Matt Reeves
Cloverfield

"Don't read it at all."

"Okay, but excuse me, why?"

"You'll be struck, astonished."

"Well, if you say so, I believe you."

This was more or less the refrain that accompanied the days leading up to watching this movie. And since the person who recommended the film is a great friend of mine, whom I respect for their judgment, I believed it. I sat down to watch the movie without prejudice. In fact, with a certain curiosity, also due to the fact that shortly before I had watched "The Exterminating Angel" by maestro Bunuel, which had greatly piqued my cinematic vein. But that's another story, and I think it's fair to proceed in order, starting with the plot of "Cloverfield." In truth, it is rather simple.

In Manhattan, a monster with small, charming parasites attacks the city following the explosion of an oil tanker. A group of friends films everything with a camcorder and simultaneously tries to save an injured friend. In the end, however, they all die (and I would add, it was needed!), and the monster is bombed like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In short, a nice cheerful little film that seemed like the not-so-revised-and-corrected reedition of Godzilla.

The film's greatest strength is also its biggest flaw. The idea of showing the entire movie as if it were shot with a camcorder is indeed quite interesting but also very stupid. If I were the one holding the camera and there was a nasty, evil monster in front of me, I think the last thought would be to film and comment on it. Running away and seeking safety would rather be the priority instead of making jokes about burning bums. Therefore, the camcorder, which at first might have been something almost ingenious, turns out to be a complete flop, especially since a camcorder that takes more hits than a piece of iron from a blacksmith and still works perfectly is at least ridiculous if not paradoxical.

Another truly amusing thing was the phrase said by my friend: "But it's science fiction!" Yes, it's true, it's science fiction, but I don't know if it's normal for a girl to be pierced through by a metal rod, not bleed to death, be freed, climb over fifty floors on foot, run, fall from a helicopter, and talk as if nothing happened. Maybe interspersing a few "Ouch" between lines. Perhaps even Clark Kent, aka Superman, wouldn't be capable of it. But let's overlook that, it's "science fiction," isn't it? Maybe even of poor quality. Halfway through the film, for those who aren't entirely new to the genre, you get the feeling you've already seen something. This monster attacking everything and seeming unbeatable, as previously mentioned, resembles Godzilla, the screenplay seems copied verbatim from any film labeled as "science fiction", and to end it all very amusingly, ALL the protagonists die, possibly to give the film a dramatic touch.

I don't know, I'm not convinced. Some say "Cloverfield" is a masterpiece, some say it's the new "The Day After Tomorrow," but I say it's a big commercial ploy, designed to raise awareness among a flock of sheep who stumbled into the cinema almost by accident on the theme of the environment (the monster is born or awakens, we are not given to know, after an oil tanker beaches next to the Statue of Liberty) and to show them the consequences of the usual human action. Meanwhile, I lost eighty minutes of my life for something I've already seen.

And take that, Bunuel.