|
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: January 18, 2008 at 12:00am
When I first saw the trailer for "Cloverfield" I remember thinking - "It's Godzilla". I mean, what else could it be? J.J. Abrams tried to do the whole super secret marketing campaign, but what else is sending the head of the statue of liberty flying around like a ping pong ball? It sure as hell isn't Osama Bin Laden. He hates freedom, but that might be overkill, even for him. So, the big question has been - what does the creature look like? Is it Godzilla? Is it the StayPuft Marshmellow Man? Finally, those answers have been solved with the release of "Cloverfield", which has turned out to be the "Snakes On A Plane" of 2008, and the year isn't even a month old. The film comes to us from director Matt Reeves, who helmed "The Pallbearer" starring David Schwimmer. We won't judge him on his past endeavors; at least, we will try not to. What "Cloverfield" made me realize was - there's really only a few ways to destroy a city and we've already them all. You can either do it with a tidal wave, an earthquake, a creature, an explosion or a Garth Brooks concert. So, if you've seen one city destroyed, you've seen them all, right? Right. "Cloverfield" doesn't offer anything new in that department. I suppose it makes for good popcorn entertainment, but I can't help but feel like "Cloverfield" relied too heavily on what it thought was a cool device.
The picture opens with a color bar and the statement that the footage we are about to see was recovered from Central Park in New York City. We then head into some random slices of video from our main characters. We've got Rob Hawkins (Michael David-Stahl), who is moving to Japan for work. He's being thrown a surprise going away party by his brother Jason (Mike Vogel), Jason's girlfriend Lily (Jessica Lucas) and his best friend Hud (T.J. Miller). During the party, all hell breaks loose in the Big Apple. There are explosions, people being eaten and a whole lot of mass chaos and no one seems to know what it is - that is, until we see a huge ass three toed sloth tearing up the city. Houston, we have a problem. The film follows the group of friends as they try to make it to safety, and then follows them as Rob goes after the girl he loves, Beth (Odette Yustman), who is bleeding and trapped in her apartment building in the middle of the city. We basically get a lot of scenes of people running around with the camera going every which way, and then an equal amount of scenes of strained emotional acting, or should I say attempted emotional acting. The most realistic of all the performances came from the creature, whom I have nicknamed Sloth. And, no, not the lovable mentally retarded oaf from "The Goonies". This Sloth has a particularly nasty attitude.
What really could have driven this story was a human element. Maybe that was attempted, but it did not come off at all. You've got the lead guy, Rob, whose hands never get dirty - literally, his hands are almost always clean. You've got Hub, who is there for comic relief, and his jokes and witty banter during the most shocking situations is just plain ridiculous. And then there's good old Beth, who couldn't act her way through an Ed Wood film. The filmmakers were trying to make this film look like a realistic account of what would happen during an attack like this. It didn't work so well because everything these 'supposed realistic' characters did was cliched and formulaic. If people in real life are supposed to make the same stupid mistakes as people in fantasy, does that mean the human race is universally stupid? "Cloverfield" is "The Blair Witch Project" meets an amped up version of "Godzilla". I don't think the two blend well together. There was too much of the whole camera shaking around thing. I find it difficult to believe, during all they encountered, the camera did not somehow become broken or lost or messed up in any way. Not to mention, that battery has the longest life I have ever seen. And, since when did the mic from a camera like that every pick up so well? Realism takes a hike when you need to hear the damned actors.
There are a few good things about the picture - like I said, it entertained me. The most evident positives are the two leads - Michael Stahl-David and Mike Vogel. Why? Because they're hot, hot, hot - that's why. Neither is an exceptionally strong actor, but they can get away with it because they are absolutely adorable. As for the ladies, they don't fare so well. Odette Yustman is beyond awful in her role - she looks and talks just like Jessica Alba, and if any creature decides to attack any part of the United States, my hope would be that he would take Jessica Alba first and foremost, and then go straight for her look alikes. There is also a neat scene reminiscent of "Alien" where the Army guys try and quarantine one of them - need shadow movement. I also enjoyed the scene in the tunnel with the night vision. I've seen it before, but it was still nicely done. It's just so hard for me to totally appreciate the entertainment value of a film that throws logic out the window whenever it is given the opportunity. No one talks the way people would talk, no one acts the way people would act and no one points up to the sky and shouts, "Godzilla! Godzilla!" With a name like "Cloverfield", I was hoping maybe the creature was some sort of giant leprechaun, scouring the city for his missing pot of gold. What the hell does "Cloverfield" even mean? Was it some sort of government experiment, and if it was, why did they enlarge a three toed sloth? Was it an alien? Was it a dinosaur? Some times, questions are better left unanswered. Not this time.
