Movie Review - Cloverfield


Julia Roberts factor:						0/5
Macho factor:						4/5
Babysitter factor:						3/5
Get Lucky factor:						2/5
In-law factor:						5/5
Of Mice and Men factor						4/5
Wrap-up factor						2/5
Se7en factor						4/5
Reel rating:						4/5
What the categories mean

Reel commentary: ... the alien invasion theme has been done to death and this new twist is actually quite refreshing ... full review

Movie Review

By Frank Wilkins

One of the most widely anticipated films since Snakes on a Plane went down in flames last Summer, finally gets its release. And like that film, Cloverfield has been riding a crest of viral marketing and Internet buzz that makes financial failure a near impossibility. But unlike Samuel L. Jackson's "eff"ing disaster, this one's gimmick is much stronger and resonates a bit more powerfully with the audience. Sure, snakes are creepy and all, but Cloverfield packs a much bigger reptile.

Hoping to both personalize – and thereby increase - the "horror" and to move away from the torture-porn that seems to be the hot thing lately, director Matt Reeves and producer J.J. Abrams put a spin on the genre by deflecting the focus away from the alien invader(s) and putting it on the poor schleps on the streets - the people we always see fleeing with mouths agape and arms flailing. They do this by taking a cue from The Blair Witch Project and shooting the entire film from the point of view of a handheld camcorder. The result is grainy, herky-jerky footage that, while sometimes quite nauseating, effectively puts the viewer right on the street with the victims. And that's what makes Cloverfield so intense. Mile-high, God's-eye shots make beautiful cinema, while down-and-dirty camera work makes frightening cinema. The trade-off is that we don't really get too many good money-shots of the ravenous reptile wreaking its havoc on the city. And certainly, that's the trough of criticism from which most of the film's detractors and pundits will feed. In fact, a quick perusal of chat rooms and message forums leading up to the film's release, tells us that anything less than full-exposure of the monster is going to leave many feeling left in the lurch. And that's too bad, because the alien invasion theme has been done to death and this new twist is actually quite refreshing.

If you can stomach it, the aforementioned jittery camera footage is the film's ace-in-the-hole. While initially a bit distracting and gimmicky, the film's short (84 mins.) runtime never lets it grow old. The footage comes from the camcorder of Hud (T.J. Miller), a quick-witted party guy who is selected to record the farewell greetings at a party given for friend Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who is leaving New York to take a job in Japan. Hud trolls the party, grabbing testimonials from Rob's friends, who are not above passing judgment about Rob leaving his current girlfriend Beth (Odette Yustman), behind.

Rob (Michael Stahl-David, left) and Lily (Jessica Lucas, right) try to keep out deadly parasitic creatures who are chasing them in Cloverfield.

All images copyright © 2008 Paramount Pictures

As Hud, Rob and Rob's brother, Jason (Mike Vogel) take a break from the party, the house is suddenly rocked by a huge explosion. The rest of Cloverfield is viewed from the lens of Hud's camera as the party guests make their way to the streets to survey the damage. The ensuing panic and chaos is reminiscent of the WTC tower attacks, as frantic citizens flee the ghostly white powder that billows down the streets. Reeves even manages to pay a shrewd little tribute to the Japanese horror genre when Hud and gang encounter a harrowed Asian man frantically scurrying down the street, screaming incoherently.

In a brilliant touch of filmmaking, some footage that gets partially taped over – of Beth and Rob's last day together before his departure - serves as a much-needed bit of character development. Later in the film, as we're watching the monster's wrath, we get a few brief moments to catch our breath when Rob and Beth's romantic moments peek through on the video. Their tender twinkles together allow us to understand Rob's later insistence on returning to the heart of the chaos to rescue her.

Although everything the audience sees is through the lens of Hud's camera, the filmmakers deploy a few clever uses of other media as well. We get our first good shot of the monster and the damage he inflicts, through some CNN-type news helicopter footage broadcast on a television in an electronics store. This is also the moment we realize that the military will have very little impact on limiting the creature's rage. Bombs dropped from stealth fighters have virtually no effect, and we now begin to wonder what to do about the ravenous parasites that are dropping from "Clovie's" underbelly. A bite from one of those things seems to spell doom for the unfortunate victim.

