Cloverfield
(2008)
directed
by Matt Reeves
reviewed by Jonathan Rocks
02.05.2008
I"ll say it right now: "Cloverfield"
had one of the greatest viral marketing campaigns of any film I've ever seen.
The teaser trailer, the fake websites, the internet hype-- it all worked
perfectly. But for all of the groundbreaking that was done in the field of
marketing the film, the film itself ended up feeling a bit like an
afterthought, albeit a hell of an exciting one.
As if you don't already know, the film is about a group of hip Manhattanites who put together a surprise party for their
friend who is leaving for a new job in
After the attack begins, the film becomes a heart-pounding mixture of chaos and
confusion, for both the characters in the film, and the audience watching it.
This worked especially well because the video camera recording the attack
continued to record, but the filmmakers were not afraid to allow the character
holding it to act as any rational person would in that situation. This led to
some shots being framed terribly, some were zoomed in or blurry and others were
simply shots of their feet as they tried to figure what to do next. This was a
nice touch that added to the realism of the film, and actually bordered on the
abstract at some points. I supposed when J.J. Abrams has got your back, the
studio is more likely to allow new and different ideas.
The film's style will no doubt be compared to that of "The Blair Witch Project." However,
the comparisons are more than just the superficial "shaky cam"
approach that the film is shot in. In both films, the character who helms the camera (i.e. the audience perspective) uses
the distance that the camera provides as a buffer against the reality of what
is happening. Somehow it's more palatable to watch through the camera than to
simply shut it off and run for your life. This is particularly interesting when
considering the amount of real life footage we see every day that looks like
the footage of this film, and how we've become accustomed to watching truly
horrific things with relative ease, so long as there is that one degree of
separation that the camcorder provides.
The driving force of the plot is probably the film's weakest point. Four people
set out on a trek literally
across the city, on foot, so one of them can get to a girl he essentially wants
to apologize to. While I can appreciate that this type of setup is a convention
of the monster movie genre, it just didn't seem likely that the group would
have stayed together as long as they did.
Did the film live up to the hype? I would say yes. What they set out to
accomplish was a new and interesting take on the monster movie, and they
definitely did that. The simple fact that the monster is only in the film for a
relatively short amount of time makes for a new kind of antagonist-- the Cloverfield monster doesn't even have any particular
personality, as far as movie monsters go. What I enjoyed about the film is that
it is more concerned with the reaction and damage control that takes place when
people are fighting a massive enemy and losing, than it is with showing how we
eventually kick the monster's ass. No, that will likely be saved for the
sequel.
In all seriousness, though, I do believe that this somewhat experimental
monster movie would make a wonderful backstory to a
more practically filmed sequel, showcasing the events that take place after this film ends-- and don't be surprised to see it, either. A
$41 Million opening weekend is all this film needed to no doubt guarantee a
green light for an entire franchise. I know I'd see it.
Score: 3.5 out of 5