Diablo gets the first look at Cloverfield
Hand held cameras meet giant monsters in a post 9/11 Godzilla movie
Pete Crooks
Lady Liberty loses her head in the first blockbuster of 2008
Paramount
In terms of over-hyped scare flick, Cloverfield is closer to The Blair Witch Project than Snakes on a Plane. Cloverfield is produced by JJ Abrams, the wunderkind behind TV’s Lost, a show I still have never seen (All I know is that they’re on an island, there are Others, and viewers are always complaining about how infrequently the new episodes are shown).
Working with director Matt Reeves, Abrams brings his sci-fi creativity to the big screen, albeit with a TV style technique. Here’s the Cloverfield set-up. A bunch of hip and beautiful twenty-something Manhattanites all show up for some guy named Rob’s surprise party. A funny, somewhat oafish friend named Hud is given a video camera to document the party.
Warning to fans of big screen movies shot in cinemascope and those who are prone to motion sickness: The entire movie is shot with a hand held camera, from Hud’s point of view. The technique is familiar to anyone who saw The Blair Witch Project back in 1999.
So, this party goes on, and a few characters are given just the tiniest bit of character development. Rob has taken some great job in Japan and everyone is there to see him off, but Rob is really in love with Beth, who shows up late for the surprise, but with her new boyfriend, a dead ringer for Chachi-era Scott Baio. Beth and Rob have an argument, Rob starts getting drunk, and just when you start to wish that a giant alien creature from the sea would just wipe all these whiny Friends clones off the planet….it does.
There’s a huge boom, and an explosion over lower Manhattan. The party spills out into the streets, which are smoking and shaking and buildings are tumbling and it’s all very reminiscent of the worst day in American history. The post-9.11 tension and actions (skyscrapers toppling, smoke billowing down the streets) is effective, if not a bit callous. When the twin towers fell in 2001, many commented that ithe carnage looked just like a Hollywood blockbuster action film. Well goody-goody, here's the first Hollywood blockbuster that looks just like the hand held footage of September 11.
The rest of the movie is essentially Godzilla bin Laden. Four of the friends try to get out of NYC, videotaping all the way, as a mysterious roaring creature tears apart the city. Abrams and Reeves use some clever multi-media techniques in showing the creature(s)…you’ll see a tail here, a head here, a live newscopter shot of a massive Tyrannosaurus Rancor raising holy hell through midtown.
At this point in my review, you know whether or not Cloverfield is your Friday night movie pick, or if you’d rather schedule that long overdue root canal this Friday. Hats off to Abrams and Reeves for putting an innovative, up-to-date spin on the monster movie—seeing the CGI-monsters in bits and pieces helps quite a bit in making the mosters seem real, and not Jar Jar Binksish. As the film’s action progresses, you get to see more and more creatures, so those who felt cheated by Blair Witch’s “it’s scarier if you never see the witch” technique get to get face to face with the beasties by film’s end. Still, the jiggling camera, and more than one “give me a break” decisions by the main characters extend suspension of disbelief to points of annoyance. The film provides a visceral thrill as the action plays out, but its effect evaporates before you get to the car in the parking lot. That’s a mild recommendation for creature feature fans, and a hint to see Sweeney Todd or No Country For Old Men for everyone else.
Posted at 09:20 AM in Pete's Popcorn Picks | Permalink

Email
Print
del.icio.us
digg
yahoo!
Comments




Reader Comments:
Saw this Saturday. It's kind of bad and silly, but it's bad and silly in very interesting ways.
First of all, this may be a post-9/11 movie, but 9/11 isn't mentioned--at all, which is a fascinating but perplexing choice on the filmmakers part.
You would think that when these Manhattan party guests first hear a big explosion rumblig through their city, their first thought would be, "Are we under attack again?" The guests switch on the news, and the idiot newscasters are speculating that maybe an EARTHQUAKE has struck NYC. Okay, didn't know NYC was in earthquake country, but okay, I'll go with this flow. Right away, there is a moment in the film that confirms what idiots the characters are--and therefore, to me, unsympathic: They hear "earthquake," and they run up to the top of the building to take a look. Okay, they are Manhattanites. So perhaps, unlike Californians, they don't know that when an earthquake strikes you run out of the building, not to the top of it.
Once these idiots FINALLY run out into the street, we get some very stark 9/11 imagery. Smoke, the height of the high rises, comes billowing through the street. A distant tower collapses.
But again: no one raises the question of another terrorist attack. What is up with that?
I'm also interested in how the characters are unsympathetic. Maybe the filmmakers intend them to be. They're hip, self-aware, self-absorbed, and they wear great clothes and have lots of disposable income. One of the main female characters escapes the monster, high-tailing it through dark subway tunnels in gold high-heels, and climbing the tops of a collapsing skyscraper in a VERY short dress. Not a very sensible ensemble for survival mode in times of a national emergency. Couldn't she at least have broken into a sports store and looted a pair of Nike's?
And, yes, there is the love story. Maybe we're supposed to care. The hero is cute, and she's pretty, and shows up at the party in a really cool (short) sequinned dress. Maybe the film's target audience (18-35-year-olds, I assume) will care about these people and identify with their romantic muddles
But then I thought, maybe the movie doesn't really want us to like these people, and is showing them to be superficial ninnies to make a point. Could the filmmakers be that clever? I'm not sure what this point is, but the film shows these people and their world getting destroyed. Is the film saying "Good riddance?" Or, "they had it coming." Or, "we have it coming unless we change our ways."
Hmm, maybe the filmmakers, intentionally or not, are almost siding with those around the world who hate what they view as our decadent, consumer/capitalist life-style.
As for the Godzilla similarities, Godzilla films started out as a Japanese cultural response to post-Hiroshima anxiety. Actually, the very first Godzilla film is a pretty serious meditation (almost Kurosawa-like in its stark black-and-white cinematography) on what human beings and our civilization have lost in entering the Atomic Age.
So, now we have a 21st Godzilla in response to 9/11? The movie was almost gripping until we actually got a view of the monster, and I was disappointed to not see the big giant gloriously cheesy lizard of classic Godzilla films. That was a monster with some personality.
Martha Ross
Associate Editor