Reviews May 13 2008 @ 04:50 pm
REVIEW: Cloverfield
Directed By: Matt Reeves
Written By: Drew Goddard
Starring: Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas, T.J. Miller, Michael Stahl-David
Running Time: 85 minutes
Rated PG-13 for violence, terror, and disturbing images
J.J. Abrams is a producer who’s made a career out of convincing American audiences that his productions are a whole lot deeper philosophically than they actually are. From the reheated spy drama of Alias, to the pretentious mess of audience misdirection known as Lost, to (now) his first major motion picture (as producer) Cloverfield, Abrams has no shortage of ideas that would have been cutting-edge about ten years ago. Don’t get me wrong—it’s not that Cloverfield is a bad film; it’s just that, for all the pomp surrounding it, it’s shockingly vanilla—not to mention hard to watch and even harder to care about.
I'm looking over...
I’m sure that people are going to come down pretty hard on me for reacting so negatively to this film, but the truth is, it’s got the exact same problem that Lost has—Abrams is convinced he’s stumbled onto something really profound—and to be blunt, he hasn’t. There’s exactly one original idea in Cloverfield, and it’s the premise of the film: instead of being filmed like a normal movie, it’s all done on a home video camera that one of the characters was supposedly carrying. (Needless to say, this idea is thought-provoking and clever—if the title of your film happens to be The Blair Witch Project.) Without this small difference, I assure you, you’ve seen this film dozens of times before. Is it painful to sit through it the fiftieth or sixtieth time? Well, not really—but why would you want to?
The story goes something like this: A New Yorker (Michael Stahl-David) is leaving for Japan to pursue his career, so his friends throw him a bon voyage party. One of them is filming it to collect the best wishes of all the guests. Then without warning, NYC is attacked by a giant monster. The camera-holding friend films what follows, and we get to see his footage. It’s not a bad premise, but it has a fatal flaw: nothing interesting happens. At all. For the rest of the brisk 85-minute running time, we’re treated to a story that’s been the old Hollywood standby since the disaster movie was invented: a boy goes into the heart of danger to rescue his trapped girlfriend. Are you excited yet?
...a monster named Clover...
B-movies of this type—monster flicks, disaster pictures, alien invasion movies, whatever—generally have one fundamental choice: is it going to be a special effects picture, or is it going to focus more on the characters? I won’t take sides in that debate—there are examples of both approaches that are good films, and there are even some films that do both well. The problem with Cloverfield is that it does neither well—and in a sense, its very approach precludes this. On the one hand, the intentionally shoddy camerawork means that we never get to enjoy its excellent special effects (and I’ll be the first to admit that they are excellent); on the other, the fact that it all takes place within the space of an hour or two means that we never really get to know the characters. They’re all basically shadows of stereotypes: the plucky hero, the bumbling comic relief, the extra friend who gets killed off early, etc. Cloverfield tries to make up for this somewhat by positing that its videotape was a previously-used one—so occasionally, when the camera fails, and we get a scene from earlier in the characters’ lives. The problem with this is that these flashbacks don’t actually reveal anything.
Cloverfield really wants it both ways—it wants you to believe it’s a genuine tape of a monster attack on New York, but it also wants to be a compelling story and show off its special effects. In attempting this balancing act, it fails at both. The important scenes too often fade into the background noise, and the novelty of seeing things “firsthand” wears thin rather quickly (if you want to know why this usually doesn’t work, watch Robert Montgomery’s 1947 noir Lady in the Lake sometime—if you can make it all the way through). At the same time, they’ve Hollywood-ized the whole thing far too much—the perfect lighting, the perfect hair, the way time is truncated exactly how it would be in a cutting room (go figure)— for it to be believable as documentary. It’s too realistic to be a film, and too much like a film to be realistic. The end result is that it comes off as an fairly obvious stunt—one that’s impressive enough, but not much else.
...that I overlooked befooooooore!!!!
