Cloverfield

I saw Cloverfield yesterday afternoon, early enough so I could avoid a theater filled with douchebags. I understand that this was a good thing, because people I know who saw it at night with the aforementioned douchebags were so annoyed by them, and so pulled out of the movie by them, it seriously fucked with their ability to enjoy the film.

If you haven't seen it, I recommend it. I gave it 3 out of 5, but only because the first-person shaky camera stuff made me violently seasick, causing me to look away from the screen more frequently than I did with Blair Witch (a movie, by the way, that I enjoyed as much as "meh" can be enjoyed, and which doesn't deserve to be compared to Cloverfield, IMHO.) On story and effectiveness, I give it a 4.6 out of 5but the camera stuff really messed with me, and I suspect it will mess with other viewers, as well.

Assume there will be spoilers in comments, because I'm starting the comments off with my extended commentary on the film, which you should not read if you haven't seen it yet.

The Bad Astronomer (who I owned in a Techonobabbloff yesterday) has some nitpicks and a review that I agreed with pretty much all the way, too.

Comments

[Wil]

I didn't participate in any of the viral marketing for this movie. In fact, based on the teaser trailer, I wasn't interested in seeing it at all. But when I read that it was a monster movie that would do for Americans and 9/11 what Gojira did for Japanese and the bombings of Hiroshmia and Nagasaki, my interest was piqued. I thought that this movie had the potential to be more than just another monster movie, and I took the extraordinary (for me) step of seeing it in the afternoon on opening day.

I was more powerfully affected by this film than I expected going in. There were moments that truly terrified me, moments that made me very uncomfortable, and it stayed with me long after the theater emptied out. That's the hallmark of a good film, in my humble opinion.

The criticism I've read seems to come from people who were pissed that it wasn't nicely tied up at the end, expected something very different based on the ARG, or were so put off by the photography, it prevented them from fully immersing themselves in the film.

I was very satisfied by the plot -- including the ending, which would have pissed me off if it had been any different -- and I found the characters to be entirely believable people I could encounter in my own life. The monster and its screeching parasite crawling things scared the absolute living mother fucking shit out of me, and the only thing creature-related that disappointed me was the close-up look at the end. Nothing those filmmakers can model is going to be as scary as what my imagination pieces together from the quick glimpses we got, and I wish they'd just left it with what we'd seen up to that point.

I loved the non-traditional filmmaking, absence of soundtrack, and verite feel of the whole thing, and though the camera work made me dizzy and seasick, I don't think it would have worked any other way. By not ever getting a chance to step away from these people (other than the quick flashes to The Best Day, Ever, which were heartbreaking for me) we're just as terrified and confused and uncertain as they are. I felt like the filmmakers ruthlessly combined limited third person narrative with second person narrative. If they'd added the Dr. Ian Malcom scene to the film, it would have pissed me off, because it would have felt like a cheat. I understand that a lot of people who didn't like the film point to that lack of exposition as a cause of their dissatisfaction, but I couldn't disagree more.

When Rob's brother died on the bridge, it was fast and brutal and unexpected. They didn't have time to stop and grieve, because they had to run for their lives. That felt authentic to me. When Marlena started bleeding from her eyes and apparently blew up from being bitten, and none of them -- and none of us -- found out exactly what was going on, it felt authentic to me. If thee filmmakers had handled either of those events differently, it would have felt like a cheat, and it would have pissed me off.

In fact, the only real cheat I felt they pulled off was when they eventually rescued Beth. I don't know much about engineering, but I'm pretty sure that building wouldn't have been able to lean to one side like that without collapsing. It was also pretty convenient that those guys were able to walk all the way from Spring to 59th and then up 60 flights of stairs after a night of drinking at a party, but by that point in the movie, I was willing to suspend my disbelief because it hadn't asked me to do it until then.

Having said all that, here's the bottom line for me: this movie isn't about a monster. It's not about Slusho. It's not about clever explaination and government conspiracies and happy endings where everything is eventually going to be okay. It's about these people who are living through the worst nightmare imaginable. It's about a guy who wants to be with the girl he loves, and what he goes through to make that happen. It's about not knowing what the fuck is happening, and being completely powerless to do anything about it, except try (and hope) to survive. Those elements worked for me, and made it a very scary, unsettling, but ultimately enjoyable experience that's stayed with me 24 hours after I left the theater.

