Review: Cloverfield
Filed under: Action, Horror, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, New Releases, Paramount, Theatrical Reviews, New in Theaters
.jpg)
The first 'reality blockbuster' is a winner. Cloverfield is a lean, brisk roller-coaster of a monster movie, buoyed by the lack of story gimmicks and absurd characterizations that weigh down most movies of this ilk, no offense to you personally Mr. Broderick. In the aftermath, it will dawn on you that it's actually quite traditional -- every character has an arc -- but it doesn't feel that way. Nor does it feel like 'found footage', but something in between. Watch the prologue carefully, as our narrator/cameraman, whose point of view we'll share, is trying to make a standard going-away party commemoration tape interesting by sniffing out some sex gossip and self-consciously creating his own drama with a girl who wishes he'd get lost. This guy has filmmaking instincts, and when circumstances change and he becomes a 'character' in a disaster movie, he goes with it. He's not just pointing a camera -- he's making Cloverfield: The Movie. Ten years ago, we would have said 'it's not realistic that this guy would keep the camera rolling,' but those days are long gone.
Again, there's no pretense of reality here -- the 20-something party people who we meet and whose lives are flipped by the arrival of the monster are all as pretty and as vapid as anyone on Laguna Beach and they never become less glamorous as the movie goes on -- no one is caught in need of a snot-rag, ala Blair Witch. Among the main characters are Rob (Michael Stahl-David), the guest of honor at the party who is leaving for a new job in Japan, Beth (Odette Yustman) his ex-girlfriend who he still has feelings for but would only admit it if, say, her life were in mortal danger or something, and Marlena (Lizzy Caplan) whose quiet, wide-eyed demeanor and gruff sarcasm make her a bad candidate for 'Survivor Girl.' As the advertising will tell you, some characters will live and some will die but you never know when and where and one death is so shocking and inexplicable I wish very much that I hadn't already seen it a hundred times in the movie's 'give everything away' advertising.
It has to be said that the monster -- it's never given a name -- is a bit disappointing when seen in full. Apparently having popped out of the sea -- someone suggests at one point that it arose out of an earthquake fault in the ocean floor -- it looks like a demonic bullfrog with elbows as opposed to something exotic enough to be otherworldly or vaguely humanoid like Godzilla or King Kong. In other words, it's lacking in personality. It's not T-shirt-worthy. There's also no getting around its CGI roots -- the more up close and personal the characters get with the beast, the more you can feel the believability and shock draining away. As innovative as the structure of Cloverfield is, at the end of the day the most innovative thing might have been to restrain even more when it comes to money shots, if the only thing that could be produced for this budget was a CGI beastie not unlike many that have gone before. That said, there's a silver lining in that this movie offers more than one monster.
The biggest scares come from a bunch of little scorpion-things that literally drop off the back or the undercarriage of the boss-monster as it shuffles along, busy with knocking over buildings and biting the heads off our precious national landmarks. These smaller things, when cornered or when pissed off, emit a wild, strange sound that has to be heard to be believed and they also contain a venom that, let's just say, can cause irritation for humans who receive it. (Just because the ads give away the store doesn't mean I have to) If anything, they seem like something that crawled out of that bug pit in Peter Jackson's King Kong, and that's a pretty good compliment. Take it from someone who is not usually a fan of little monsters, be they velociraptors or baby Godzillas or other -- these things are creepy. One of the film's best scenes comes when our heroes are attacked by a gaggle of them while trekking across the subway tracks from lower Manhattan to Columbus Circle -- a trip that takes about twenty minutes by foot, apparently!
All in all, Cloverfield is exactly what it should be -- clever enough, new enough, and exciting enough to make you save your doubts and quibbles until after the ride is over and you stumble out of the theater. (Although one quibble I was forced to confront mid-movie was why the filmmakers chose to quote directly from a well-known 9/11 video for one extended shot -- you'll know exactly which one I'm referring to when you see it. It's somewhat off-putting.) Director Matt Reeves -- I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that it's still safe to give credit to directors these days, instead of just the mega-name producers who back the project and lend it their starpower -- shows himself with this film to be very adroit at taking a high-concept (for the action-horror genre) idea and spinning it into an adventure-packed film with a bare minimum of fat on the bone. Whatever Reeves does next will be looked forward to and watched carefully by me.









Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
1-18-2008 @ 1:19AM
Joe V said...
Wow, the "shocking and inexplicable" death would have remained shocking and inexplicable to me if you hadn't told us outright that we saw it in the trailer. Thanks a lot.