In yet another wise move, the filmmakers never try to explain the presence of the monster or why it's throwing such a conniption. Although some web sites and other external sources hint at possible explanations, it makes sense that our only knowledge come from what the characters see... nothing more. It's important to remember that this one's not about the monster, bur rather a group of friends just trying to stay alive.

Frank Wilkins

Comments

Frank Says:
January 20, 2008 at 10:14

More Cloverfield quotes:

"My name is Robert Hawkins. Approximately seven hours ago some *thing* attacked the city. If you found this, if you're watching this then you probably know more about it than I do. "

"We cannot go into the middle of the city, we've got to get out of here!"

"Yeah, people are gonna want to know... how it all went down. "

"I saw it! It's alive! It's huge! "

Natalia Says:
January 23, 2008 at 00:37

I'm sorry but this movie was not that great. It should have showed the monster more and had more action. I like the idea of the documentary but it just made it harder to see what was going on in the movie. It was a good idea for a movie, but it was not put together right.

Frank Says:
January 23, 2008 at 08:12

Natalia, thanks for your comments and ideas. Yeah, not seeing the monster enough is definitely the most frequent complaint. However, we think that something that you don't see is way more terrifying than what you do. Hitchcock practiced it back in the day, and we think there needs to be more today. Less is more in horror movies.

Critic Virgilio Says:
January 24, 2008 at 08:52

This movie may have brought back a more sort of Hitchcock practice but I seriously thought this movie was horrible. The whole camcorder idea was ok, I guess. But then realize never does it run out of tape or battery (I know they record and stop every once in awhile). Also, I highly doubt if the head of The Statue of Liberty is coming straight towards you in an angle, I don't think it would of landed on the street. Wouldn't it have landed onto the buildings. Is this a love story? I definately would of tried getting out ASAP, especially If I just saw a girl i loved with another guy. Not to mention the ending...was terrible. Implying that there will be a second movie does not really satisfy anyone.

Frank Says:
January 24, 2008 at 10:10

Critic Virgilio, I think the camcorder idea was interesting too, especially now in our YouTube society. We're so used to watching amateur "real" videos on Youtube, it made this seem very real. Regarding the tape and battery comment: didn't they stop in an electronics store? And one tape and battery can last longer than 80 minutes (remember, the movie was shot in real-time. And yes, it is a love story, definitely. And that's why he was so adamamant on going back to rescue her. He realized he loved her. Ask yourself this: would you abondon a wife, child, girlfriend or parent that you knew was still in the city?

SPOILER ALERT:
I didn't get that there would be a sequel. I got that it is all over!

nove Says:
February 7, 2008 at 11:56

This is the worst movie i ever seen in my whole life. Firstly, the guy that holding the v8 make me irrtated throughout the whole show. Do you think is possible for a person that is running for his life to carry a v8 filming all the time?? Secondly, we didnt know where tha monster came from and why it came??? Thirdly , the whole show make me giddy. It just simply wasted my time. It was so disappointing.

AA Says:
February 9, 2008 at 23:13

Greetings from Kuantan, Malaysia. Saw this at the Golden Screen Cineplex at MegaMall. Yes, the 'camcorder perspective' gave me a headache; but the movie itself had me on the edge of my seat most of the time (that is, after the party scene onwards). To be honest, I stopped breathing lots of times due to the sheer terror of it all.

Never have I been as personally involved in or as terrified of any horror movie as I have of this gem. Even told the wife (a ghost story addict) 'this is scarier than any of your 'long-hair' korean ghost movies :).

Verdict : Would go and see it again!

h Says:
February 17, 2008 at 12:22

Being a fan of scifi for many years i was hugely disappointed with the lack of creativity with this flop! All of the highlights is what you saw in the previews is what led to much anticipation for six months until i finally saw this movie. I recommend this movie for Worst Movie of the Year!!!

P.S. The creators of this movie should refund peoples money back. That would make it worth while to everybody who saw it.

heygirlheyyy Says:
February 25, 2008 at 01:53

wtf you guys?
this movie was AMAZING.
i give kudos, mayne.

Kratos Says:
May 5, 2008 at 08:49

I have seen many horror movies, but this rates among the top 10. Cloverfield was... an interesting concept, it took me a while to get used to the style of film. I would personally like to see a sequel, but not too soon. If they want to make a sequel, at least make it good.
~Kratos out.

DVD Information

This title not yet on DVD.

Cloverfield (2008)