Review: Cloverfield
Director: Matt Reeves (The Pallbearer)
Writer: Drew Goddard
Producers: Bryan Burk, J.J. Abrams
Starring: Lizzy Caplan, T.J. Miller, Michael Stahl-David, Mike Vogel, Michael Stahl-David
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 84 min.
reviewed by Movie Patron contributor, Misael Soto
I‘m still fairly surprised as to how much I enjoyed this film. I went mostly out of curiosity. The trailer and dizzyingly complex viral marketing campaign made this an event film, a moment in popular culture that had to be experienced on opening weekend. Nonetheless I figured I’d be left cold, yearning rather to see recent favorites There Will Be Blood or Atonement again. Yet, not only did I enjoy Cloverfield as compelling entertainment, I actually found there is much to think about afterwards.
I did not follow much of the back story online and approached the monster movie with moderate excitement and very little hype. Surprisingly Matt Reeves’ first film in over a decade is far more deliberate than one would expect. Post-9/11 concerns run rampant as do certain issues regarding modern identity which are complemented by the various websites and Myspace pages that are essentially a part of the film. Of course the location is a given, as are the many scenes of crumbling skyscrapers. Manhattan is shown filled with people running away from clouds of smoke while coughing out their lungs, some scenes seemingly shot-by-shot remakes of the videos we all saw over and over again during the weeks following September 11th. The film’s headache-inducing (“Thank God it’s only 84 minutes long!”) cinéma vérité style is also certainly noteworthy. What better way to film a modern day sci-fi horror film, in New York no less, then with Youtube filming techniques and Myspace characters? Today our webpages and blogs are as much a part of our personas as our modes of dress or conversation. Perhaps I’m giving JJ Abrams & Co. too much credit, but so much of this film reeks of “now” it’s impossible to ignore.
Cloverfield kept reminding me throughout of last year’s South Korean hit monster movie The Host. Of course that movie was better but both were effective using a monster invasion as the overall umbrella over more personal events. They also both had several moments of clever banter mixed in with the suspense (as well as similar looking CG monsters), both proving memorable in similar yet distinct ways.
Of course, along with its intriguing concept and many intelligent bits Cloverfield has its fare share of problems. As expected the acting is sub par. Character development is (understandably) laughable (I’m not sure how else they could make it feel as if we simply jumped in on a video from a couple of unknowns) and while clever, the film is not necessarily saying very much of anything. Playing on post-9/11 fears is one thing but having a reason for it, that takes a tad more effort, probably dispensed on the impressive camera work and CGI. Also while frightening and suspenseful at times, the scares are often forgettable proving pointless, at times even boring and banal.
That said I enjoyed this film immensely. Interestingly enough it was refreshing to have a film leave so much unanswered. While a turn-off for some, Cloverfield left me yearning for more as I scoured message boards for hours looking for answers afterwards. The whole thing truly felt genuine; no small feat for what many might consider a mainstream film. And like a good piece of pop, similar to that Britney Spears song you know you like but would never dare tell a soul, I had lots of fun with JJ Abrams latest project and look forward to the inevitable sequel. In the mean time there’s so much online to sift through regarding the monster and where it came from as well as its and the character’s whereabouts, etc., I should be kept busy till then.
As a side note, stay until the very end of the closing credits. I was the only one who remained seated at the screening I attended. Besides Michael Giacchino’s amazing “ROAR! (Cloverfield Overture)” that plays during most of the credits there’s a little treat at the very end. Something that should give fanboys and sci-fi geeks plenty of hours of fun.
Click “play” to see the trailer:
Links:
IMDb profile - full cast and crew
Official Site
Flixster Profile for Cloverfield
Comment by Mercurie — January 21, 2008
http://cloverfieldmessage.ytmnd.com/
For whatever weakenesses, if we’re talking recent monster movies, I preferred this to the Host.. If Slither counts as a monster movie though I think I’d give that the edge over both.
Comment by Goon — January 21, 2008
I also felt it went on too long and for a 75 minute movie that is a serious problem. It should have ended at the helicopter and not gone on after that. The only point of the added on ending was simply so they could have one close up of the monster and that close up just did not make sense.
Don’t get me wrong this could have been a way worse movie than it was but I don’t think its anywhere near the movie that The Host is.
Comment by John Allison — January 21, 2008
Host really dragged through much of it and there was nothing overly special about it (for me). The Lake Placcid meets Little Miss Sunshine is a nice idea, but it didn’t pan out as well as it could’ve. My guess is Clvoerfield is about right on par with Host. But I’ll know by tonight
Comment by Andrew James — January 21, 2008
I think people rarely have seen it in its entirety and it is breathtaking.
the blurb about it here:
Originally broadcast on CBS in March 2002, 9/11 is an extraordinary record of that fateful day in New York City. This one-of-a-kind documentary was originally conceived as a portrait of 21-year-old Tony Benetatos, a firefighter trainee at Manhattan’s Duane Street firehouse, located seven blocks from the World Trade Center. By the time filming was finished, brothers Jules and Gedeon Naudet had captured history in the making, including the only image of the first jetliner striking Tower 1, and the only footage from within the tower as it collapsed. This is not, however, a film about the murderous nightmare of terrorism. It’s the ultimate rite-of-passage drama, more immediate and meaningful than any fiction film could be, with Benetatos and his supportive colleagues emerging as heroes of the first order. Sensitively narrated by codirector and fellow firefighter James Hanlon, 9/11 will endure forever as a tribute to those, living and dead, who witnessed hell on that sunny Tuesday morning
Comment by rot — January 21, 2008
Comment by Goon — January 21, 2008
I guess that’s where I differ, although I wouldn’t say either is exclusively one or the other. Very well put Goon.
