 |
|
|
|
Cloverfield (2008)
 email this review to a friend
Movie Review by Bobby B 
May 8th, 2008
|  |
Where's the Beef?
CLOVERFIELD is either a comedy that plays like a Godzilla movie or a Godzilla movie made to feel like a comedy. It's THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT for everyone who thought the THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT was boring. It's intentionally derivative of many different movies and genres. For originality it depends on using an old conceit in an even older cinematic situation. Its success or failure in the eyes of a given audience member depends largely on whether or not said audience member is willing or able to buy into the conceit for two hours, whether or not they're willing to meet the movie on its own terms. All art asks this certainly, but for what it is, CLOVERFIELD asks for a lot.
The film is shot entirely from a subjective point of view with a hand-held camera. Chances are just in reading that you'll already have a reaction. If your first impulse is "hm, sounds interesting", then you might dig the film. If your first impulse is revulsion, well, stay away. As well, the movie pays homage to GODZILLA. If you're not a fan of giant monster movies tearing up Tokyo/New York/London (guess THAT reference!) you're probably not going to like CLOVERFIELD. All of these films, GODZILLA, KING KONG, RODAN, MIGHTY JOE YOUNG, GHIDORAH THE THREE HEADED MONSTER, etc., had a pretty healthy dose of humor and CLOVERFIELD is no different. So it helps to come to the movie knowing that the parts that you think are silly are probably not something the filmmakers were unaware of.
The homage aspect runs from head to toe. The thundering footsteps in the black at the beginning are lifted directly from GODZILLA as well as the swelling, operatic music at the end. Many of the classic's strongest aspects are reprised here. The major metropolis being destroyed by we-know-not-what is re-visited here. Raymond Burr's journalist making what might be his last report watching Tokyo burn has distinct –and deliberate – echoes in the new film. But the parts never come together to make a complete whole. The subjective single camera view feels like a good idea certainly but does that have to be the only creative risk the film maker takes? There's not enough there and it feels too gimmicky too often. There are far too many moments where the audience is thinking "Dumbass, put the camera down and run!" He's crossing from one collapsed skyscraper to another and he has to keep the camera at his eye to record the moment? The problem with these failures in logic, of course, is that they repeatedly take you out of the film, retarding any momentum it may have picked up. Also, the camera belongs to a different character in the film, one who's always there. But HE never takes the camera though he repeatedly has to tell his friend how to work it. None of the friends ever says "Put the camera down!" and there's moment after moment when you feel like they would have. The subjective perspective is fine but maybe some of the creativity and imagination of the filmmakers could have been applied to finding more than one way that was "new and different" to achieve that so the main method didn't get over-taxed by plausibility.
The guy they had holding the camera didn't help. T.J. Miller's Hud, the best friend of Michael Stahl-David's whiny and self-centered Rob (the owner of the camera) is beyond annoying. It's not just that he never has anything smart or useful to say, it's that this fact never stops him from talking. His role, apparently, is to keep the film light, to keep reminding us that this is an homage to what was after all, a glorified B movie but he grates...and he never puts the camera down which just feels retarded. None of the other actors is particularly charismatic or interesting. More importantly in this case, none of them feel particularly real and when you're attempting a storytelling technique like this, which essentially removes much of your storytelling vocabulary, a lot of emphasis is then placed on empathy with the characters. They have to feel to the audience like a) they're real people and b) THEY are terrified by what the audience cannot see. None of the actors in this film are talented or invested enough to pull that off. They all look like they were picked off of MTV, or the OC, or Beverly Hills 90210 and told to "act scared". And the monster involved was pretty lame. If there's one thing all the monsters from the movies mentioned above had in common it's personality. The giant whatchamacallit in CLOVERFIELD has none and it's definitely a weakness in the film. No wonder he's grey.
None of this means you'll have a horrible time. The film is not without some wit and cleverness. There are moments of tension. You can choose to shut off your brain, turn out the lights, huddle up with your significant other or your kids and enjoy yourselves but you'll have to work at it a little. You'll have to decide you want to be entertained. And this is where CLOVERFIELD just doesn't help you out. It's not a crime to put a lot of the work in the audience's hands and is even something that should probably happen more in American movies. But you have to give them a little more to work with.
email this review to a friend
Comment on this Review:
Sorry, you must be a member to add comments to reviews.
Join or Login. |
 | Lisa
May 9, 2008 9:32 AM
also wrote a review of Cloverfield 
| |
You liked this movie more than I did Bobby, I found it painfull to watch and had to do it in 2 sittings.
One thing this movie did prompt me to do, was re-visit "The Blair Witch Project" and on doing so I found that the only similarity between it and Cloverfield was the cam-corder aspect. Blair Witch, love or loathe it could actually pass as a documentary the people (though annoying) are real they ain't no 90210, perfect hair and teeth left overs, hell they weren't even hot. If anything Cloverfield gave me a new respect for TBWP. |
 Subscribe to MatchFlick Movie Reviews through RSS
|
May 9, 2008 3:17 PM