Cloverfield

Cloverfield
CLOVERFIELD (15)

WARNING HERE BE SPOILERS!!!!! (small gap for you to consider not reading if you ain't seen it) Ready? OK Review- The Plot: Rob Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David) is having a going away party as he is moving to Japan to work for some company, in the midst of this party... something happens. The statue of liberty's head is thrown through the city amongst explosions and destruction... something is here! So What's the deal: Back in July 2007 before the Transformers movie, there was a teaser trailer that for once in this world of spoiler-happy people didn't give away the ending to the movie but teased audiences with a party being disrupted by the Statue of Liberty's head being thrown through the air etc... people were baffled, and as most people do scrambled to find out everything that happens in the film and the ending etc and spoil it for themselves whilst some just wanted to know what it was, and finally here we are with Cloverfield, the brainchild of uber-producer JJ Abrams (Alias, Mission Impossible III and Lost) and director Matt Reeves. A monster movie filmed on a camcorder, Godzilla for the Myspace and Youtube generation. So is it any good is the question on your lips?: Just ever so hugely, yes. It is a innovative, clever and scary film that takes a well-worn genre and gives it a new spin and a new scary subtext (post 9/11). The Good Points: - The camcorder approach works wonders, it hurls you into the action so rather than watching the action you're in it... and it's intense - The cast are mainly unknowns which works too as you're watching real people dodge disaster rather than watching Tom Cruise and Ricky Gervais being eaten (no matter how fun that would be) - The direction is brilliant, like with Blair Witch (though it's rubbish) and Open Water, the direction makes it seem like something that actually happened, despite it all being staged and filmed - The creature is largely concealed for most of the running time bar a final reveal, and the glimpses given are both scary and tense - The tunnel sequence in the train station is a very intense sequence, which is both tense, creepy and finally extremly scary - Though the usual camera dizziness can make you nauseous, it works because you're left shaken and disturbed, which is exactly the point The Bad Points - Certain moments were done in other movies (rats in 28 Days Later, night vision in The Descent), which sometimes robs the movie of its originality - Some things are never explained enough, which whilst effective robs you of realising why someone exploded after being bitten etc... - These bad points are actually good points, because things like the final message after the credits, whilst undecipherable without the net, is quite teasing and clever if frustrating Overall: A intense, disturbing and brilliant film which whilst never too original is breathtaking and fantastic throughout and is well worth your time... **** 1/2

spoilers. I can't invisiotext because talking about the film is to spoil it. Please, please, please do not read this until you've seen the film.> People go to the cinema for one of two reasons. We either want to be whisked away for two hours, to a place or story that bears no passing resemblance to their own world, or reality, and to escape. Or, alternatively we want to discover a film that represents a reality different to our own, but nevertheless represents a realistic portrayal of events or emotions that somehow inform our own world. Cloverfield is what happens when these two styles of filmmaking come crashing together. What is essentially a monster movie is filmed as an uber-realistic documentary footage that never lets up. From the opening information we are informed that the following footage has been found in US Area 447, area formerly known as Central Park. The codename for the footage is 'Cloverfield' (which answers any confusion as to why that title), and the footage is basically the entire contents of the video cassette. People have questioned why the military are interested in a party. They're not - the tape is unedited, unaltered. It is simply the tape, as found, put in a player and somebody pushed play. The intermittent 'flashbacks' are the previous recording, recorded over with the events of May 22, showing as the inexperienced cameraman presses stop, and messes with the camera. To address a few complaints I've read first of all. People have complained that we don't care about the socialite characters - I disagree. Just because they're richer than us, doesn't mean we don't care. Anyway, had they been 'common' New Yorkers, how would they have what is clearly a high quality camera? It has night vision and is seemingly indestructible (a minor quibble), so this belongs to someone with money. Others have questioned the logic of the characters' actions, running back towards a monster to save someone. People perform amazing feats during stressful situations, and people will do daft things for love. Beth was the love of Rob's life, and to leave her would be tantamount to leaving a part of himself. The motivations of the friends was to simply be there for their friend. Rob was Hud's 'main man', Milena was simply caught up and had no one else to go to, and the other girl - Jason's girlfriend - whose name I forget had just lost her boyfriend and felt she had to do something to anaesthetise herself against what had just happened. Others have complained about the wisecracking, which I see as perfectly logical gallows humour. It's something I'd be tempted to do in those circumstances - a self-defence against an inexplicable event. Finally, others have complained that heavily wounded people seem to have superhuman strength. I'm sure there have been reports of people performing superhuman feats under intense stress - the human body is an amazing thing. If the motivation is right and intense enough, we can do much more than that for which we give ourselves credit. I defend this complaints not as a justification, but because I genuinely didn't see any of these things as faults, but as part and parcel of what could conceivably happen in an inconceivable situation. People have said 'except for the camerawork....' and then listed one or more of the above complaints. One cannot underestimate the power of that camerawork. It is this device, done here in a completely different way to the oft-compared The Blair Witch Project, that raises this film from the potentially frankly dull, to the brilliant. We are not watching the action, we are in the action, experiencing it with these characters. In Lord of the Rings, the armour, weapons, and so forth were artificially 'aged', so as to give the impression of much use, despite being 'brand new'. (Something that was distinctly lacking from other fantasy films such as Eragon, that made everything seem too new.) With CGI today, there is a tendency for everything to look very new and sparkling, even when it shouldn't. What Cloverfield does is to hide the CGI by shooting it in this way, and in doing so artificially 'ages' it, by placing it behind this grainy lens, making it seem as embedded as the rest of the city locations. This makes the entire film seem intensely real, despite being ridiculously unreal. Let me make this impeccably clear - this is not a deep film. It is micrometer film - it wears its heart plainly on its sleeve. What you see is what you get. But what you see is filtered through this hyper-reality and makes for an intense cinema experience unlike anything I've experienced. It feeds on the audience's knowledge of similar genres to fill in the blanks, as it were. We don't need to know where the monster is from - and to do so would detract from the overall impact. We don't need to know what happened to Milena - we've seen similar sorts of things so often, to have it all explained would cheapen the whole. I haven't seen any of the viral marketing, except the Slusho company name and that the monster supposedly came from some deep trench, as Hud hypothesises in the tunnels. You don't need to see it either - in fact, seeing it 'pure' is arguably a far more rewarding experience. So, where The Blair Witch Project failed as a cinematic outing, but worked perfectly on the small, intimate, screen, Cloverfield deserves to be seen on the big screen. It's not new, but it is a vitally new way of looking at something, and in giving us the action in this way creates a newness that is like a breath of fresh air. It's not the grea-*test*-('") film of the year. The party at the start does go on a bit too long, but that does mean that everytime a big boomy dance track comes on you do wonder if 'it's started'. It also allows you to get to know the characters. That being said, it could have been trimmed a bit. This is not a film that you can overanalyse. It does not have themes for eternity. But then, it never pretended to be anything more than it is - well, except for the big marketing campaign, that is. The marketing campaign, while effective in getting numbers to see the film, kind of ruined the intimacy the film should have - made it bigger than it is. Which is not to belittle the film - just the overall impression is of a massive blockbuster, when it should be viewed as a smaller, but infinitely more effective film. The Acting - 6/10 - Well, to be honest, the acting is the weak link. They're all stereotypes. You can have interesting socialites, I'm sure. The Look - 10/10 - OK, the film doesn't look 'superb' in the Ridley Scott/Coen Brothers sort of way, but it is intensely effective - motion sickness aside. The Sound - 10/10 - For another film without music, the sound is wonderful. The cinema trembled with the footfalls of the creature - every skitter, clunk, screaming building, falling masonry, primordial roar, was perfectly realised. Special mention to Michael Giacchino's Cloverfield Overture - 'Roar!', which plays over the closing credits. Reminiscent of Japanese Godzilla movies, it's great fun to listen to, and makes the wait for the underwhelming final sound clip much more enjoyable. The Story - 6/10 - The story itself is fairly unremarkable. This film excels at how the story is being told, not the story itself. Success of Intent - 8/10 - A truly excellent film, and as previously remarked, a breath of fresh air. Overall - 40/50, or: 80%