For some reason—and correct me if I’m wrong—it’s always horror films that get made as fake-documentaries. Cloverfield is the latest birth in a somewhat crowded family—its daddy is Blair Witch and its red-headed step-brother is Diary of the Dead. The difference between Cloverfield and the other two, though, is that they used their respective setups to actually mean something (both functioned as intriguing examples of metafilm—though each takes a very different approach to it). Cloverfield is content to be a gimmick—albeit one that manages to more-or-less sustain itself over an hour and a half. You won’t regret watching it, but you probably won’t remember doing so for very long.
on May 13 2008 @ 4:59 pm 1. Joseph said …
Yet again a reviewer aims the spotlight at Abrams and not Reeves, the director. Give credit where it’s due.
on May 13 2008 @ 5:07 pm 2. Phillip Johnston said …
“…to the pretentious mess of audience misdirection known as Lost…”
Hey now, hey now. Don’t be a hater.
on May 13 2008 @ 6:07 pm 3. Luke Harrington said …
Joseph, if J.J. is going to insist on top billing for the film, I’m going to blame him for it.
Phillip, I almost took that line out…but that really is how I feel about Lost, despite being addicted to it for a while. It’s the television equivalent of crack…it consumes your life, and you get nothing out of it.
on May 13 2008 @ 7:00 pm 4. Phillip Johnston said …
I wouldn’t go as far as the crack analogy, but I can see where you’re coming from. Season 2 and the opening of season 3 were far too drawn out, but now it seems to be coming together as a cohesive whole, I think. The payoff is gradual, but it’s coming.
And I would agree about J.J. Abrams. He seems like a very greedy dude and I haven’t found anything particularly special in his work. He may have good ideas at first, but what eventually may turn out to be brillians (like Lost, IMO) is often taken over by other, more capable and creative people (i.e. of the likes of Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse).
on May 13 2008 @ 8:50 pm 5. Fletch said …
I think the point is being missed somewhat. Attacking JJ Abrahms, fair as the attacks may be (though I’m a Lost watcher as well), seems misguided. It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t possess original ideas; the man is obviously a master promoter and a deliverer of pop goodness. If this puts him in a league with George Lucas then so be it – it’s both a compliment and an insult.
I didn’t particularly love or hate Cloverfield, and I never watched Alias, but obviously, the man has a talent for catching his audience’s eye and holding it, if even for the shortest period of time. It may not be much, but in this genre, that’s someting to be proud of. It’s not like he’s attempting to tell “big” stories.
on May 13 2008 @ 10:09 pm 6. K. Bowen said …
I really, really disliked this film. I’ve handed out a lot of Fs lately, and it started with this one.
on May 13 2008 @ 10:22 pm 7. Craig Kennedy said …
I hear lost has gotten better now that they know when it’s going to end. I wouldn’t know, I bailed in the middle of season 2.
As for Cloverfield, all I needed was a couple of characters I didn’t want to see stepped on…someone to root for…anyone…even a little…and Cloverfield would’ve gone from OK to pretty good for me.
As it is, I like it less and less the farther I am away from it. I still love the closing theme though.
on May 13 2008 @ 10:57 pm 8. Evan Derrick said …
“…to the pretentious mess of audience misdirection known as Lost…”
Hmmm…if you were trying to push my buttons Luke, bravo, you manged to pull it off.
I love Lost, even with all of its problems. I think it is consistently one of the best television shows on.
Interestingly enough, you said a lot of things in this review that I felt about Diary of the Dead, i.e. “it’s too realistic to be a film, and too much like a film to be realistic.” I’m guessing the political angle with Diary, no matter how weak it was, is what elevated it for you, whereas this is simply an entertainment vehicle. Ugh, I hated Diary. I may have to check this out, just to see what all the fuss is about.
on May 14 2008 @ 7:49 am 9. Luke Harrington said …
Aw, Evan, you know I love you.
If I was really trying to push your buttons, I would have inserted “SPEED RACER SUCKS!!! somewhere in the middle of the review. (You know I liked SR, though, so maybe it wouldn’t have worked.) I don’t mind Lost too much, and someday I’ll probably finish watching it. Maybe.
I know we had wildly divergent viewpoints on Diary, but fundamentally, what it comes down to is that Diary entertained me and Cloverfield didn’t. I’ll freely admit that Diary was a strange mix of lo-fi camp and arthouse pretension…it wasn’t for everyone. At least it had some personality, though – Cloverfield seems determined to be as bland as it possibly can.
Fletch, I think you’re absolutely right about J.J. Abrams, and my venom probably was a bit misguided. I guess I tend to feel a need to deflate anything that’s getting more respect than it deserves, and Cloverfield’s mediocrity somehow pushed me over the edge. Maybe I’ll send him a card.
on May 14 2008 @ 10:23 am 10. Sean said …
Nope, sorry, couldn’t/wouldn’t read after you started picking apart Lost. I’m not even entirely sure thats what you did because my eyes lept off the page the moment you said, “the problem with Lost is” or something to that effect.