This isn't the first time you guys have played fast and loose with major spoilers, sans warning. Guess what AOL subsidiary just got removed from my bookmarks!
Reply
1-18-2008 @ 2:01AM
Anon said...
Uhmmm weird movie... Still don't know what the heck that monster was but it was interestingly shot and very short. I dn't recoomend this movie to anyone who is into knowing everything about a plot.
Reply
1-18-2008 @ 2:16AM
JBob said...
Joe V, what the heck is wrong with you? i HATE spoilers! so you know what? i dont read reviews of movies i plan on seeing, i dont even watch commercials for them.
and especially for something like this where its in the advertising, you're just being ridiculous. stop whining.
Reply
1-18-2008 @ 2:53AM
Robert said...
I just saw the movie, and not having seen any commercials, every death was a surprise. I saw the trailer during transformers, and I vowed to never watch a commercial or a trailer for the movie. I love being surprised during a movie, and I feel that's the only way to go.
Reply
1-18-2008 @ 5:22AM
Marc said...
Ok This Movie Was Wack!!!! Im Not saying its bad But Its not All tht Great Too. All Ino Is That i Hope When it Comes Out On DVD They Put A Lil Something Extra On it! I give a 7 outa 10
Reply
1-18-2008 @ 7:14AM
Doogs said...
Marc...
Spelling. Syntax. Sentence structure. For the love of God, please.
Reply
1-18-2008 @ 8:49AM
Greg said...
I personally left the movie feeling like the film was kind of incomplete. Obviously "Cloverfield" was not about the monster at all, but i couldnt help but want more story on it. However, that to say i was not dissapointed.
I also must want to make a conjecture here and see if anyone else backs my sentiments. I feel as though there is a good possibility that the movie had an "incompleteness" to it on purpose. It seems totally in line with the advertising as well as Abrams goal of making a Godzilla type franchise in the US. All of the advertising was viral because it gave you just enough to go "what is this?" and then shrunk back. The film told a complete tale (our heroic team of friends), contained within, what i felt, was an incomplete tale (the monster and its background). So this led me to start thinking that perhaps the movie was built in such a way to give us enough to be satisfied with our first experience of "Cloverfield", but simultaneously whet out appetite for more of it.
Now, im not suggesting that there might be another film that picks up where this one left off, that just seems absurd, but rather another telling of an entirely different story from another perspective of the happenings.
As i thought about this i remembered much of the pieces of Abrams online viral puzzle that i had read about in some free time at work one day (thanks to links on cinematical), and began to think that much of those pieces, although available, were still not in place. I also remember hearing that Abrams suggested to fans that maybe those viral sites had to do with other projects of his, and werent guaranteed to be cloverfield related. However, after seeing the film, some of the "deep-pacific" references on the sites seem to be countered by the conjecture from a character in the movie that "maybe it came from a volcanic trench in the pacific."
I know im reading a lot in here, and maybe its just my inquisitive nature to feel owed more information on the events that fictitiously took place in NY in the movie. But the more i think about it, the more it just makes sense. I think Abrams (and hopefully Reeves) have themselves the beginnings of a very lucrative movie franchise. Anyone else share my sentiments?
ps. i dont claim to have kept up with everything, so maybe he already admitted this, or maybe im missing other information, but i still thought it worthwhile to throw out there.
Reply
1-18-2008 @ 10:52AM
Jim Terr said...
on a smaller scale...
Eclectic filmmaker passes 100,000 YouTube mark
Santa Fe, NM documentary and short-film maker Jim Terr has racked up over 100,000 views of his videos on YouTube.com, and has posted a video called "A Hundred Thousand YouTube Views" to tout that accomplishment.
While there are individual videos on YouTube which have gained millions of views, Terr is proud to have built his viewership by posting a wide variety of videos -- 62 to date -- beginning 16 months ago with a video called "Santa Fe Stops," showing vehicles speeding through a Santa Fe stop sign.
Terr videos produced as far back as 1992 are included on his YouTube "channel."
The "Hundred Thousand" video features a hot boogie-woogie piano background track by former Santa Fe resident Clay Cotton, now stricken with Multiple Sclerosis. Terr hopes that exposure of the new video will increase CD sales for Cotton, and says he never tired of Cotton's piano playing in the hundreds of times he heard it while editing. "In fact, it got better and better."
37 of Terr's shorts - including previews of two forthcoming videos -- are excerpted for the "Hundred Thousand" collection, ranging from actor and comedy sketches, political satire and commentary, crafts and trades, documentary excerpts, proposed feature film "trailers," advertising parodies, local cultural events and restaurant visits, interviews, live performance excerpts and musician portraits.