C'est la vie, the first big 'blockbuster' of the year. I will give J.J. Abrams & Company kudos for running one hell of a strong marketing campaign. We'll see if it pays off in the way they hoped. I can't tell you not to see the film because I was entertained and it never bored me. It annoyed me from time to time, but I'd rather be annoyed and entertained than happy and bored. "Cloverfield" takes an overused sub-genre and really adds nothing new to it. What it does add was added back in 1999 with a little film called "The Blair Witch Project". The special effects are well done and the creature was intimidating enough, I suppose. But, really - you could make the creature a three hundred foot tall Shirley Temple and it would still be petrifying. "Cloverfield" does do one thing, however, that many films have never been able to do. It was able to show the world that no matter what happens - no matter what explosions you have to hide from, no matter what wounds you have to bandage, no matter what dirt you have to crawl through - you can still have spotless hands the entire time. "Cloverfield" - the secret is out. It's "Godzilla". You heard me. Raaaaar!
4/10.
|
Nirrad
|
Posted: January 18, 2008 at 10:23am
4/10? Ouch, I'll be catching this later on tonight. I have no expectations for it, so hopefully I'll walk out of the theater happy.
|
Crispy
|
Posted: January 18, 2008 at 10:55am
I didn't read your review for fear of spoilers, but in the last few months I've had a real sinking feeling about this movie. Namely, that it's more fluff and style over making a good monster movie. Judging by your low score, I may not have been right on the mark.
|
Ginose
|
Posted: January 18, 2008 at 1:42pm
Huh. I suppose I'll still go see it. Your opinion has been wrong before (though I almost trust you completely on this one).
|
grain of sand
|
Posted: January 18, 2008 at 7:44pm
this was pretty cool, not exactly what I was expecting though. I'm not let down, definitely should only see this in theatres..
6.8?/10
|
Nirrad
|
Posted: January 18, 2008 at 9:49pm
Just got back from seeing it. I'm not sure what to say. After the first half hour or so I was thinking "lame, lame lame!" But then it finally got entertaining. I would have to say that I pretty much knew what was going to happen during select scenes, which is a shame. I went in with no expectations, and since I sat there and watched the movie, I would say it did it's job. A score between 5-7 would be accurate in my opinion. I also agree with grain of sand. This movie needs to be seen in theaters, as watching this on a DVD would seem lame.
|
Tristan
|
Posted: January 19, 2008 at 12:00am
1-18-08. A date which has been in the back of my and everyone else's mind since early July. It all started with a teaser trailer before the theatrical release of Transformers, in which audiences were given a glimpse of JJ Abrams newest project, a monster movie of colossal proportions. I wish I could lie and say I didn't get swept up in its viral marketing scheme, but my fellow readers, I did just that. I've been following every website and video clip, even up to the last week, when there's been a few almost every day it seems. The one thing I would not do however, is look at interpretations or sketches of the monster. If I'm going to pay to see this movie, I want to be just as surprised as the rest of the audience by its first appearance. So after paying my $9.95 and settling into my seat, I was treated to a disappointing Blair Witch Project meets Godzilla mash up that really didn't do it for me.
Rob Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David) has just been promoted to vice president, and is moving to Japan for work. His brother Jason (Mike Vogel), Jason's girlfriend (Jessica Lucas) and his best friend Hud (T.J. Miller) are throwing him a surprise going away party. Only trouble is, Rob's in love with Beth (Odette Yustman) and after a previous falling out, the two part ways on bad terms. Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, a large explosion and a horrific growl shake the city. The party goers all rush out into the street just in time to see the Statue of Liberty's head come rolling down the sidewalk. Nobody knows what is going on until they see a massive creature moving through the streets, destroying buildings, eating civilians, and generally causing a ruckus. The film follows Rob, Hud and their friends as they are trapped in the city and desperately trying to survive while making their way to the center of Manhattan to rescue Beth who's been trapped in her apartment.
Do you remember how you felt watching Jurassic Park for the first time? You couldn't believe how realistic the dinosaurs looked, and because of this you felt that there really were dinosaurs terrorizing the civilians. This is not - I repeat - NOT the same experience you'll have with Cloverfield. You'll get a few flashes of the monster which are pretty unsatisfying, and when you finally get a good long look at the thing, you're too busy being annoyed with what's happening off camera to fully enjoy it. So we've got a monster movie that focuses more on some annoying characters that decide to bumble around the city instead of hiding underground somewhere.
This is a pretty big movie for newcomer Matt Reeves to kick off his directing debut with. Most directors slip into the field undetected until they release a real masterpiece that gets them recognized for their talents. Reeves' resume consists of a few episodes for some generic television shows. The same can be said for writer Drew Goddard who, aside from a few television shows, hasn't had a lot of experience. He was however, a writer on the hit series Lost, which as most of you know, is one of the best shows currently offered up to our generation. While this movie is frequently compared to the Blair Witch Project, it really doesn't have much in common besides the hand held camera. The shots are very fast, and the movie moves along at an incredible pace. What's truly amazing about this, is the amount of work that must have gone into creating these visual effects while everything is filmed on a hand held camera. I don't know anything about post-production, but I would imagine this was a lot more difficult than simply tossing a CGI monster into a steadicam shot.