I personally, for the most part, thought Cloverfield was the same type of egotistical sort of garbage film that M. Knight’s have been. Hyped up because its Abrams/M.Knights, internets abuzz with talk of epic greatness and BLAT! nothing but air.
Lost however is untouchable, it is in a league of its own and frankly out the reach of critics until the last episode wraps it up. Then if it boils down to some stupid all for nothing plot, then throw it to the sharks.
My $0.02.
on May 14 2008 @ 10:33 am 11. Evan Derrick said …
“Then if it boils down to some stupid all for nothing plot, then throw it to the sharks.”
Thou speakest blasphemy, Sean. The Lost gods will deliver us nothing but pure brilliance, and shame on you for doubting, oh ye of little faith.
on May 14 2008 @ 10:48 am 12. christian said …
You’re dead on Evan, tho I enjoyed the opening set-up to the attack more than the rest of the film.
As fer LOST, I’ll be generous and say it’s SURVIVOR with a little bit more imagination. Don’t hit!
on May 14 2008 @ 11:04 am 13. Evan Derrick said …
@Christian
Actually, Luke wrote this review. And as to your LOST thoughts….well, don’t tempt my voodoo doll skills, ’cause I’ll totally stab your doll with a rusty hairpin.
on May 14 2008 @ 11:25 am 14. christian said …
Oops. Well, Luke is on the money.
And he’s right about LOST because…argh…MY BACK!
on May 14 2008 @ 11:45 am 15. Evan Derrick said …
Everything I needed to know about voodoo I learned from The Temple of Doom.
on May 14 2008 @ 1:12 pm 16. Luke Harrington said …
Did anyone else think it was a little strange that Voodoo was being practiced in India?
As for Lost, I seem to remember J.J. Abrams admitting that he was inspired by Surivor…so you’re demonstrably not too far off, Christian.
on May 14 2008 @ 2:06 pm 17. christian said …
And that’s exactly why I never cared for LOST as I think SURVIVOR is a product of Satan. Not to taint JJ.
on May 14 2008 @ 2:28 pm 18. redison said …
I completely agree on Cloverfield. It really was just a waste of time…
but LOST? Really??
on May 14 2008 @ 2:37 pm 19. Evan Derrick said …
Don’t listen to the heathens, redison. Luke has an unnatural hatred for all things television, and Christian…well, he’s from L.A., so what can you do?
on May 14 2008 @ 3:27 pm 20. Sean said …
Thou speakest blasphemy, Sean. The Lost gods will deliver us nothing but pure brilliance, and shame on you for doubting, oh ye of little faith.
But Evan, it is not doubt you hear. I was merely clarifying the rules of criticizing this show. Not doubting you see because I am apparently a minority, yea a proud minority, from the looks of these comments.
Lost holds the top spot in television goodness.
And yes Lost was inspired by Survivor just like the apple falling from the tree inspired Newton. Not “Oh there’s a dumb show let me make a dumber one” – no. No, rather brilliance begets brilliance. Ahh well said Sean.
Thank you!
on May 14 2008 @ 3:28 pm 21. Sean said …
dang it how do I do the quote bubble? [quote]/quote] ?
on May 14 2008 @ 3:29 pm 22. Luke Harrington said …
…it took me a while to figure this one out as well:
It’s “blockquote” and “/blockquote”.
on May 14 2008 @ 4:07 pm 23. Sean said …
Thanks Luke!
on May 19 2008 @ 9:59 pm 24. Rick Olson said …
Geez, it’s gotten like a love-in around here. I saw Cloverfield, and I enjoyed it. Was it original? Not particularly … was it effective? Moderately so … for me, the gradually unveiling of the monster worked, and the special effects were good. It was a monster movie, for cripe’s sake. Whaddya want?
I friend of mine complained that it used too much 9/11 imagery. When I asked him why he objected to that, he said it was lazy, that it didn’t bother developing it’s own imagery. He’s also a great big Godzilla fan, and he compared Cloverfield to ‘zilla very unfavorably.
As far as Lost, Luke wins … if it’s crack, it’s very bad crack. It only addicted me for about 3 episodes.
on Jun 18 2008 @ 10:55 am 25. Evan Derrick said …
Ok, I just caught this for the first time last night and genuinely enjoyed it. I still don’t fully comprehend how you’d place Diary of the Dead over this one, Luke. Actually, on second thought, I think I do. I believe you often appreciate a film on the merits of its purpose/message/larger context, whereas I primarily appreciate films for their technique and craftsmanship. I think we can both agree that Cloverfield has better writing, acting, production values, special effects, etc. than Diary of the Dead. But I imagine we can also agree that Cloverfield is content to simply be a monster movie whereas Diary of the Dead has larger socio-political ideas on its mind.