About the elephant in the room: It was impossible for me to watch this movie without thinking about 9/11, and that made it more powerful for me than it would have been otherwise. When the heroes ducked into that store while the dust plume from the collapsing building blew up the street, I got as close to a 9/11 flashback as I think I'm capable of having, and it created an emotional reference point for the rest of the movie. I'm one of those people who has been screeched at by the Bushies since 9/12, so I'm [i]very[/i] sensitive about anything involving or referencing 9/11, and I don't take it as lightly as the authoritarians who exploit it in an effort to keep us afraid and consolidate power. Though I live in Los Angeles, that day was an exhausting, terrifying, and traumatic event for me. I'm one degree of several people who died that day, so it's a pretty personal thing for me, too. Cloverfield put me back in touch with some emotional memories that I haven't accessed in six and a half years, and while I know there are a lot of cynics who will scoff at that, there it is.

I hope they don't do any sequels. I hope they'll continue with the ARG and maybe show a few glimpses of what was happening for other people in NYC on that night, but I don't want to see this become a franchise.

I am, however, excited to see how other filmmakers respond to this movie, because I think it's flipped the monster genre on its head, and redefined what a scary movie can be.

[Liz]

I haven't seen it, though I saw the trailer. The shaky camera work made me dizzy in the trailer and though I understand why it was used, I don't think I could sit through a whole movie of that kind of thing.

I did get a review from someone who has seen it. He hated it. We live in NY and we've worked in the city and, apparently, it was so inaccurate. The Chrysler Building is too far from the Empire State Building. They walk across the Brooklyn Bridge when, considering where they are, they wouldn't even be near it. He also mentioned what you said, characters walking from lower Manhattan to Columbus Circle a bit too quickly. So, that really turned him off. If you're going to do a movie about Manhattan, at least get the locations right.

[grrbear]

I thought the film mostly fulfilled the promise that Blair Witch showed, although too much time was spent at the party in the beginning. I really liked that they used fresh faces - I didn't recognize anybody in the film - and I loved how frustrated I got when Hud would show us just enough to get us excited, and then moved away. Dude! Pan back to the left - I almost saw the thing!

The audience I saw the movie with was as transfixed as I was - a couple people left, probably to recover from nausea, but I guess my years of playing FPS games made me immune to that. The success of Cloverfield has gotten me really excited about George Romero's Diary of the Dead, which promises to be more of the same, but with zombies. Woo-hoo, zombies!

[Jessika]

I'm interested in seeing it, but glad so many people have talked about the motion sickness. Ever since I was pregnant 2 years ago, I get motion sickness with FPS games and sometimes with parts of movies. So I'd definitely get sick with this one, but at least I can prepare with meds or some ginger (I've read that can help).

[ColleenS]

Thanks for the spoiler warning Wil. I have not watched it yet but intend to. Question, would it best not to eat or drink before watching this movie? I am not sure how badly the jerky camera moves will affect me.
Proud owner of 89/300 Hardcover

[lunarobverse]

I'm not a native New Yorker, but last time I was in Manhattan (a year ago) I walked from Penn Station down to City Hall, then back to Times Square, and back again in just a few hours. And I was sight-seeing. I don't think the time frames in the movie are unrealistic. That's just my take.

I saw the film and I was amazed, scared... everything. I liked the simple, straightforward, almost cliched story, and the characters were likeable. I deliberately avoided information about the story before going to see it so that I could experience it "clean", as it were, and after seeing it, I'm glad I did that.

There were some teens in the audience with me that were loudly disappointed with the ending, but, like Wil, I would have been upset if it had gone any other way. It just seemed "right" to me.

[Chaoss]

I'm an idiot, admittedly, so what does "ARG" mean?

Thank you.

[Wil]

ARG = Alternate Reality Game.

[jay b]

I thought I was ready to watch a 9/11 movie. I wasn't.

