More Active Posts
Front Page
Cloverfield
 |
 10 Comments |
Hardly a month ago, Will Smith was trekking through the abandoned streets of
This time, harried protagonists have captured the action with a spastic camera, You-Tube style. The unconventional first-person filming in Cloverfield makes it a somewhat dizzying, sickening experience. (In fact, theater signs all but urge patrons to reconsider seeing it). But the overwhelming camera gimmick is the entire point, of course, and the only real reason that Cloverfield is more than another monster movie.
Co-produced by J.J. Abrams, producer of the television show Lost, Cloverfield (rated PG-13 for violence and some disturbing scenes) executes the first-person vantage point perfectly compared with the numerous misguided attempts that have preceded it (Open Water, anyone?). At worse, this sort of film—which usually swaps plot and script for hand-held camera and “simulated experience”—comes off unwatchably dull. But not this one. Cloverfield’s unhurried beginning initiates the audience to the camera and introduces them to the attractive cast, proving once again that effective characterization can inject heart into the most formulaic of thrillers.
From there, believably unscripted performances carry the visceral film, working with the frenetic shots to whip up an atmosphere of raw dread. Viewers feel that they’re trying frantically to escape the claws of God-knows-what. The lack of emphasis on the monster solves the apocalyptic-thriller genre’s most towering challenge—making us somehow believe this stuff. We never get a good look at the beast, never see flyover shots of the city. We experience the film knowing just as much as we’d know if we had happened to be walking the streets of New York on that fateful night: nothing.
There have been rumors of this film beginning a “new generation” that will take advantage of
 |
Topic: Movies & TV, Reviews |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: Cloverfield |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Pathetic tradeoff
Not to quibble, but Open Water is not an example of first-person camera work. The Blair Witch Project is a better comparison.
That said, Cloverfield sounds intriguing and I’ll probably see it. I used to think it was impossible to make a really unnerving film with a PG-13 or lighter rating, but The Ring proved me wrong on that.
I saw this movie, and here are a couple random thoughts, each prefaced with the obligatory IMO (and a minor Spoiler warning as I recount a plot point that is established fairly early on):
The script as it relates to dialogue is probably OK, but the actors’ trying to act like they’re not acting keeps the first-person-effect from transferring from the screen.
The wussy hero’s contemplative, brooding gazes are annoying. I laughed when he started explaining to the military guy that he left his girlfriend helpless and was obligated to rescue her. Suck it up, wimp! Enough with the teary eyes and cracking voice.
No, Open Water isn’t first-person camera, but it’s the same idea as Cloverfield: an claustrophobic non-plot intended to create simulated experience.
claustrophobic non-plot intended to create simulated experience. Ah… yes, I’d agree with that. I liked Open Water though. I took at more as a character study (what these two people are like when stripped of their safety and security and isolated from everything but each other) rather than a plot-driven story.
SteveG, agree with you about Blair Witch. In fact, I decided NOT to see this film after I read a reviewer who made the same comparison. I felt very ill after BWP (motion sickness); this one’s supposed to be worse.
I also agree with you about The Ring. It was a very creepy movie indeed. The thing that saddens me is that Hollywood seems almost incapable of originality in horror movies. They either rip off films from the past (Blair Witch Project), remake films of the past (Halloween, House of Wax, etc.), or remake Japanese horror films (The Ring, The Grudge, Black Water, etc.). There are exceptions, of course, but very few nowadays.
Good point on originality, but if Hollywood hadn’t remade Ringu as The Ring, it’s doubtful most of us would have ever seen it.
The imagery in the deadly videotape was wonderfully unnerving even without any obvious reason to explain why it should be. The best part of it though:
SPOILER ALERT! STOP READING HERE IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE RING AND INTEND TO!!
… is the twist on the usual idea of helping the ghost find peace. When the heroine thinks she’s done that and then the little boy says, “You weren’t supposed to help her!” … ooh chills.
I need to watch that again.
Cloverfield: Godzilla fused with Blair Witch.
No thanks.
Slight modification to Sawgunner’s comment…
Godzilla meets The Breakfast Club meets Blair Witch Project.
Worst movie I ever saw. The shaky camera effect is just a gimic, and rather than putting me in the first-person-perspective view, it took me out of the movie. The movie suffered from several other major flaws.
1. no back-story on the monster.
The essential ingredient in a scary film is the possiblity that the threat is real. Since we don’t know anything about this monster, he remains a cartoon character and presents no threat after the movie is over. No hiding under the covers after this movie was over.
2. no character development
Just like the monster, the people in this movie are shallow cartoons.
3. character interaction not believable.
Even when the movie attempts to establish a connection between the main character and the others, the main character shows no real connection between himself and his so-called friends.
4. How long can video camera batteries actually last?
5. Smaller monsters a plot fix?
Just like we have no back-story on the monster, we have no back story on the little creatures either, which makes them appear as a plot fix for situations in which the threat of the large monster suffers from scale.
6. The premise that the film was found by the military goes no where. Why is the film in the hands of the military rather than, say, the press or a regular citizen? What is the relevance?
To get the back story on the monster, you had to follow the viral ad campaign that had been going on a little while before the release of the film. Something about an oil company finding a monster when they were drilling in the ocean.
The little monsters came from the larger one. They don’t really supply any explanation for it.
A lot of qualms with this film will revolve around lack of believability, development or information. I think these voids are inherently part of the style of the film. If you were actually watching footage from someone carrying a camcorder (albeit one with unlimited battery power) through NYC while it was being destroyed, you wouldn’t necessarily expect character development, a complete backstory, or monster information. You’d get whatever was on camera, and that’s what Cloverfield gives you. Is it entertaining? Yes, if you can briefly suspend your inevitable disbelief. Is it a good story? Asbolutely not.