True terror in a scary movie is one of the hardest feelings to successfully create and, ironically, one of the most popular to experience. More often than not, people of all ages would rather be scared witless than laugh at a comedy or cry at a romance. Cloverfield is one of the many films that encourages audiences to feel that horror that never gets old.

Cloverfield takes place in Manhattan, during a going-away party for a young guy named Rob. His best friend Hud is given the job of documenting the night on a video camera and gets more than he bargained for when the ground starts shaking, buildings start exploding, and a strange creature at the heart of it all is captured on his footage.

The entire movie is viewed through the eye of Hud’s (although technically it’s Rob’s) video camera. While at times the jerky movements can make you a little dizzy (people prone to motion sickness might want to avoid the running scenes), I definitely think the filming choice gave a lot of character to the movie. Before watching, I was a little skeptical at how they were going to ensure that the audience saw what they needed to see during certain events. The character holding the camera throughout the entire movie is far from being a filmmaker and is constantly in situations where the choices are to A) get a good view of what’s going on and die or B) forget the video, run away, and live. Surprisingly though, director Matt Reeves did a great job giving the audience what they needed visually while still making Hud a believable character.

And depicting the story visually was extremely important because Cloverfield contains almost no background music (the only exceptions being the music played at Rob’s party and the original score that begins a little over a minute into the ending credits). I personally enjoyed the lack of music because there was no build-up towards a scary event. It just happened. And that made the event even more shocking and scary.

The acting unfortunately wasn’t the best. During my first viewing it wasn’t too noticeable, but the second time through, I felt like the quality of the performances fluctuated a lot. It could’ve been a lot worse, but it also could’ve been better.

Also, as with the majority of creature-attack movies, the monster’s appearance in this film was ultimately not that frightening. It was too obviously CGI-ed, and the noises it made were way overdone. I think I would’ve liked it better if we never got a good or even semi-good view of what the creature really looked like. The human imagination will always be able to create a better monster than any special effects team could anyway.

Something that I also think could’ve been improved is the title. Cloverfield is a cool name, sure, but if the filmmakers would’ve included the word “Cloverfield” in the actual movie at all or switched to a name more significant to the plot, the title would’ve been much cooler.

Basically, it has its moments but also its flaws. If you’re looking for a little fright to spice up a late night with friends, go for it. If you’re a horror junkie searching for the next original terror film, you’ll probably want to pass.

Being a Beatles fan since the age of six, I was quite excited when I heard about Across the Universe. Moulin Rouge is the only musical I actually enjoy watching, and the trailers portrayed this film as something very similar. So naturally, I figured I would love it. Sadly, this wasn’t the case.

The storyline revolves around a young artist from Liverpool named Jude and his best friend’s sister Lucy as they struggle through the influences of love, drugs, and war during 1970s America, all the while expressing the majority of their feelings through classic Beatles songs.

Now obviously we have to take into consideration the fact that this is a musical and therefore can be excused for a being a little cheesy or unrealistic. I mean, who didn’t see the character names of “Jude”, “Lucy”, and “Prudence” coming from a mile away? Sure, I can ignore these predictable pieces as long as they’re brought together in a unique way, but I can’t say that Across the Universe accomplished that.

This is not to say that I think the film was a disaster. In fact, I was intrigued by some areas of the movie, such as the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince). Scenes like “Strawberry Fields Forever” and “Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite” had colors and transitions that were very trippy and amusing to just sit back and absorb. I’m sure the Fab Four of the 1970s would’ve been proud. Also, the acting throughout the movie was very believable. The whole cast gave a solid performance with no weak links. I was glad that no one attempted the flamboyant, exaggerated style of acting that is most notorious in musicals. The lack of it helped the film stay grounded and get taken more seriously.

On the other hand, the area of writing…well…wasn’t so appraisable.

Clearly the Beatles did not create their songs with an intent to combine them into a film, and the plot of Across the Universe only cemented that fact to me. It felt like writers Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais (The Bank Job, Flushed Away) frequently rushed the events and character growth in order for the mood of a scene to feel similar to a certain song at a certain time. There were many references to song titles, names, and occurrences all related to the Beatles, but the storyline had to stretch and veer off a bit in order to accommodate those references. In the end, it felt like a polluted game of connect-the-dots.

I will give the filmmakers credit for taking a stab at the idea though because, in theory, a Beatles musical sounds great. Ultimately, the main problem they had to face was the same problem that movies like Superman and Star Wars faced – the fan base is huge and generations old. There are millions (possibly billions) of fans – young, old, and everything in between – who all have their own opinion about Beatles music. Additionally, there are hundreds of songs to sort through that all have multiple meanings and messages. It’s utterly impossible to satisfy every fan in the world with a single film.

I guess the reason I personally came out so disappointed was because I had been looking for something a little less isolated from The Beatles themselves. The remaining Beatles members, Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney, as well as Yoko Ono, John Lennon’s widow, were in contact with the director, but the contact was very minimal. I’m positive that if they’d been given even more license to choose the look and feel of Across the Universe, its impact on viewers would’ve been much more impressive.

I’m not trying to discourage people from at least giving it a try, however. I know the film has entertained a good portion of Beatles fans and even introduced some newcomers to the music. Just don’t rent it expecting it to be anything more than one attempt at an interpretation of music that was intended to mean a lot more.