At first I was dis-inclined to see Cloverfield. “Viral” marketing can easily come off as obnoxious, though this isn’t necessarily due to the marketing itself. Often it’s down to the people who buy into the marketing working themselves up into an annoying lather, alienating those who aren’t into the marketing to the eventual product.
Also I think there’s a risk that by putting creative efforts into satellites of the main product, you can end up losing focus on what you want people to pay for. As Lost is a good example of a show with lost focus and all sorts of orbiting ephemera, and this film is coming from the same production company I wasn’t all that eager to see it.
However, on reading it was only 77 mins long once you ignore credits, then it became a much better prospect.
As a monster movie filmed from the POV of the fleeing civilians it works marvelously. All that internet gumph that they marketed it with? Forget it, you never feel like you are missing a piece of the puzzle. A monster attacks New York, people flee. That’s all you need to know. Quibbles are minor, it can be a little too cute on occasion – having the cameraman being called Hud for instance – and more obvious 9/11 references are a little cringeworthy. But the thing is over so fast that they don’t have the time to hang around and annoy you. The lack of explanation for why the monster exists and is attacking New York is also not a problem for the same reason. Had it lasted longer and not given you an explanation, then you might have grounds to complain, but for what it delivers – no explanation is needed.
I do wonder how people who had bought into the internet marketing games reacted to it – was it the payoff that they were expecting/wanted? Did following the trail of internet gubbins add anything to what was on screen?