Cloverfield afterthoughts

It's been a few days since I watched Cloverfield and I thought I'd write another post about it now that the whole experience has sunk in and passed. A review of sorts. This of course means that if you haven't gone to see it, stop reading. I will spoil it for you.

First off, I like that the actors are all no-names. I didn't recognize anyone in the film and that just adds to the realism. Had the movie featured the kids in Transformers or one of the dorks from Superbad, that effect would have been diminished. Duh.

The documentary style of the film is what really sells it and emphasizes the realistic aspect. Yes, some of the "amateur" qualities are probably digitally added (like the out of focus shots) to make it look more non-professional. You can see the production values and the slickness of it. But the point is Cloverfield pulls off the look and feel of four kids filming a disaster on their video camera, making it easier for the suspension of disbelief.

On a side note, I can't help but think of the documentary style described about the Navidson Record of the impossible labyrinth in House of Leaves. Yeah, I'm in the middle of reading it. But the similarities between this film and the book jumped out at me. Surprisingly, I found a much more concrete connection between Cloverfield and House of Leaves. The character Lily Ford actually has an interest in the book as explained by the Cloverfield Despoiler Wiki and as seen on her Myspace profile.

The unveiling of the monster itself also drives the movie along. I love that you only see bits and glimpses of the monster as the characters attempt their rescue mission. The brief shot of the monster's face as the four antagonists escape into the subway was startling! The limited camera angles and the lack of a long, cinematic view of the monster increases your desire to see what in the world New York is up against. I kept wanting the camera to move slightly to the side or to take at least two more seconds with a shot of the colossus. When you finally see a steady view of the thing towering over Hud, it becomes a great payoff for the audience. Very effective.

Now, there are some questions remaining. This doesn't mean that the films plot line is bad or lacking. Quite the opposite, it makes you want to delve deeper into the whole incident that occurs in Cloverfield.

• What, exactly, is the Cloverfield monster? An alien? A deep sea beast that lay dormant in the ocean? A weapon engineered by clandestine organizations with far-flung idealistic motives?
• What is the object that falls from the sky into the water in the Coney Island scene? Is that some missile to wake it up? Is that the monster itself? The monster egg? Does that mean it's an alien? Or was it dropped there on purpose?
  
• Since the events occur at "INCIDENT SITE U.S. 447" and the monster is still alive by the end of the film, does that mean other sites had attacks? By other monsters? Or this one monster that went on a rampage? By the way, who whispers "its still alive"?
  
• Are the tiny creatures baby monsters? Are they parasites on the Cloverfield monster? A separate species? Why do they make people explode? What happens after someone explodes?
  
• This question has really been bugging me: What happened to Lily? She got on a separate helicopter so did she survive? Did she make it out of New York? What's her story? Is she gonna be the basis for the sequel?

The good: Cloverfield is a great action/disaster film told in a convincing fashion that makes you want to keep watching until the monster is right in your face!
The bad: Having anyone spoil the movie for you.
The warning in theater ticket booths: This film may cause motion sickness.