I normally reserve my final judgment on movies until the end of the review, but I’m just going to state right now that Cloverfield is definitely worth the trip to the store. The reason I’m telling you this up front is so you know to pop a couple Advil right before you head to the Blockbuster. By the time you get to the store, rent the movie, and return home, the meds should be starting to kick in and you’ll be ready to enjoy the movie. I really liked the movie, but it made my brain hurt in the same way that trying to read a book with small print while riding in a car on a bumpy highway does. Much like the book in the car, the end result may be worth it, but you have to go in knowing that you are going to commit 100% of your attention for the entire length of the film.
The reason I say this is that Cloverfield is going to, from a visual standpoint, seem like what the Godzilla remake would have looked like it if it had swapped cinematographers with The Blair Witch Project. The film is shown through the point of view of the handheld camera of one amateur, who just happens to be documenting his best friends going away party when the monster strikes. Since this lone tape is supposed to be the only surviving footage of the attack, we get no other angles but those which Hud, our cameraman, provides us with. This provides an interesting level of realism by putting the audience right into the first person perspective of the characters. We see only what the characters come across and only learn what they are able to learn about the situation, amidst the chaos. We are given no reason for the attack, no background on the monster, and no updates on what is going on when the monster isn’t on screen.
Cloverfield is a truly unique interpretation of the classic monster movie genre. While the creature is certainly a major part of the film, it doesn’t ever really become a character like Godzilla or King Kong do. A good way to describe the monster’s role is to think of it like a storm, or whatever else is your natural disaster of choice. The monster’s attack is, at its core, just another way to throw characters into a chaotic situation. That doesn’t make this any less successful of a film, though. The film sets out to show how everyday, human characters react to a totally unforeseeable crisis. I appreciate this goal because the creature and destruction special effects are good enough that writer Drew Goddard could have taken the easy way out (by letting the characters turn into faceless clichés out to destroy the monster) and Cloverfield still would have made money.
While the monster is awesome, and the first hand visuals of Manhattan in the throws of a near-apocalyptic nightmare are striking (which may make those that are particularly emotionally affected by reminders of 9/11 feel uneasy), Cloverfield certainly does have some flaws. While Goddard avoided using monster movie clichés for his characters, the plot amongst the characters is fairly predictable and their actions don’t always feel totally authentic. For one, Rob, the guy for whom the going-away party is being thrown, displays this sort of “knight in shining armor” mentality toward Beth, his longtime dream girl who he has recently slept with, only to let the chance of a potential relationship pass because of his impending move. There is only a certain amount of heroism that I can reasonably believe. You escape a burning house, only to realize that your girlfriend is trapped on the roof and you’re going to go up and save her? Why not? You’re going to dive in a swimming pool to save your little brother before a loose power line has a chance to touch the water and kill him? I believe it. But, if you’re telling me that you’re going to walk to the opposite side of Manhattan to try and rescue a girl you’re not even in a relationship with when there’s about an 80% chance that she will already be dead by the time you get there and a giant creature is killing everyone and destroying the city, then back up a foot or so because your nose is growing and I don’t want you to poke my eye out. Also, the persistent comedic relief from our cameraman, Hud, frequently seems out of place as well. I understand the desire to lighten the mood, but a lot of his comments just didn’t seem like things that anyone would say if they were truly in that situation.
With those flaws noted, there is still quite a bit to like. Although the characters actions or lines sometimes seem ridiculous, they really do seem like real people that anyone could meet. By making the characters just regular people, and not scientists or soldiers, we are able to empathize with them in a way that we normally can’t in this genre. I also appreciate the fact that the film doesn’t provide any sort of a quick-fix ending. At the very beginning of the film we are told that the tape was found at the location “previously known as Central Park,” an ominous statement that tips us off to the ultimate result of the attack.
Cloverfield is really just as much “experience” as it is “movie”, and it is definitely worth the price of admission. It’s not every day that you see writers or directors step outside the box, especially in such a traditionally formulaic genre, so when they do, it is important to take note. I stated at the beginning that I recommend checking it out, but just make sure that whoever you’re planning on watching it with isn’t prone to motion sickness before you pop it in your DVD player.
Related posts:
I liked the movie a lot too and I thankfully did not get a headache afterwards like you did. I really liked how you described the few flaws in the film though. Not only were you spot on but you also made me laugh
You cannot deny the sheer badassery that was ‘Cloverfield’.
You’re right about the motion sickness thing, though…