The best monster movies have always been reflections of the fears of the day. Aliens, giant insects, vampires and indestructible serial killers have been the fare at times when people were uptight about sex, worried about radiation, on Communist witch-hunts or afraid of disease; each fear could be embodied by a Hollywood monster.

But the best movies didn’t rely on how realistic the presentation was; it was more about a sympathetic hero and the terrifying opposition they must try and defeat to stay alive, rescue a loved one, save the world, etc. The typical formula is to get the audience to develop some kind of identification with the protagonist, although sometimes the monster can be portrayed as a tragic character and the audience, while understanding that he/she/it must be destroyed for the greater good, can feel compassion for its suffering, however necessary it might be so that the hero can go on.

JJ Abrams’ Cloverfield, while hyped as redefining the monster-movie genre by introducing a completely “new and unique” beast that America can call its own, the movie is more like a long YouTube video with a bigger budget.

The film is a hero’s (or, in this case, dude’s) journey for the digital age, one that breaks with the typical 3-act convention of telling a story and jumps from the drawn-out-but-unremarkable introductory character development right into the “big event” where the city is attacked. With its obvious cinematographic homage to The Blair Witch Project, as well its capitalization on the zeitgeist of fear that has permeated our lives, the film is initially effective in jolting you with the in-your-face shock of confusion and devastation without explanation. Unique to this story though, is that there is no character that steps forward and explains what the monster is or how to stop it; the idea that it seems to be only a matter of time before this thing gets you is what keeps you interested.

But in some ways, this film lowers the standard a little: a presentation that is carefully choreographed to appear improvisational and realistic, it dispenses with character growth and, therefore, leaves the audience unsympathetic to their plight. After you are introduced to them in the setting of the party, they seem like just a bunch of dudes and babes too myopic (or lazy?) to try and leave the city. In some ways, the characters are perfectly representative of their audience: aimless with a feeling of invincibility, while watching the carnage is just the stuff of a cool video.

Honestly, I couldn’t have cared less whether Rob rescues Beth; the only indication that you get that they had any feelings for each other is thru the sporadic glimpses of them on the tape from a few months earlier; this seems to be the filmmaker’s idea of gaining the viewer’s sympathy for Rob and Beth but it comes off as more of a production afterthought.

As for the monster, it is open to interpretation as far as appearance. You’ll recognize bits and pieces (from the glimpses you catch) of different movie monsters; but I hardly think that a composite of predecessors can be called “unique”.

Cloverfield is a fun ride that runs just a little too long and, like its cousins on MySpace or YouTube, is deliberate amateur drama. Hardly genre-defining, it will be a success because the marketing campaign was actually more interesting than the film itself. JJ Abrams does, admittedly, have a gift for creating fun, if enigmatic, stories… with maybe the exception of Gone Fishin’. Yikes!

Last July, on another blog, I debunked the theory that the movie would be called “Monstrous”, an idea that had been generated by a teaser poster for the film with that headline at the top. In my entry (which I posted just a couple of weeks after the first trailer appeared) a few people left the now-typical speculation about H.P Lovecraft or Godzilla.

But one anonymous poster offered some info that, looking back, could have only come from someone connected with the film. The person wrote that the monster comes from the water but does not breathe fire and, most interestingly, mentioned that NYC is not completely destroyed, possibly leaving the door open for a sequel.

With an ending that seems more like JJ Abrams just ran out of ideas for the story, why bother? If you want to know more about the movie than the movie itself reveals, check out Cloverfield Clues.