RSS
Review of Cloverfield
Cloverfield
Directed by Matt Reeves
Starring Michael Stahl-David as Rob Hawkins, Mike Vogel as Jason Hawkins, T.J. Miller as Hud Platt, Jessica Lucas as Lily Ford, Lizzy Caplan as Marlena Diamond, Odette Yustman as Beth MacIntyre
Rated PG-13 for violence, terror and disturbing images
After months of rumors and hype, Cloverfield is here.
Before I start: the monster isn't Godzilla, it isn't some monster from a H.P. Lovecraft novel, and the title doesn't mean anything.
Phew. With that out of the way, Cloverfield has its flaws but overall is an entertaining action/horror flick. Now, there isn't too much to give away in terms of plot, but because of the mystery surrounding the film before its release, read on at your own risk if you don't want anything spoiled.
The film starts with a voiceover of a soldier discussing a tape from a handheld camera found in "the area formerly known as New York City" before the "Cloverfield" incident occurred (more on this in a bit).
Then the tape plays, and the rest of the movie is shot on handheld camera. We meet the protagonist, Rob, who is leaving the country to start a job overseas, and is having a going away party thrown for him by his friends. Rob's energetic brother Jason has the idea to use the camera to tape farewells from the party's guest, and quickly hands the camera off to Rob's goofy best friend, Hud, to take care of this task.
However, after 10 to 15 minutes of party footage (read: character development), an explosion rocks the city, everyone flees the building, the Statue of Liberty's head rolls through the street blah blah blah. The first 20 minutes is pretty much EVERYTHING from the first trailer.
But uh-oh, the love of Rob's life, Beth, is trapped in her apartment across the city...and..oh no! Something's alive in that explosion! Rob's never had the chance to tell Beth how he feels, what should he do?
Yeah, journey across the city with his friends who tag along for no reason while a rampaging monster of unknown origin wreaks havoc. How surprising. As you might have gathered, the plot is flat and predictable. I found the early scenes of the party annoying due to the shaking camera and cheesy one-liners, but once the attack begins the movie is an 80-minute roller coaster ride and you don't even notice the camera's annoying shaking.
The monster itself is never really explained, but I didn't care as I was ecstatic that they actually showed the beast instead of going the way of The Blair Witch Project and refusing to show us anything. The monster (or perhaps monsters? Not saying more than that) is/are awesomely horrific, and while it won't go down in horror movie history as particularly memorable or unique, it's still friggin' scary.
The characters are all flat, boring and not very well acted with the exception of the cameraman, Hud (Miller) and a "friend of a friend" he is secretly attracted to, Marlena (Caplan). Both Miller and Caplan get their share of one-liners in while also coming across as the realest characters. I found myself caring more about their storyline than Rob's nonsensical search for Beth, and I wish both characters/actors would have gotten more time on-screen. Miller's amusing and goofy, yet at the same time is our narrator of sorts throughout the film, while Caplan runs circles around the rest of the cast in terms of acting.
All of the major horror/actor sequences in the film are well-directed (I was surprised by how well Reeves, who has only directed television shows and The Pallbearer, handled his first major motion picture). But as I was watching I couldn't help but think that I've seen every single one of these sequences before in other monster/horror movies. They're exciting, sure, but rather unoriginal.
Cloverfield would have been far better if Reeves hadn't made some questionable direction choices. Firstly, the introduction with the army and the recovered tape. Okay, why not put this at the end of the movie instead of at the beginning? It pretty much tells you that this won't have a very happy ending.
Second, throughout the movie are several spliced scenes of Rob and Beth enjoying a romantic date together. The first time it happens is fine. Once the SEVENTH OR EIGTH SPLICE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ACTION SCENE HAPPENS...it gets to be overkill. Maybe Reeves was trying to be "artsy" but dude: this is a horror movie. And I as I mentioned above, the main romance storyline is unbelievably dull and stupid anyway, which makes matters worse.
And including the bit with the statue of liberty's head in the trailer was a mistake; when the scene actually happens and the camera lingers on the destruction, I'm pretty sure I fell asleep.
All in all, Cloverfield is definitely enjoyable and exciting while it lasts, and worth seeing at least once. Yeah, it's definitely the work of an inexperienced director that shows a little bit of promise, and it doesn't break any ground or set any standards, even with it's handheld camera shooting-style.
But it's the kind of movie-theater film that has to be seen at least once during its release, and can then be immediately forgotten.
And lets just hope there won't be any sequels. Please. Blair Witch 2 still haunts my nightmares.