Note: if you're in New York and the monsters/aliens/terrorists strike, go North. The baddies and the creepy-crawlies never go north of 125th St. So get to Broadway and head uptown. Don't slow down in Harlem, cross Washington Heights, keep going through Inwood. The Henry Hudson Bridge connects the northern tip of Manhattan with the leafy Southwest of the Bronx, at a neighborhood called Spuyten Duyvel. On a list of the most attractive targets in the city, that one is way at the bottom.

[plasticle]

I would like to add that although everything is from a single point of view, and it seems nonstop, the 75 minutes of movie is actually about 7 hours real time (it takes place from about midnight to 7 am), so they don't necessarily travel that quickly from place to place. you know, if were following movie logic. IMO, this movie is the new definition of the genre, utterly fantastic, despite some flaws, though no movie is without its flaws.

[MatildaZQ]

Yours is the second review I've enjoyed hundreds of times more than I enjoyed the movie. I found the characters and story so completely unengaging that I couldn't ignore every sloppy, implausible plot point (and there are dozens; I'm a huge onster movie fan, and I'm willing to forgive a lot, but you've got to give me something).The spousal unit liked it well enough, though. For me, the highlight, by far, was the Ironman trailer.

[HokieSeas]

I saw Cloverfield this afternoon and I really enjoyed it. Like Wil, I liked the lack of explanation. I liked the lack of a completely resolved ending.

As I have sat and thought about it the few hours later, and to me its like a haunted house. You never see everything, its always dark, you see things in glimpses and in passing, and that to me, ups the tension and ups the thrill. I think too many monster and horror movies in the last few years have sucked because they show you everything, and leave nothing to the imagination. Seriously, what is more scarier. Sitting in a dark house alone and hearing noises and not know what they are, or knowing it was the cat on the piano?

As for the building Wil mentions, that took me back for a second when I saw that. I am a civil engineer, even though not primarily focused on structural and building design, but I have been exposed to it. Most buildings have a strong central core that supports the floors in the middle of the building and everything spreads out from that. The building could of been the opposite, like the Hancock building in Chicago, where the support structure is on the outside. That could, possibly, allow the building to hold together if it did not completely fall down. Just a thought even though it is not my field of a specialty.

[Starr01]

Yes! Ironman trailer! I can't wait for that movie :)

[beelkay]

It's a shame the camera work is so shaky, cuz the film seems like the kind of movie I'd want to see. I have no interest in giving myself a headache or making myself sick, though, so I'm out. I didn't see The Blair Witch Project, but the second Bourne movie was too much for me (and the third, to a lesser extent).

[Adam875]

I'm a native New Yorker and I'm usually VERY critical of movie-NYC geography. But I didn't spot any glaring inaccuracies in this. It's not entirely clear where they start the movie, but we know it's downtown, and the Brooklyn Bridge didn't seem inconceivable. The Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building are barely visible (which I loved - since it's all from the characters' POV and they have no reason to go near those locations, there was no hey-let's-blow-up-some-more-famous-landmarks thing going on), so I don't know where that complaint came from. The long walk through the tunnels was a little ridiculous, but there was also clearly time missing from the tape there, since they also never passed another station or a stopped train.

Mostly though, I think I was just so successfully absorbed in the movie that I didn't nitpick the way I'm often inclined to. It all felt so close and so real and - most importantly - so close to the ground, that I never once looked for a street sign or a storefront I recognized.

[Aaron Dunlap]

As I mentioned before, the shaky camera didn't bother me at all, but that's either because I'm in the "youtube generation" or because I'm the last son of krypton.

What I loved about the story, besides the beautiful way it was constructed with the "flashbacks" being taped over, was the new perspective on the age-old "big thing knocks a bunch of shit over" trope.

Some of my favorite films are those that shift perspectives and give you an everyman's view upon large scale events. I love Shayalamon's "Unbreakable" because instead of an epic super hero story, it's "what would -really- happen if someone had super powers," and "Signs" is the same way, portraying a massive invasion of Earth by aliens from the point of view of one farm-town family.

The age of movie formulas has grown old, and societal changes are making us want to see the other sides of our stories. When we talk about 9/11, we don't talk about scientists and politicians pounding on their desks to punctuate Sorkin-style speeches, we talk about it from our own perspectives.