The actors, or should I say "people on screen" don't really offer up much emotion or any personality traits with which the audience can connect. Sure, Rob's trying to rescue Beth and his friends stupidly follow along because we all know that in a time of crisis, the best thing to do is run back into the chaos rather than cut your losses. So you've got a romantic angle, the wise-cracking best friend, and the newly de-boyfriended tag along. Not the most original character ideas, and the characters playing them were quite unbelievable.
Overall, this movie was pretty disappointing. After all the viral marketing hoopla, I expected it to be much better than it was, and have a little more meat to it. It will obviously do very well at the box office, but I would imagine it will die down very quickly. If you plan on seeing it, go to the theatre and see it, as that's really the only way it could be watched. When I stop and think about it, I don't know why it's getting such rave reviews, because it really wasn't all that impressive.
7/10.
|
waxtadpole3657
|
Posted: January 19, 2008 at 1:21am
I had a lot of fun at this film. I never expected it to be anything amazing, but the experience was definitely a lot of fun. The creature looked really badass, and the film was actually pretty intense and terrifying at times. I just kinda wished it had ended 10 minutes earlier (surviving a helicopter crash? PUH-LEASE). All in all, it was a lot of fun at the cinemas. Oh, and kudos to the sound guys. 8/10
|
Mr. Mistoffelees
|
Posted: January 19, 2008 at 3:11pm
I have been on the fence about this one but I'm going to see it tonight with the lady. One thing though waxtadpole: some people haven't seen the movie, so writing what happens in the end kind of kills a part of the movie.
|
waxtadpole3657
|
Posted: January 20, 2008 at 1:29am
GOD DAMMIT I'm an IDIOT. I wish we could edit posts so I could put spoilers in my post. >_< Anyone reading this, DON'T read my other post if you haven't seen the movie.
|
Ginose
|
Posted: January 20, 2008 at 1:45am
OMG! You ruined it for me! How could you!? This splinded peice of art would have been ten times more amazing if you hadn't...
...this one was actually pretty boring. Nothing happened that the trailers didn't imply would happen. Not to mention the "realism" of the shaky-cam got nauseating very quick. "The Blair Witch Project" wasn't even that fucking incomprehinsible 92% of the time. The acting wasn't awful or anything but... eh... I could have done with some of them being able to do something other than scream. I did love the effects though, they looked very nice (as was to be expected).
All in all, just more proof that Americans have truly lost the ability to make an amzing giant-monster movie (especially when it had as much potential as this one did).
3.8/10
|
Ginose
|
Posted: January 20, 2008 at 1:48am
OH SHI-!
Typo noted: 5.8/10
|
Edd
|
Posted: January 20, 2008 at 3:22pm
I loved it. Three-toed sloth? What the fuck? It was an evil monster thing. 9/10
|
Nirrad
|
Posted: January 20, 2008 at 8:30pm
This movie is gonna make mad money at the box office. It wade $41 million in just 3 days in theaters. The movie only had a budget of $25million, so I'm pretty sure the studios are extremely happy.
|
Tristan
|
Posted: January 20, 2008 at 8:37pm
That's your 3rd comment in three days. Keep it up and this will be the #1 viewed movie on the site.
I gave it a 7, I wasn't overly impressed, but I wouldn't mind watching it in theatres again. For all it's faults, it had a couple of standout scenes and aspects that are sticking in my mind.
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: January 21, 2008 at 8:01pm
It still looked like a three toed sloth, evil or not.
|
Mr. Mistoffelees
|
Posted: January 22, 2008 at 9:19am
Usually I agree with one of two of the reviewers on this site, namely because I know a decent amount about film but they know more. However, given that I feel the acting was believable, no one made any horribly unintelligent decisions (who wouldn't try to say someone they're in love with?) and the action was well-paced, I have to say I had minor to no complaints about this one. Sorry blue, but I give it a 9/10.
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: January 22, 2008 at 12:11pm
Everyone made believable decisions? The most glaring mistake of all -- when the chopper crashed and they survived -- knowing that the government was about to bomb the shit out of the place, why didn't they go back to the subway? Back underground? Having been to New York, there are several stops adjacent to Central Park, and being New Yorkers themselves, they would have known that. Maybe it wasn't a lack of believability, but a surplus of stupidity.
|
BuryMeAlive
|
Posted: February 11, 2008 at 5:27pm
SPOILERS: I sure have learned one thing this year thanks to this and AVP2 - surviving a helicopter crash is really fucking easy.
|
billie
|
Posted: March 17, 2008 at 9:27pm
why did so many people have such a bad reaction to this amazing movie? and you better not say, "...because it wasn't amazing."
|
|