Little sound was included on the music clips excerpted in the new video, however, due to clashes with the background piano track. In fact, Terr's most-viewed video, "One Year Old Child Prodigy Piano Genius" , with over 50,000 views, was not even included in the new collection.
Such celebrities as authors Tony Hillerman and Douglas Preston, humorist Dave Barry, actor Kevin Pollak and NPR broadcaster Scott Simon are included in the videos, as well as stills of and references to President Bush, Valerie Plame Wilson and others.
Videos added to Terr's YouTube repertoire in the past week alone include "J.Lo, MD" , "Jimbug: Folk Artist" , "A Hundred Thousand YouTube Views" , "Author Douglas Preston discusses his novel, BLASPHEMY" , "My Dad, the Republican" , and "Jim Terr interview re Santa Fe Farmers Market video ".
In the latter piece , Terr admits that the production of short videos has gotten to be a bit of an obsession, but he credits and thanks YouTube for making it so easy for videomakers to post and to find videos. Terr has mostly not taken advantage of other video-posting sites thus far.
He has also posted the Santa Fe-related videos on his own www.SantaFeShorts.com site, which links to the YouTube videos.
# # #
Reply
1-18-2008 @ 11:13AM
Porcalina said...
What was this well know 9/11 video quote? I must have missed it.
Reply
1-18-2008 @ 3:41PM
zeoman said...
The dust cloud.
I thought this was a little masterpiece. Less monster money shots would have been better but that at least they didn't give some epilogue as to the fates.I love a whole stream of experience, unsolved, type movie.They obviously did wrap a lot up so conventional viewers wouldn't be pissed but it was a good balance. SPOILER ALERT: the big monster reminded me of the hybrid baby from Alien 4 and the spiders-things in the subway ceiling was right out of Aliens. The Brooklin bridge scene looked like bought un-used CG footage from I AM LEGEND. Mucho fun though and judging from the 12midnight crowd of 800 at the Big Newport in Newport Beach this thing is gonna make bank. Bring on the other secret government footage(how come it's secret? habit..) because in this movie's world, short of a nuke ,this thing is probably skull F**king Mount Rushmore by now.
Reply
1-18-2008 @ 8:10PM
buck said...
i havent seen the movie (plan to tomorrow though) but ive seen a lot of stuff about them not giving a complete background of the monster. but think about it for a sec. were supposed to be in the point of view of someone whos in the city. they dont know what the monster is or where it came from or why its here. the whole point is to make u feel like youre part of this group, meaning u dont know what the monster is or where it came from or why its there. reeves wanted to make u feel like ur there and make u part of the experience, so it makes sense that they dont tell u everything about the monster and focus the story on the group (from what ive read, that seems to be what happens) because if you know, then its not nearly as exciting or suspenseful
Reply
1-18-2008 @ 9:03PM
FutureColumnist said...
First, what the hell is that Jim Terr thing? Maybe it's for a good cause, Jim, but way to spam something completely unrelated.
Anyway, I just saw this, and I absolutely love it. Any complaint of non-realism (in CG in this review, or in characters in many other reviews) is nit-picky, in my opinion. Sure, we want to find flaws in movies to some extent (and Ryan's CG comment IS true), but I think this movie is best thought of as exactly the concept is: some guy video taped this crazy event. The entire thing was very human, I think (not the monster that is, but the film itself), and very roller-coaster-like. I felt with the characters, and got hurt with the characters, and so on and so forth.
Personally, I only saw the two main trailers (original untitled one, and "Case Cloverfield; My name is Robert Hawkins and you probably know more than I do") and just the one poster of the Statue of Liberty with her head off, and I'm glad for it. I refused to read reviews or look further into the movie, because it was supposed to be an EXPERIENCE, something we don't know about, etc. In that same vein, I will enjoy any sequel (only of the same-night-different-people variety) but not quite as much as this; we know more now than before, thus, we aren't able to be quite as shocked.
Unless the monster (WHY IS IT UNNAMED?! Well, I know why, but I want to be able to call it something other than "the monster") has an sibling that erupts out of the sea that is somehow different. I'm kidding, of course.
FANTASTIC movie.
Reply
1-18-2008 @ 9:52PM
Klaatu01 said...
Okay, I liked "Cloverfield" but it was totally like a Documentary movie, not a straight-out horror flick. The PG-13 rating is okay in this instance, there is still some original content (IMHO) and more than a handful of scenes worth watching. It will probably NOT knock you out of your seat, but as far as being a semi-realistic portrayal of what an attack by a giant monster might be, its good.
