Cloverfield... Okay. This movie is two things. The first is a ripping success, the second is a near cinematic scam that doesn't exactly deliver anything in any great amount, accept vomit if you suffer from motion sickness. Cloverfield benefited from the best marketing campaign since Blair Witch. They based it on one question: What the hell is the damn thing? Now before you go to see Cloverfield, I'm going to hit you with some logic that might deter you or might fascinate you. First of all, if you expect answers, this movie is anything but up your alley, you just need to go with it. Secondly, when they say it's comprised of hand held footage, they weren't lying. The movie is constantly shot at odd angles, the film jumps certain segments, occasionally flashing back to a month prior, a day that the tape is recording over. There is also no soundtrack to the film, it's all just eerie sounds and all that jazz. For those of you who have seen Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, probably not many of you, this is not the same. The camera movements in Behind the Mask jostle just enough for you to believe it's hand held but don't overpower the images on the screen. In Cloverfield, half the magic, probably more than half, is how poorly the movie is shot. Is it effect at time? Definitely. Is it gimmicky? You bet your ass. The monster scenes are effective but too meager; J.J. Abrams said "You will see it." in response to whether this would be like Blair Witch. He probably should have said, "You will see it, once or twice. And a handful of times really out of focus." Another thing, for a movie that is really 75 minutes long, the exposition of the movie is far too long. Now there are moments of truly effective suspense and horror, the monster effects are good and the city in ruins looks pretty good to. Some people like to draw parallels to the terrorist attacks, there are one or two similar things, all drawn from the fact it's New York. Yes, it does suck that New York is constantly picked on, but you've got to expect that, its more effective to see the Chrysler building fall apart than some random building in Dallas. Okay, for those who don't want any spoilers, skip the next paragraph.
Okay, if you're reading this you should have already seen the movie. Now, here are a few of my problems with the film. The movie fails to live up to it's potential. The shedding of spiders, is so freaking cool and yet they are only in three scenes... Okay. Design of the monster is cool but we never really see the whole thing clearly, we see it's face a brief profile, I kinda want more. This movie would have benefited from a longer running time, and an R rating. Like Marlene's stomach exploding was cool and gross, but probably should have been followed up fifteen minutes later by actually seeing something. Another thing, one of the big advantages to the hand held camera is that it almost brings reality to a completely ridiculous situation. Now, in a realistic world, don't you think one or two people might be dropping the F bomb, no, I think everyone would be dropping them right an left. But okay. Now, the ending. Does it suck, yeah, but could it have ended any differently, no. The movie's ending is redeemed by two things. One, in the ending sequence with them at Coney Island, you can clearly see the monster in the water. That's cool. Secondly, if you sat through the credits and listened really, really, really friggen carefully you heard something. Then if you're a douche bag like me, you drove home debating what it was and then looked it up. The following words are uttered in deep static. "Help us. It's still alive." That's pretty damn cool. Will there be a sequel? Maybe. If there is I hope it will not attempt to pull of the hand held thing again.
Okay we're back. In the end, Cloverfield is a standard monster film that uses the home camera gimmick to build mystique and be a little different. Personally, I think with such a great concept and creature design, it might have been able to pull of the standard monster film angle. But it decided to be different. Okay. It's defining quality is also it's biggest fault. How many times will I watch it... Maybe once more. I'd suggest you see it, and then decide for yourself.
Okay, if you're reading this you should have already seen the movie. Now, here are a few of my problems with the film. The movie fails to live up to it's potential. The shedding of spiders, is so freaking cool and yet they are only in three scenes... Okay. Design of the monster is cool but we never really see the whole thing clearly, we see it's face a brief profile, I kinda want more. This movie would have benefited from a longer running time, and an R rating. Like Marlene's stomach exploding was cool and gross, but probably should have been followed up fifteen minutes later by actually seeing something. Another thing, one of the big advantages to the hand held camera is that it almost brings reality to a completely ridiculous situation. Now, in a realistic world, don't you think one or two people might be dropping the F bomb, no, I think everyone would be dropping them right an left. But okay. Now, the ending. Does it suck, yeah, but could it have ended any differently, no. The movie's ending is redeemed by two things. One, in the ending sequence with them at Coney Island, you can clearly see the monster in the water. That's cool. Secondly, if you sat through the credits and listened really, really, really friggen carefully you heard something. Then if you're a douche bag like me, you drove home debating what it was and then looked it up. The following words are uttered in deep static. "Help us. It's still alive." That's pretty damn cool. Will there be a sequel? Maybe. If there is I hope it will not attempt to pull of the hand held thing again.
Okay we're back. In the end, Cloverfield is a standard monster film that uses the home camera gimmick to build mystique and be a little different. Personally, I think with such a great concept and creature design, it might have been able to pull of the standard monster film angle. But it decided to be different. Okay. It's defining quality is also it's biggest fault. How many times will I watch it... Maybe once more. I'd suggest you see it, and then decide for yourself.