No Concessions: “Cloverfield”

noconcessions.jpgNever in my life have I been so glad that I wasn’t caught up in the hype for a film.

Yes, obviously, I was aware of Cloverfield. I’m way too big of a movie geek for it to have stayed completely off my radar. But while some spent the months before its release doing little more than surfing the web and scrutinizing every piece of information that leaked out (or, more likely, that producer J.J. Abrams knowingly and willfully released, albeit in a manner to make it look like it had been leaked), before going into the theater, I really only knew two things about it:

1) It was a creature feature about New York City being attacked by a monster big enough to rip the head off the Statue of Liberty.
2) It was done in a manner resembling “The Blair Witch Project,” where the footage was supposedly a found document, made by people who’d survived the attack.

Hey, man, you had me at “a monster big enough to rip the head off the Statue of Liberty.”

Cloverfield opens not with a bang, however, with a formal declaration that what we’re about to see is the property of the United States Government, having been found in the site formerly known as Central Park. It’s the kind of ominous phrasing that makes you rock and forth in your seat, repeating the mantra, “This is gonna be good, this is gonna be good, oh, this is gonna be so good,” which may be why it feels somewhat anticlimactic when the film then proceeds to spend the next 15 – 20 minutes introducing the human element by documenting a farewell party.

Here’s the scenario: Rob (Michael Stahl-David) is getting ready to leave NYC and start a new job in Japan, so his brother Jason (Mike Vogel) and Jason’s girlfriend, Lily (Jessica Lucas), decide to throw him a bon voyage shindig. Everybody happy, smiling, and on their way to profound drunkenness when Beth (Odette Yustman) shows up. Beth and Rob had been friends for years, but they recently slept together, and as if things weren’t awkward enough between them as a result, Beth’s shown up at Rob’s function with a date in tow.

Bored yet? Actually, it’s all pretty entertaining, thanks to the handheld camerawork of Rob’s best friend, Hud (T.J. Miller); it’s his eyes we’re seeing the party through, and the result is exactly what you’d expect from someone who’s been drafted into such a gig at the last second and has zero interest in what he’s doing. Still, while it’s a necessary evil in order to make us care about our characters, it succeeds less at building tension and more at making us want to wave frantically at the screen to make with the monster already. But don’t worry: once the monster does finally arrive, the film begins a non-stop thrill ride through the streets of New York (not to mention both above and below them), and thanks to Hud’s camerawork, you’re sitting in the front seat the whole time.

Cloverfield is a bold reinvention of the monster-movie genre, giving us a point of view that we rarely see, namely that of the people in the Godzilla movies who look up, scream, and go running through the streets. As a result, we learn precious little about what the monster is, where it came from, or why it’s here, but, then, the film’s structure doesn’t lend itself to the casual doling-out of information; it’s about the emotional experience that would be endured by an ordinary person caught up in a decidedly extraordinary situation.

Mind you, it’s also about as nausea-inducing as The Blair Witch Project — a fact to which my wife will readily testify, as she had to stay in her seat ’til most of the crowd had left the theater in order to regain her equilibrium — but if you allow yourself to get caught up in the experience, you gradually find yourself getting used to the shaky-cam effect. It’s also a bit disconcerting to watch disaster footage which so unabashedly resembles all of the various 9/11 home videos we’ve seen over the years, but in truth, that’s probably one of the biggest reasons the film works as well as it does.

Sure, Cloverfield requires a fair amount of suspension of disbelief. For instance, I can forgive a good popcorn movie just about anything, but toward the end of the flick, even *I* found myself wondering, “Damn, what kind of battery has Hud got in that video camera? That thing should’ve been dead hours ago!” When you get right down to it, though, you just have to remember that we’re talking about a film revolving around a gigantic monster clambering through the streets of New York City…or, in other words, screw your common sense, shut up and eat your popcorn, and just enjoy the Cloverfield experience.