Cloverfield had me because it never gave up its grip on reality. Like Harry Knowles said, if Will Smith had shown up in the middle of movie you'd say, "hey, it's Will Smith" and from then on it would be a movie. Utilizing mostly-unknown actors (I recognized Rob's brother's fiancee from a TV show called "Life As We Know It"), and the oft-naysayed found-footage approach, it's not difficult to let the movie borrow your sense of belief for 83 minutes.

If there had been crane-shots and dolly-shots of people running away from explosions, it might have been more interesting but it would have been much less real, and reality is the currency of Cloverfield.

I've seen Godzilla smash helicopters from the sky and I've seen King Kong smash airplanes from the sky from atop the Empire State Building, but only when watching a shaky hand held recording of a news broadcast in a mid-looting electronics store have I actually thought, "Shit, there's a monster tearing up New York!"

[ozfinn]

I had issues with the shaky camera work, but in the past (after seeing Bourne 2) I've found that sitting right at the back of the cinema lessened the effect, as does closing my eyes for a few seconds if it gets too bad.

Cloverfield was about a dozen different kinds of awesome. When it finished I wasn't entirely sure what to make of it, but having pondered on it overnight it's really grown on me.
I honestly didn't expect to know much more about the monster at the end of the movie than I did at the beginning... It is a JJ Abrams product after all!

My only gripe was that my screening in Sydney didn't have the new Trek teaser in front of it...

[Starr01]

Ok let me try to post again: Shaky film work= my tummy upset for about half an hour. Good point about film: fight scene in sewer with little monsters. Bad points about film: only 2 people I connected with in film didn't make it :(
All in all; I can't recommend it. I give it a C- for very little plot & over use of shaky camera.

[Adam875]

nitpicking in the movies defense - i just read another review that points out that the building that collapses near the beginning of the movie (which our heroes watch from in front of their building) is the Woolworth building, which is in fact quite close to the Brooklyn Bridge. :-)

[zizban]

I found it interesting and imaginative; half the fun is not knowing exactly what is going on.

I sat back in the theater, which helped with the vertigo; people who sat closer complained. I'd advise sitting back in the theater.

There is some hype over what happens at the end of the credits. Let's just say its not worth the wait since its unintelligible.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Yes, I will admit you had me beat; I was totally off in my assessment that dilithium crystals focused the warp field directly.

However, I didn't put that on my blog because I thought it would be ungentlemanly to bring up our little repartee.

(cough cough)

[The Bad Astronomer]

Also, you're review is spot-on. I don't usually go in-depth with my own feelings on the movie I review (since I try to stick with the science), but had I done so, I would have written what you did.

Though not so well.

[joemorf]

Starr01: lack of plot? Are you kidding?

It had fencing (beating the little dudes in the subway with a piece of rebar), fighting (infantry, artillery, close air support... and a heavy door), torture (did you SEE those bite marks?), revenge (fire escape axe FTW), giants (it played bocce with Lady Liberty's head!), monsters (in the tunnels!), chases (through the tunnels!), escapes (from the tunnels!), true love (the only reason worth walking from Spring St. to Columbus Circle), miracles (someone actually walked away from that helicopter crash?) ...

I mean, seriously. It wasn't just a monster movie, it was all about story.

~j

[S.E. Dogaru]

okay okay, Cloverfield= pretty cool, but seriously Wil, what did you think of the Star Trek teaser!?

[Bryan]

I really enjoyed cloverfield. I read via some production site that the camera shakiness was added in post, it would be interesting to see this without the shakiness (or have the option to turn it off). I don't know if people caught this in the final clip of the movie when the tape goes back to the two 'main' characters being at coney island on the ferris wheel ... if you watch the right side of the screen you'll see something of good size fall out of the size and into the water ... leading the view to believe that the 'monster' is of extraterrestrial origin.

I didn't catch this the first time, but I've seen commentary about it online stating so ... I'll have to try to catch it the next time I see it.

I agree with you Wil on the scene in the store when the plume of smoke racing down the street. It instantly reminded me of 9/11.

amazing movie.