You’ve got to hand it to J.J. Abrams. His marketing strategy for his new film, “Cloverfield”, was brilliant; no pictures, no interviews, no clips, no details. Speculation ran rampant but nothing could be confirmed- an almost unheard-of scenario in these days of instant internet access. The good news for Abrams and company? Hype of near unparalleled proportion by the time the thing finally opened. The bad news for us? It doesn’t live up to the hype.
Now, I like J.J. Abrams’ work; before “Lost” got…well, lost in itself, it was a fascinating character study of people caught in an extreme situation. “Felicity” was cute, but also real in an angst-ridden kind of way. I’ve seen every episode of “Alias”, and there are few movies that I anticipate loving more than the upcoming Abrams-directed “Star Trek”. But sadly, “Cloverfield” is as close to the run-of-the-mill, “I know what’s going to happen next” monster movie as you’re ever going to find.
If anything sets this film apart from all the others of the genre, it’s the documentary-style, you-are-there feeling achieved by the use of a single video camera (they ain’t kiddin’ when they call this “The Blair Witch Project” meets "Godzilla”, folks). Beginning early one April morning, the hand-held, home video camera documents the events leading up to, and immediately following, a mysterious attack on New York City. To his credit, director Matt Reeves does pull off moments that leave us feeling the terror, confusion, and extreme claustrophobia of people dealing with what is at first believed to be another terrorist attack. After a promising beginning, though, things fall apart pretty quickly. WARNING: Minor spoilers ahead; read at your own risk.
The characters aren’t quite as whiny or irritating as they usually are in these kinds of flicks, but they didn't really make me care whether they live or get crunched, either. That’s a problem. Another problem is the by-the-book way the story unfolds. Seen it a billion times. And the third- and most surprising- problem of all is the monster itself. Yes, we do get to see it…and I wish we didn’t. Early on, we’re only able to catch quick glimpses of it as it rounds a corner, or witness the amount of destruction that it’s capable of (the scene of the head of the Statue of Liberty crashing to the street is very surreal, and quite startling). Quick flashes, horrors only hinted at...THAT would have scared the shit out of me…but eventually the monster is revealed, and for me, at least, the movie is over.
If you REALLY want to see a good monster flick that defies every single gimmick of the genre, get yourself to a video store quick and rent “The Host”, the most fun, original, and truly engaging monster movie you’ll ever see.
And speaking of unique monster movies, I was intrigued by the previews for Guillermo del Toro’s “Hellboy II”, so, having never seen the first one in its entirety, I borrowed it from a friend and watched it this weekend. Red is my new favorite color.
What a beautiful movie this is. It’s gorgeous to look at, from the amazing costume designs (you’re honestly telling me that Abe isn’t CG??) to the huge set pieces. It has the look of the graphic novel, brought to full, blazing, colorful life, with characters that you actually care for. And it is extremely entertaining. If the sequel is even half the movie that the original was…
Oh, crap.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
From Hell
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
First, J.J. didn't write or direct, "Cloverfield". Give credit, or complaints, to Matt Reeves and Drew Goddard. J.J. is a producer. Nothing more. If that credit is proof of The Creator, then God is a producer and I am a God!
Moving on...
For me, "The Host" is the best monster movie of all time simply because it shows the creature right away. Filling out the movie is more important questions than, "What does it look like?".
Without seeing, "Cloverfield", I am willing to suggest that the monster leaves before anyone really gets a good look at it. The video camera captures a glimpse, and that is all people are left with.
I don't care if this idea works or not, because, based on your review, Michael, I'm staying away from this movie like the tunnels under a bridge in Seoul.
J.J. should sue you for bad word of mouth. He is, after all, a great producer...
While I thank you for making me aware of the fact that Abrams did not direct OR write the film , you can't deny that he is THE name that everyone associates with it, and he's the reason it's generated interest. I've yet to hear anyone say "I can't wait to see that new Reeves film that everyone is talking about."
Second, regarding "The Host"'s appearance at the beginning of the film, you're right- not only is it great to see it from the start, but it happens so quickly and unobtrusively as to be almost unnoticed. Almost. Sneaky little bastards. It's also worth noting that while it IS a "monster movie" and can be viewed strictly as such, it is also a very sharp commentary on the shortcomings of politics and government...ours included.
And last- while I've given up trying to guess what you'll like and what you won't, I think I can safely say that there's nothing extraordinary in "Cloverfield" to draw your attnetion; nothing that goes above and beyond everyday filmaking. It is, at best, mildly entertaining. But mostly, it's just cliche.
I'll await J.J.'s moment of redemtption, when he finally does what he does best of all- directs. "Star Trek" awaits...
Post a Comment