If you go to Cloverfield looking for all the polished Hollywood values, scene cuts and background music score, you may be disappointed. If you saw "The Mist" and found parts of it enjoyable (or enjoyed the whole thing), then Cloverfield will probably be cool too!
The sound effects and battle scenes in Cloverfield are pretty good. The many questions "answered" by the movie are greatly out-numbered by "unanswered ones", so don't go to it looking for a "complete" story or one with closure. I mean, we find out the fates of all the principal characters, but there are many, many tangental characters (incidental characters) that get swept away in the crowd.
If you were confused by the "machine pod" dropping through the machine in "Contact" then it is likely you will enjoy Cloverfield less than a Dawn of the Dead movie. As with many, many truly good films you have to totally disconnect yourself from the hum-drum of everyday and use a little imagination to place yourself IN the story.
So, on a scale of one-to-ten:
My wife Suzy gives a five.
I give a six to seven (with a little credit for "solid" fake amateur camera work - cause you KNOW it is not "real" as-it-happened footage).
Have a good weekend! Ignore the "crappy" reviews posted by the unwashed masses and rest assured the creature DOES NOT look like it has a "camel head" (as my wife read in one review yesterday evening).
Reply
1-18-2008 @ 10:15PM
Hated It... said...
Okay, I was extremely disappointed with Cloverfield. I thought the way of filming would be clever, but it was just hard to see what was going on. Also, the monster was un-realistic looking, and the ending was just terrible. Don't see the movie if want to leave the theater not wanting to kick someone's face in.
Reply
1-18-2008 @ 11:03PM
Derek Cyran said...
i for one loved this movie, it was great, everything was planned out perfectly......except for the ending that is.....
i mean in the beginning, it had that whole u know, gov't thing before it started, like central park had a codename n everything like people from the "present" or near future had it.. but i thought at the end they should have explained it more....like what happened, unless theres a sequel......there better be
Reply
1-18-2008 @ 11:55PM
Robert said...
okay, this was by far, THE WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN, no answers, terrible quality, just an overall bad movie, so bad that some1 actually threw up after the movie in the theature lol, I felt like the monster was something out of the video game Resistance: Fall of Man, a lot of new movies have been bad, all out of ideas i guess, anwayz, do not see this movie, TERRIBLE!
Reply
1-19-2008 @ 12:13AM
mezzanine said...
Disappointing movie, but still worth seeing. Very bleak. I've puked things more creative and scary than the monster, giant monster movies that use tiny monsters are cheating, and there were too many unanswered questions. Now you have to see the sequel (which will probably be terrible) to understand the monster's lice problem, why that one chick exploded, and how the tape was found.
Reply
1-19-2008 @ 12:21AM
m33k said...
Shaky Cam.
While I just got done watching the hyped up movie “Cloverfield” and got to say it was really different. In this film they decided to let you watch through a video camera that shakes all the time, but I got to say that it gave my eyes a work out. I mean I was sitting where I would be able to see the whole screen right in front of me and only the screen. My eyes were just moving all over the place trying to stay with “Hud” the camera man. So yeah it sure was different.
It’s the Godzilla for the US, while that’s what it seems like. There is no story on what the hell the thing is, but Hud has some ideas of his own. So you will have to make up your own theories on what the thing is and how it came to be. I’m sure there is a lot of post’s out there on the web that tell what it is or what they think. It’s a big monster looking thing that spawns off little freakin’ creature’s, it kinda reminds me of a creature from Resident Evil or some game like that. NO….now that I think about it, it resembles something from Halo3. More like a big Infection Form & Carrier Form and probably Pure Forms too. I don’t know the thing is weird looking. What is Cloverfield? Who knows what this thing is. Maybe it’s from the deep sea, maybe it’s from space and the beginning of a Halo Movie. Haha I don’t know. Can you tell me what it is.
In the end it just ended with no ending and I was disappointed but in a way I am satisfied. It was a good film and I would watch the sequel if any, because they did kinda leave it incomplete.
Relax. I’d rather not piss this thing off. – The Master Chief
P.S. I guess some of you already posted some of the things i think. Bummer, guess i dont know anything then.
Reply
1-19-2008 @ 1:27AM
NukeAssault said...
Might see it tomorrow. Glad to hear its not horrible. XD
Reply
1-19-2008 @ 2:43AM
Greg McDaniel said...
"while trekking across the subway tracks from lower Manhattan to Columbus Circle -- a trip that takes about twenty minutes by foot, apparently!"
*SPOILER ALERT*
Dont really know what you're talking about here, they never made it to columbus circle, at least not on that trip. They got stopped by the military, remember?
Reply