![]() |
Director : Matt Reeves
Producer : Sherryl Clark, Guy Riedel, J.J. Abrams
Screenwriter : Drew Goddard
Starring Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas, Tj Miller, Michael Stahl-david, Mike Vogel
We should have seen this coming. Team Cloverfield dropped more than enough hints
suggesting they knew what they were doing, from the inspired viral marketing campaign
to the seeds of a deeper mythology planted on message boards. But with hype meters
peaking, cautiously optimistic fanboys willing to entertain the notion that a good movie
could be released in January sharpened swords for a potential backlash.
With apologies to Public Enemy, believe the hype. Cloverfield director Matt Reeves
has created an abnormality, a visceral monster movie that doesn't overly concern
itself with its actual monster. The filmmaker certainly doesn't go out of his way
to show his beast. Not because he doesn't want to, but because he can't. That's not the
movie he decided to tell.
Instead, the Cloverfield collective -- which includes Reeves, producer J.J. Abrams
(Lost), and writer Drew Goddard (Alias) -- focuses on a rescue mission to drive their
skeletal plot. It is conducted by four urban prepsters who begin the evening attending
a harmless surprise party for the affable Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who is leaving
New York the next morning to accept a promotion overseas. But the group eventually
risks life and limb to reach a friend (Odette Yustman) trapped in her apartment after
a reptilian creature emerges without warning from the Hudson River and wrecks havoc
on the Lower East Side.
The experiment is ingenious. The results, though, can be frustrating because Reeves
stays commendably focused on his goal. Where other filmmakers might have been tempted
to cut away from the leads and sneak full-fledged peeks at the creature, Reeves commi
ts to his premise and finds fresh ways to draw familiar conceits (hysterical crowds,
massive explosions, a requisite military presence) into his story.
Cloverfield isn't perfect, and nitpickers will find enough to, well, pick. The film's
narrow-minded approach leaves numerous questions regarding the monster unanswered.
Where did it come from? What happens if you get bit by the creature (or one of its
offspring)? Goddard also attaches too many false endings to the story. Cloverfield is one tight
ending shy of being a modern monster masterpiece.
It's hardly an exaggeration to claim Cloverfield marks a milestone in contemporary
filmmaking, a pinprick that systematically deflates the traditional, overblown, special-effects
extravaganzas we equate with our summer season. Reeves' film appeals directly to
the maturing YouTube generation without pandering. It wisely understands that its primary
audience, weaned on handheld paparazzi footage and reality television, will be far
more impressed by footage they believe they themselves could have captured using
a cell phone than any big-budget effect.
Killer smurfs!
| Write for us |
16th June 2008 10:58
scenile | ||
![]() |
||
| The originating contributor over thinks what films are about, entertainment. The film, with little or not plot, characters that look like the Friends cast trying to do drama and film work that gives good technical effects were ruined in an attempt to do the Blair Witch 'look we can move the camera up and down' approach. Blair Witch had a cult following not massive audience appeal and was in fact a low budget horror film, and was not considered particularly good by the masses except those trendy fools that though a moving camera was really cool (this was done years ago in the UK police series 'The Bill' but was after a couple of series because the audience found it irritating not being able to focus on anything long enough to comprehend it. In the age of internet blogs, mega pixel camera phones and tiny media storage devices the bit that the director misses massively it that across the world the public is also buying huge screens with High Definition resolution so they can see what is going on; jumpy, continually shots make this technology annoyingly useless because you get no chance to focus and actually make some ill. In short limited plot with massive holes, unbelievable characters (why would you keep using your camera with friends and strangers alike being mutilated all around you, you would run for your life, less the professional news cameramen who would make sure the shot was a good one) with over the top personalities, and irritating camera work. Another cult movie 'maybe?' but small impact, insignificant and quickly passed into folklore as the film that was a bit like Blair Witch but cost a lot more with even more undeserved hype. | ||
14th February 2008 01:22
chubbywannabun | ||
![]() |
||
| wow what a lame film. i cant belive i payed £6 to see some hollywood 'actors' prance round with a camcorder!! anyone can do that. me and my friends were all dissapointed. where did the monster come from, it was like they started in the middle of the film. the camera work made me feel sick, there was no real acting in it. bottom line really.... lame, weird, and to top the lot, the worst ending of a film ever!!! they made just the middle of the film, no start or ending. aweful. sorry but it was. | ||
9th February 2008 01:24
camo274 | ||
![]() |
||
| if they do make a 2nd one then they should make it from another persons point of veiw or make the monster attack another big citi | ||
" Excellent "
Rating: PG-13, 2008