I absolutely adored this! What a relief to take a jaded genre and turn it into something fresh. I went in not knowing anything and I have to say, I came out exactly the same way! It's been a while since I've been impressed so much by anything on screen and all I can say is wow! Cloverfield gets a very solid 4/5 from me.

Ripped straight from the thread over on Empire, my thoughts on this film. Some Spoilers I loved it, genuinely loved it. A completely thrilling experience, and I think experience is the operative word here. I have read some reviews that say it has scenes of great predictability, or moan about the lack of story, real world context or character arcs, but to do is to miss the point entirely. It's like complaining that Singin' In The Rain doesn't delve into the human psyche as much as Vertigo or Raging Bull, or Toy Story doesn't make enough use of cultural metaphors and social commentaries. If it has moments that can be predicted, then so does just practically every fim ever made, from bona fide matsrepieces to the cinematic dregs. Cloverfield's sole agenda is to throw the viewer right into the middle of an unbelievable situation and at the same time make it unnervingly possible. With, for the most part, just glimpses of the beast, it's the whole-scale devastation, the jarring sounds of destruction, the obvious fear and panic of those involved (I thought all 6 main players played their parts brilliantly, the looks of anxious terror and weary eyed wonderment could have been taken straight out of a newsreel. The language also seemed, well real, probably how I'd react in such an event) that create a sense of honesty in this strange situation. And I also did feel for the characters, probably because I felt like I was one of the characters, learning and seeing things as they did, feeling sorry when each time one of the gang was lost - the second and third deaths were particularly depressing. The film is claustrophobically vast, playing merry with your nerves. Is it the best film so far this year? Well, no. Break it down into all it' parts and flaws can be found, perhaps not in the execution but in the style of film. Pristine cinematography, well crafted dialogue, sweeping scores etc, this film has to forego them in order to seem real, and on some level that is a drawback. But it wins by grabbing the viewer, thrusting then into New York and giving them one of the thrills of their lives, with scene after scene of heart pounding, sweaty-palmed, edge-of-the-seat tension and suspense (The Statute Of Liberty's head, the Brooklyn Bridge, the electronics store footage, the full scale army assault, the subway attack, the towerblock rescue, "She's been bitten!") and even the slower, more reflective moments are unnverving, played wonderfully, but always with dread in the background. It refuses to let go in a way that many films, indeed many better, more accomplished films, just can't. Actually, Empire have said all that better than me - "But unmissable cinema does not have to be about mellifluous dialogue, intricate framing or enriching the mind or soul. It can just as legitimately come from a sensory experience like no other, that you can feel nowhere else but in that dark room in front of that silver screen" It gets 5/5 and is in my top 3 of the year so far. I can't wait to see it again.

View Full Version: Cloverfield