Cloverfield is better made, whereas Diary of the Dead is more ambitious. I liked the former. You liked the latter.
With all that said, I felt Cloverfield had some genuine scares and was quite clever in how it managed to justify its “handheld video camera is always running” gimmick. Diary never did that for me, so I was unable to suspend my disbelief for even a fraction of a second.
on Jun 18 2008 @ 11:20 am 26. Kristena said …
I’m not a fan of the horror genre, but I had no trouble watching this. I didn’t actually find it that scary. Maybe a little suspenseful, but not very graphic. I enjoyed its sense of humor and the love story, and I think the love story was more the point than the monster. We saw more of it than we saw the godzilla-spawn. You could say it was just a vehicle for the monster movie. But seriously, the island in LOST is just a vehicle for lots of interesting drama.
on Sep 23 2008 @ 10:36 am 27. Maurice said …
FLASH!! FLASH!!! FLASH!!!!
Here are the headlines:
Mr. Ed was voiced by Richard Nixon. Ex-VeePee needed campaign funds. Sordid details at six o’clock
Norwegian scientists attack Loch Ness. Attempt to blow Nessie out of the water but local wizards intervene.
CONFIRMED! Dogs talk about us behind our backs.
Video!!!! Luke loses his mind. Talk’s trash. Decides to go HALO with an Acme parachute from 40,000 feet. Silk or and anchor? Who cares, just roll them dice. Gives Wilhelm scream out of the plane’s door. Last words: I WAS WROOOOOOOOONG!
ITEM! Maurice burns his “I am Luke’s Father” t-shirt. Sheds no tears over the break-up.
Luke, I know I am months late commenting on this film but feel I must. How could you not love the best “B” film since “Star Wars?” I think you went too cerebral in your assessment of this film. Let me break this down for you:
Teenagers have party. Monster attacks town. Panic ensues. Running. Screaming. Oh god, there it is. Run the other way. Hiding. Screaming. There it is again! Run. Running. Screaming. Hiding. The way out is destroyed. Hiding. I gotta get to ___________(insert his/her name). Can’t. Can. Running. AUUUUGH! It bit me. Keep running. Safety. Leave safety. She’s there. She’s hurt but she can ignore a mortal wound. Running. Flying. Crashing. MY GOD, IT’S RIGHT ON TOP OF US! Eaten. Running. Screaming. Running and screaming. Hiding. I love you. I love you. Explosion. THE END??????
See? When you break it down, it’s a simple thing. Not at all hard to comprehend and thus, lovable. What’s not to love? First, it’s in NYC and everyone from King Kong to Doc Oc has taken their turn in the Big Apple. Now where can panic ensue like it does in Manhattan, mainly because of the glut of people and buildings? Plus, you must factor in that it was once the breeding ground for large, prehistoric, radioactive monsters and, who says you can never go home?
Next, it’s a big ‘ol monster. And they are always big ones, aren’t they? New Yorkers will run from a Rhedasaurus but hardly give hot dog eating ghosts a second glance. I don’t think they are jaded or apathetic. Just the fact that you are surrounded by most of the world’s tallest buildings commands that your imagination always border the fantastic. But, if something should punt the head of Lady Liberty on to your street, run you little fool.
But, wait. There’s a plot twist. It’s a baby monster! Yikes! Where is its momma? The daddy won’t appear as he is too busy selling the photo rights to the Weekly World News. So when momma arrives, she will rain down destruction like a cloud seeding over Area 51. She’ll have radioactive breath, be 900 feet long/tall and taking no prisoners. Hide. Use the subway as a bunker cuz, she’s tall but she’s light as her diet is lo-cal seaweed salads and fish. Nuts. Momma’s a no show, too.
Holy cow. What are those things falling off of the beast? Why, it’s little critters. Surprise! They scrabble around like spidercrabs and bite like Lecter. WTH? She exploded. Why did she explode? What possible purpose would that serve at the Food Chain Buffet? Wouldn’t the parts just drift away n the current? Won’t the chum line attract Bruce and his pals? Who cares, it’s a cool side effect. As a bonus, there’s a bazillion of these things and they drop off of Tadzilla by the score. Even NYC has never seen that before. They’re like furry little burrs falling from cattle stampeding across a prairie.
