore letting your mind fill in the details and thereby multiplying their fear factor exponentially (this was the technique that made Hitchcock a master). And, as I’ve mentioned earlier, the scariest moments are scary because they reflect what could happen in real life (or what have already happened). I envision plenty of nightmares, both while sleeping and awake.

I appreciate the significance of this unique monster movie. I always feel a little sorry for the monster though. Granted, it’s doing everything it can to flatten the city. But still, it’s just being an animal. Isn’t there a better, smarter, more humane way to deal with something like this?