Tags: , , , ,

  • Will, would it be a "spoiler" for you to tell us what the title means? If so, never mind, but if not ...
  • WHarrisBullzEye
    You know, as far as I can tell, it didn't mean anything, other than that's what the government was using as the code phrase to refer to it. My wife asked me the same question, and my gut was to think that it was the name of area in the former Central Park where they found the film, but if they actually clarified it within the movie itself, I didn't hear it.
  • I would submit that, while many have castigated it, War of the Worlds was also from the perspective of one of the many faceless people in the crowd. Cruise wasn't a hero. Except for trying to keep his family alive, WotW was basically a story of the peripheral characters in a monster movie. That was what I loved about it. So, I assume I might enjoy Cloverfield as well. (That and the fact that I met the writer in a bathroom in a Los Angeles courthouse....)
  • Terrible ending though. If you're old-school wealthy, your brownstone is safe from anything - even bloodsucking aliens.
  • I was hoping this film wouldn't suck, and it seems from your review that it doesn't. But if you bought into the hype surrounding it, you might be a bit disappointed.
  • Yeah, it's funny to me that many people have been breathlessly asking me, "What's the monster?!?" Not that you don't get to see the monster, but the movie really isn't ABOUT the monster; it's about reacting to the effects of the monster's attack. And I guess that's not really how the hype was selling it.
  • clark
    I was pretty let down by Cloverfield. I think just being simply aware that there was a lot of hype which was my position too creates a lot of expectation for something great, especially in regards to what the creature is.

    And the creature ain't scary at all. For a bit in the movie they were being pretty shy about doing a big reveal and I was encouraged that maybe they'd leave a lot of it to our imaginations, but they do finally show it several times full body in the film. It's not laughable, but it's not even in the same ball park as really scary movie monsters like the Aliens and The Thing (John Carpenter version of course.) And this is a problem as the movie takes the monster very seriously.

    Also, the cast is about 95% models looking actors, so I kind of wanted them all to get stomped instantly. At least Blair Witch cast some dumpy looking nobodys for their leads. That personally gets me behind characters more in a situation like this because they are more realistic.

    I was pretty impressed by most of the CG work. The monster did look pretty much like it was actually in the home video and news footage you would see. At different times though the little spiders looked kinda video gamey though.

    I feel the movie is also kinda pretentious in its assumption that not telling you anything about the monster's origin is going to make it that much more intriguing-- this would be a good idea in a movie where the monster ITSELF is intruiging, but this one is pretty far from it in my opinion.

    It's alright dumb fun, though.
  • WHarrisBullzEye
    Yeah, but I didn't see it as trying to be pretentious, though. I just saw it as the filmmakers saying, "Okay, if we're going to do this as the story of Joe Average, then we've got to be realistic about the fact that they AREN'T just going to happen upon someone who tells them everything there is to know about the monster." Because, really, if you're running for your life, the odds of you running into Basil Exposition are pretty slim...
  • clark
    Right, I see what you're saying....

    I think it would have payed to have it not be a big monster, or at least one that's much more vague than this one, because the fact that you at least know it is a Big Monster in itself takes a lot of the realism away instantly since we know there's no such thing as big monsters. I think that the style of the movie being that everything is supposed to be really realistic and breathless and terrifying just doesn't co-exist successfully with a big monster. Why not make it a more realistic threat, like a chemical cloud (like Don Delillo's novel White Noise if you're familiar) or a terrorist attack of some nature? I guess I'm just too much of a realist, too.

    On a side note, have you seen John Carpenter's In The Mouth of Madness? The big monsters in that film were really scary to me. They were always sort of obscured by a creepy amount of shadow, and you could never quite put a finger on what they were, but they seemed really familiar at the same time like they came from a nightmare you had at one point.

    The mosnter in Cloverfield looks like a boss you'd face in Halo or some other such next gen video game. It looks like a rejected Doom 3 monster or something.
blog comments powered by Disqus