Score: 5.5 out of 10/C +
Posted by
Brian McCarthy
Directed by Matt Reeves
Starring Michael Stahl-David as Rob Hawkins, Mike Vogel as Jason Hawkins, T.J. Miller as Hud Platt, Jessica Lucas as Lily Ford, Lizzy Caplan as Marlena Diamond, Odette Yustman as Beth MacIntyre
Rated PG-13 for violence, terror and disturbing images
After months of rumors and hype, Cloverfield is here.
Before I start: the monster isn't Godzilla, it isn't some monster from a H.P. Lovecraft novel, and the title doesn't mean anything.
Phew. With that out of the way, Cloverfield has its flaws but overall is an entertaining action/horror flick. Now, there isn't too much to give away in terms of plot, but because of the mystery surrounding the film before its release, read on at your own risk if you don't want anything spoiled.
The film starts with a voiceover of a soldier discussing a tape from a handheld camera found in "the area formerly known as New York City" before the "Cloverfield" incident occurred (more on this in a bit).
Then the tape plays, and the rest of the movie is shot on handheld camera. We meet the protagonist, Rob, who is leaving the country to start a job overseas, and is having a going away party thrown for him by his friends. Rob's energetic brother Jason has the idea to use the camera to tape farewells from the party's guest, and quickly hands the camera off to Rob's goofy best friend, Hud, to take care of this task.
However, after 10 to 15 minutes of party footage (read: character development), an explosion rocks the city, everyone flees the building, the Statue of Liberty's head rolls through the street blah blah blah. The first 20 minutes is pretty much EVERYTHING from the first trailer.
But uh-oh, the love of Rob's life, Beth, is trapped in her apartment across the city...and..oh no! Something's alive in that explosion! Rob's never had the chance to tell Beth how he feels, what should he do?
Yeah, journey across the city with his friends who tag along for no reason while a rampaging monster of unknown origin wreaks havoc. How surprising. As you might have gathered, the plot is flat and predictable. I found the early scenes of the party annoying due to the shaking camera and cheesy one-liners, but once the attack begins the movie is an 80-minute roller coaster ride and you don't even notice the camera's annoying shaking.
The monster itself is never really explained, but I didn't care as I was ecstatic that they actually showed the beast instead of going the way of The Blair Witch Project and refusing to show us anything. The monster (or perhaps monsters? Not saying more than that) is/are awesomely horrific, and while it won't go down in horror movie history as particularly memorable or unique, it's still friggin' scary.
The characters are all flat, boring and not very well acted with the exception of the cameraman, Hud (Miller) and a "friend of a friend" he is secretly attracted to, Marlena (Caplan). Both Miller and Caplan get their share of one-liners in while also coming across as the realest characters. I found myself caring more about their storyline than Rob's nonsensical search for Beth, and I wish both characters/actors would have gotten more time on-screen. Miller's amusing and goofy, yet at the same time is our narrator of sorts throughout the film, while Caplan runs circles around the rest of the cast in terms of acting.
All of the major horror/actor sequences in the film are well-directed (I was surprised by how well Reeves, who has only directed television shows and The Pallbearer, handled his first major motion picture). But as I was watching I couldn't help but think that I've seen every single one of these sequences before in other monster/horror movies. They're exciting, sure, but rather unoriginal.
Cloverfield would have been far better if Reeves hadn't made some questionable direction choices. Firstly, the introduction with the army and the recovered tape. Okay, why not put this at the end of the movie instead of at the beginning? It pretty much tells you that this won't have a very happy ending.
Second, throughout the movie are several spliced scenes of Rob and Beth enjoying a romantic date together. The first time it happens is fine. Once the SEVENTH OR EIGTH SPLICE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ACTION SCENE HAPPENS...it gets to be overkill. Maybe Reeves was trying to be "artsy" but dude: this is a horror movie. And I as I mentioned above, the main romance storyline is unbelievably dull and stupid anyway, which makes matters worse.
And including the bit with the statue of liberty's head in the trailer was a mistake; when the scene actually happens and the camera lingers on the destruction, I'm pretty sure I fell asleep.
All in all, Cloverfield is definitely enjoyable and exciting while it lasts, and worth seeing at least once. Yeah, it's definitely the work of an inexperienced director that shows a little bit of promise, and it doesn't break any ground or set any standards, even with it's handheld camera shooting-style.
But it's the kind of movie-theater film that has to be seen at least once during its release, and can then be immediately forgotten.
And lets just hope there won't be any sequels. Please. Blair Witch 2 still haunts my nightmares.
Score: 5.5 out of 10/C +
Posted by
Brian McCarthy
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home