Cloverfield

Last weekend I had the opportunity to check out JJ Abrams' monster flick Cloverfield. There's a ton that can be said (and has been said) about this unique film. I won't try to recreate all that here, but I feel it does warrant a bit of a review. (Spoiler alert... I'm talking about the film so you may want to read this after you've seen it just in case I reveal too much for your taste.)

The good

In a word: I liked it. I actually thought I wouldn't because I expected the camcorder-style filming to ruin the experience. (I couldn't stand the fight scenes in the Borne movies—the hand-held filming style was jumpy, too close, and nauseating; Cloverfield promised to amplify this effect.) Though some people found it to be the case, surprisingly I thought it worked. Here's a hint: sit in the back of the theatre so it's not overwhelming.

What I found most enjoyable was its Lovecraftian approach to the monster. (If you're not familiar with HP Lovecraft's fiction, I suggest you read At the Mountains of Madness and The Case of Charles Dexter Ward, and then dive into his other stories.) By "Lovecraftian," I mean that you get very little direct exposure to the horror; much of what you learn is second-hand or tangential information. In Cloverfield, this can been seen when the characters watch the mayhem occurring on the streets outside on a TV in an electronics store. Another example is the military personnel telling them what little they know about the creature except that "It's winning," a particularly good bit of fear-inspiring dialog. Oh, and what happens to the woman who got bit... that behind-the-sheet silhouette filming was very effective.

In the early stages of the movie, you get only glimpses of the monster. A leg here, a bit of tail there. It's quite suspensful. A particularly good sequence comes when the group of characters are running along a street one block over from the monster. The character with the camera keeps swinging the lens from what's in front of him to the side as he runs, giving us glimpses of the beasts legs (including an excellent tank-smashing stomp). Of course, as the movie draws closer to a "conclusion" the monster gets more screen time. It's well done, indeed. It's size and unstoppableness is clearly shown from the helicopter scene, when the creature can be seen receiving the full might of the US air force.

What cinched it for me: the subway scene. Watching the monsterlings attack the group in the dark through the camera's night vision was so intense and, well, real that I found myself gripping my seat's handrests and shaking with adrenaline. That was worth the price of admission right there.

Comparisons should and will be made with the Korean monster film The Host, which I saw and loved. That movie's monster had more screen time, was smaller, and had a more in-depth back story. Both films are driven more by characters than by their respective marauding creatures. They're different enough to complicate comparisons, but if you like Cloverfield you should see its Korean equivalent. (And don't tell me you can't read subtitles; if you can suffer through Cloverfield's handy-cam filming, you can read some English lines on a steady screen.)

The bad

So, you get that I liked it. Doesn't mean I can't find areas to complain about. First, the camera... seven hours pass on film, we learn at the end of the movie. There were very few discernible times when the camera went off, but no camcorder can record that long—not to mention the movie's only 85 minutes. I suppose this is paradox is a testament to Abram's editing skills? And honestly, who would continue to film when running for his life? I don't care how intrepid you are; you will drop or at least put down the camera when monstrous creatures are chasing you through a subway tunnel.

And Cloverfield suffers greatly from "stupid movie character" syndrome. The plot revolves primarily around a small group going to rescue the main character's ex-girlfriend. It's totally unrealistic, from the first phone call he receives from her to the impossibility of reaching her atop her destroyed apartment building—and down again. Oh well... something was needed to drive the story ahead. It just seemed so glaringly unreal that these people would do what the did in the face of such chaos.

Let's hope Abrams does as good a job with the upcoming Star Trek prequel film.

Related posts:

1. Denzel does it again I’m a huge Den­zel Wash­ing­ton fan. Really liked Fallen,...
2. Think you have it rough? Try sharing shoes The other evening Crys­tal and I watched Chil­dren of...
3. The Wicker Man Finally saw The Wicker Man last evening. I’m a fair-weather...