I also preferred the characters from The Host ten-fold over those in Cloverfield, but that’s a small matter in a film of this kind.
Comment by Misael Soto — January 21, 2008
Thanks for the link Goon. I was joking with the husband that if we really wanted to, I’m sure we could find someone online who had caught the closing sound on tape and that someone would know what it said. Good to see I wasn’t wrong.
And Misael makes a great note on “ROAR! (Cloverfield Overture)”. That was INSANELY awesome. I may actually have to make use of iTunes for once in my life.
On a side note - we were first in line for a screening and the show that went in before us…wow. I’ve never seen so many people walk out of a movie and some folks looked BLUE in the face. One poor guy went running for the washroom. It’s no surprise the theater had a disclaimer!
Comment by Marina Antunes — January 21, 2008
I saw that doc on HBO a few years back, and yes it is AMAZING. Talk about being in the right place at the right time (or wrong place at the wrong time depending on your point of view).
Comment by Andrew James — January 21, 2008
ROAR overture.
Comment by Goon — January 21, 2008
I also love the ending of the Host it feels so non-Hollywoodish without trying to feel different. The ending of Cloverfield felt added on just first to give the audience the money shot and then the bitter ending that just cries look at us we are trying to be different.
I do think I’m coming across to harsh though. Cloverfield wasn’t a bad movie it was just pretty forgettable except for a few scenes.
Comment by John Allison — January 21, 2008
Comment by Kurt — January 21, 2008
Comment by Marina Antunes — January 21, 2008
Except for the whispering! HAHAHA
Comment by Marina Antunes — January 21, 2008
Comment by Colleeny — January 21, 2008
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 21, 2008
Comment by Colleeny — January 21, 2008
I have to disagree with Misael about the acting. While certainly not Oscar worthy, I thought it was pretty well done and I like the fact that the actors are ALL no names. I didn’t recognize a single one (I don’t watch much TV if they are on TV shows).
A definite fun time at the theater and the best movie I’ve seen so far in ‘08 (which obviously isn’t saying much).
Comment by Andrew James — January 22, 2008
Comment by Marina Antunes — January 22, 2008
Time to recommend Diary of the Dead and [*REC] one more time…
Comment by Kurt — January 23, 2008
Comment by Goon — January 23, 2008
Time to recommend Diary of the Dead and [*REC] one more time…”
ugh… Kurt, am I to believe that you’re bitching about a movie you haven’t even taken the time to watch?
If you don’t want to watch it (whine whine whine… it’s too cold… I have kids… oh noes), fine no one cares. But spare us your cackles of fashionable cyncism.
Cloverfield’s got a great score (by the fantastic Michael Giancchino), it’s a good movie that’s received respectable notices from the press. If you want to hang with the cool kids and be the guy who hates something popular I’m afraid you’re going to have to lock the kids in the closet, venture out into the cold and actually watch the damn movie.
Otherwise, silencio old man.
Comment by Rusty James — January 23, 2008
he did this to Enchanted as well. I’m picturing Kurt dressed in a little Scrooge outfit walking past the theater bah humbugging
Comment by Goon — January 23, 2008
Comment by rot — January 23, 2008
Comment by Rusty James — January 23, 2008
Comment by Matt Gamble — January 23, 2008
I haven’t seen any of them actually. Any good?
Comment by Goon — January 23, 2008
Comment by Primal — January 23, 2008
Comment by Matt Gamble — January 23, 2008
“I saw Cloverfield last night, and nothing about it bugged me more than those quotes around “Central Park” on the DoD evidence tag that opens the film. It immediately tells us that this film has not been made by native science fiction minds. If Central Park is no longer called Central Park, but is officially referred to as “the area formerly known as ‘Central Park’”, but the DoD still exists, we know that this is not a *far-future* evidence tag. So if Central Park is now known as “The Killing Fields”, or “The Ghastly Black Glass Ocean”, then *tell* us. Those quotes are extraordinarily clumsy (and the card itself is typographically unconvincing).
Very first thing in the film. Matters. Hugely.”
Comment by Marina Antunes — January 24, 2008
Nope, just processing the conversation in this thread to understand the overall mood of Cloverfield from the third row. I find often when these hype driven movies have their bubble burst, they are quickly forgotten…I think you all may get a bit more of a taste of this if Andrew & I manage to record tonite….Cloverfield will be on the agenda without myself having seen it.