Finally, there’s the mystery of where did this thing come from. We get a small clue at the end with the object falling from the sky into the ocean off of Coney Island. What is that? Is it a spaceship? A satellite or meteor? A chunk of Skylab? Was the creature in the thing or did the object splash down on its head? If the latter is the case, why was the creature in such shallow water? It’s not like the Continental Shelf drops off to 600 fathoms right off shore. I theorize that little Mr. Big was having a siesta in the warm, hypodermic shallows and one of those new Super Jumbo jets flew past and the pilot accidentally pressed the “Empty Septic Tank” button when he was turning on the Howard Stern show. Nothing causes anger in a big beast like a great big chunk of frozen human waste to the noggin. Even I hate that.
This was a fun movie, a real blast from the past. There are scads of films that follow this plot. Nothing too recent but hop back to the 50’s and you could spend any weekend at the theaters with one to watch. “King Kong” started this off and the Japanese raised it to an art form. And just about all of them are laughable. I can’t really think of one that instilled a sense of fear in me but many of them were play acted in my back yard for days after I saw it. This would have been one of those.
Luke, I command you to watch this film again but have fun with it. Laugh at the nonsense that it is and let that smile be your umbrella. I can name for you ten other films his year that are worse, starting with “Speed Racer.”
NOTE: Here’s a list of documentaries that are fakes:
“This Is Spinal Tap”
“Real Life”
“Looking For Comedy in the Muslim World”
“Best in Show”
“Borat”
“Zelig”
“Timecode”
“C.S.A”
Any Michael Moore film
Sorry to list so many comedies but I think you’ll find that they cornered the market.
Keep writing your great reviews, Luke. I appreciate them.
on Sep 23 2008 @ 8:27 pm 28. Evan Derrick said …
I have little add to Maurice’s thoughts other than to say… uh, yeah, I liked the movie too. Yup. Good times.
And Maurice…really? You just had to sneak in a little Speed Racer jab? Are you trying to get me to come out to your house and stab you in the leg with a very small pen knife? Cuz I’ll do it. I will sooooooooo do it.
on Sep 23 2008 @ 8:42 pm 29. Luke Harrington said …
Maurice, you crack me up. I think we can all agree that Michael Moore is crying in the corner right now.
I really can’t argue much with what you say hear — it’s highly probable that I didn’t enjoy the movie because I believed too much of the “next big thing” hype going into it. If it had been promoted as “the same old crap, recycled because we know you people still eat this stuff up,” I probably would have had a very different experience with it.
I used the phrase “fake documentary” in my review, but that’s probably not the best phraseology. What I’m talking about is fake “found footage,” I guess — in other words, something considerably less polished than a true mockumentary. The Blair Witch, Cloverfield, [REC]/Quarantine, and (to a lesser extent) Diary of the Dead all play like the footage of someone directly (and somewhat unwillingly) involved in the horror; this is considerably different from This is Spinal Tap, where the film plays like a true documentary might. Does that make sense?
My dad should be pleased to know that there’s one less person out there claiming sireship of me.
on Sep 24 2008 @ 7:22 am 30. Maurice said …
“Speed Racer”, in my view, is the new Bob Packwood of Hollywood.
The cycle and backlash of this recent “Heaven’s Gate” will echo thru time and the cosmos. Think I’m wrong? Here’s how it went:
1967
Driving. Racing. Engines rev, tires squeal. Go, Speed Racer, go!
“Racer X is Speed’s brother!”
“What? Then that must mean that Vader is Luke’s-”
Cut to:
1980
“No. I am your father.”
“Impossible. No. No. no. I’ll never rule the universe with you!”
Cut to:
Present day.
Maurice burns his “Luke, I am your father” t-shirt.
You can see what a vicious cycle this is.
I have no doubt that it will set back relation with extra-terrestrials for at least a decade. Somewhere, on the outer rim of our galaxy, an Andorian family is settling down to watch some Terran broadband that they have pirated from the Feringi. Somewhere, in the New Mexico desert, frantic SETI employees are franticly trying to hijack the DirecTV pay-per view of “Speed Racer.”
on Jan 01 2009 @ 9:50 am 31. [review]: Cloverfield « …yet made of stars said …
[...] January 1, 2009 Cross-posted at: MovieZeal [...]