I did manage to catch Persepolis finally though, and it was very good.
I am quite often the grumpy old man in the room. But I do like me a big monster movie too.
Comment by Kurt — January 24, 2008
I’m still trying to catch up with a lot of the smaller films from last year. oi!
Comment by Kurt — January 24, 2008
Kurt the first word of your post is “nope”, but what exactly are you denying here? No, you haven’t prematurely dismissed the film without seeing it? You weren’t doing that at all? What I mistook for bitching was actually you “processing the conversation in this thread to understand blah blah blah….”.
It’s very obvious what’s happened here. You’ve had your heart broken by these big blockbuster type movies one too many times. So now you can’t stand the thought of other people actually enjoying one. You can’t stand the idea that you’re missing a good monster movie but you also can’t bring yourself to go see it in the theater for fear of another disappointment.
Comment by Rusty James — January 24, 2008
It was seriously what I typed. I was getting a trace of the commentary in this thread. And the thing that everyone raved about was not that it was a good flick, but rather the post-credits “Overture” piece. It was something that just stuck out.
But yea, I do tend to tone down on the Blockbusters these days. Rather catch up on the DVDs that I’ve not managed to see. It’s a big pile
Comment by Kurt — January 24, 2008
Comment by Matt Gamble — January 24, 2008
1. The fact that you made it out to UNTRACEBLE is the nail your coffin. What happened to the cold weather? What happened to he parenting responsibilites? I thought you were booked seeing small run art films, or were you counting UNTRACEBLE?
2. I went to the UNTRACEBLE posting and you left a one sentence long comment there. In other words you’ve written more on this, a film you haven’t seen than you have on UNTRACEBLE a film on which you spent money and time. Clearly you have some kind of interest / boarder line obsession with this movie.
3. I agree it’s silly of me to take the argument this far but if you had just said “I have not interest in seeing this” and left it at that we wouldn’t be here.
I liked this film because it took the old monster film tropes and made them seem new. Some people have complained that the characters were “thin”, okay I cant really dispute that. But I think they were successful on the level that was appropriate for the genre. They weren’t deep but they were engaging. During the party scene the audience laughed at the jokes, they sympathized with Hud’s ineptitude with women. And there’s an awesome dis in the movie that had the audience on the floor. It’s simple stuff but it works, they engage us just enough to make their plight for survival seem relevent. And in a lot of ways; though I can understand not liking the film; it’s the blockbuster people always say they want. Where the effects work in service of the characters, and the storyline is tight and streamlined at under 80 min. Also the sound design is great for a lot of reasons that go beyond the scope of this posting.
So if you take issue with any of that I’d be interested in hearing it. Otherwise what’s the point?
Maybe you should start your own thread for people who hate stuff they’ve never seen (I’d post there: “Finding Neverland”).
Comment by Rusty James — January 24, 2008
That just set off a brainstorm. Thank you.
Comment by Matt Gamble — January 24, 2008
“1. The fact that you made it out to UNTRACEBLE is the nail your coffin. What happened to the cold weather? What happened to he parenting responsibilites? I thought you were booked seeing small run art films, or were you counting UNTRACEBLE?”
Ahh, there is a simple answer to that question. I’m in San Francisco on business and my evenings are without kids and cold weather (although it ain’t exactly tropical in SanFran at the moment). Mainly it was a chance to get out and socialize with a friend there, who happened to have press passes to the flick (so it was more for the social engagement than the movie itself - which I went in totally ignorant of other than that it starred Diane Lane - I wasted time on this film (definitely) but not money).
There’s the facts. However, I’m at a loss here for what is more worrisome: That You (Rusty) have an obsession with me not seeing Cloverfield.
Comment by Kurt — January 25, 2008
Foregoing Rusty’s zealous obsession with Kurt, I agree with him with respects to Cloverfield, it works despite it shortcomings… I was actually a bit in awe of the special effects, particularly those on street-level showing the destruction… perhaps it is easier to do that sort of F/X with a camera always veering around, so you do not need as much detail perhaps but it felt entirely real. I’ve walked those cavernous streets of New York and that must have been shot on location. I don’t usually dwell on special effects but that really impressed me.
Comment by rot — January 25, 2008
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — February 4, 2008
Comment by rot — February 4, 2008
Anyways Kurt, I’m glad that got settled. Lets be friends again. You should do a finite-focus on Killing of a Chinese Bookie.
Does this entourage of biscuits follow you everywhere you go?
Comment by Rusty James — February 4, 2008
Comment by Kurt — February 4, 2008
Comment by Kurt — February 4, 2008
Comment by rot — March 6, 2008
On a side note, I saw this again on DVD yesterday and I have to say, though it lost a bit of its original charm, it holds up on a second viewing on the smaller screen - not sure I’ll watch it again but it was a good watch on DVD.
Comment by Marina Antunes — April 28, 2008
Comment by Kurt — April 28, 2008
Pingback by CLOVERFIELD (2008) | 353 REVIEW — November 15, 2008