|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jan 27, 2008 6:06:08 GMT
CLOVERFIELD (2008) - ***1/2Talking with someone who actually saw BLADE RUNNER in its original release in 1982, he told me that the biggest reason why he loved that movie was that unlike any other previous cinema look at the future city, it's not seen from outer space but from the streets. You're looking up, not down. If RUNNER was such the case for the sci-fi genre, then CLOVERFIELD is for monster movies. No more men in rubber suits stomping on cool miniatures, or equally cheesy cheap CGI models running amok. Well, we still get the later in CLOVERFIELD, but for once the star itself isn't the creature but the people trying to haul ass away from it. Now unlike (too many) people on the internet, I didn't get sucked up into the ridiculous as goofy hell hype where I was trying to analyze the value behind vague photographs or the title itself. It's just so incredibly boring and cyclical how everyone hype-urbates something, then trash it upon release like new video games. And really, how could I care if I'm not a fan of producer J.J. Abrams? His ALIAS was goofy, and LOST is more meandering than TWIN PEAKS in getting to the goddamn point. Trust me, I was ready to nuke CLOVERFIELD back to Monster Island, where Godzilla would bully him with a daily wedgie. Instead, by the wings of Mothra, I found myself pleasantly shocked with CLOVERFIELD. From the sterile-if-ominous bureaucratical classified screen to the supposedly "recovered" video tape cutting back and forth between a romantic tranquil day from the past to indeed the last party the Big Apple will ever enjoy, I figured this movie could go only two ways: Work or Fail. Just like Manhattan after the creature has its day, there won't literally be a middle ground. But the moment that CLOVERFIELD drove towards "Work" is that one moment when the film explains in a subtle if not incredibly subtle moment the significance of the tape recorded over. People complain about CLOVERFIELD and its lengthy set-up, but its like DIE HARD. It takes its time to carefully place the story elements and characters together, and when the other shoe indeed drops, its actually the severed head of the Statue of Liberty. Finally, I get what the poster for ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK promised. CLOVERFIELD is the movie that THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, another hyped-up "faux-documentary," so tried to be but failed to booger out. The chief reason perhaps is that unlike BLAIR, director Matt Reeves evokes a sincere organic atmosphere of dread, fear, and suspense. If you are aware of my displeasure of the failure that is recent Hollywood horror, it's nice to have a thrill-jump fest that actually works. While we concentrate on these survivors, we know that in the off-screen movie elsewhere, the mostly unseen terrible monster could be heard stomping, wrecking buildings, and the military's impotent war against it. Remember this point. Indeed, when the hero makes his march to save his girlfriend through the subway and the eerie-deserted streets of New York City, I must say I had deja vue memories of Walter Hill's masculine classic THE WARRIORS. While that one was a fantasy-action picture where we generally accept such a decision as the only choice for a man to make, we all know that the one made in CLOVERFIELD is a foolhardy one, much like the leader's choice to barricade against the zombies in Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. In fact, the only thing about CLOVERFIELD that bugs me is the climax. Like I wrote earlier, you felt the giant's presence either up-close or far away. But for it to come out of no where and sneak up on the heroes? It's almost as if Abrams/Reeves wanted to appease the nerds who want finally a full close-up shot of the star, and they caved in. It's just so silly. While one may wonder how a camera could have survived all of this, its perhaps a compliment that I never dramatically questioned why afterwards they pick the camera back up. With a reported $30 million budget, with more than 2/3rds going to the CGI, this CLOVERFIELD feels like many recent Hollywood productions that use the resources and media machine of the major studios, but with a creative indie cinema approach much like Doug Liman's THE BOURNE IDENTITY. Indeed CLOVERFIELD is a harrowing dark movie without answers, and a brave choice of a logical conclusion for a genre that's more satisfying and successful than BLAIR WITCH and the recent THE MIST were. But most of all, the filmmakers don't want to make any sequels. Yet even the monster menace and its parasites that couldn't be stopped will probably be made humbled by the Paramount mountain. NOTE: Apparently, I was wrong: The filmmakers are planning a sequel.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 27, 2008 14:27:25 GMT
I saw the trailer for this last night and it looks like it could be very, very good.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 27, 2008 23:27:50 GMT
Yeah, I like the look of it too.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2008 23:39:07 GMT
You actually think this could be a good movie?
Really?
Really???
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 28, 2008 2:43:21 GMT
I like that shot from a long distance away (early on in the trailer) when a big explosion happens over the city.
|
|
|
Post by Valenti on Jan 28, 2008 3:51:09 GMT
I like that shot from a long distance away (early on in the trailer) when a big explosion happens over the city. Most people I know who've seen it say the trailers are the best part. The trailers ARE amazing though, and I'm not surprised the movie has generated so much money in such a short time. It should be entertaining.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 21, 2008 23:44:43 GMT
I did not find the movie engaging at all. Warning, Spoiler: They stretched the hand-held camera concept way too much. With buildings falling and stampedes on the street and choppers crashing and creatures attacking, the camera is somehow in perfect condition. Crossing over to another building from the abutment between them and rescuing the girl friend was there plainly for formulaic reasons. And what's with the non-stop running, screaming and explosions. And when it did seem to stop for a while, they are discussing random facts in a dark tunnel just immediately after one guy loses his brother. How do you not find this all silly and more importantly how is this different from other monster/zombie movies? How do you rate Planet Terror for example?On one level, it's a fairly simple monster film, a throwback to the likes of Godzilla (note the country to which one of the protagonists is emigrating: Japan), but it's also unique in that it's told entirely from the ground. Our knowledge of the "event" is necessarily limited to what the would-be victims can see. You criticise the implausibility of this by attacking the fundamental problem of an indestructible camera. Fair enough, I suppose; another friend criticised the film for the audio being far too crisp and audible for its own good (suggesting it'd be better if the government had seen need for subtitles due to loss of sound - if that isn't critical gluttony I don't know what is). If the reverse were true, though, you'd barely have a film; the premise begs that sort of leeway, the same way TV's 24 "requests" viewers not to have a hissy fit over Jack Bauer's endurable bladder. Talking of 24 and similar examples of today's media, I thought it was cool that at one point the protagonists raid an electronics store for phone batteries. Intended or not, it's an interesting comment on the way in which we consume media (how dependent we are in a case of crisis), the questions we ask of it ("how come Jack Bauer's phone never runs out!?" not to mention, all of the questions arising from Abrams's Lost), and its importance over stuff like foodstock (terrorism and invasive warfare now eliminate the option of pre-planned, long-term supplies such as groceries and nutrition, and calls for immediate necessities such as the cellphone, to tell loved ones you love them just before you die). Throughout, too, I couldn't ignore the fact that other people are filming the same event on their own cameras and phones... this is very much a film about the filming and multi-media capture of world-changing events. The monster plays a secondary role to this; and, as one who felt its final on-screen moments seemed more disappointing than frightening, I'd venture to say its inclusion is only to give the film room to breathe so soon after 9/11 - though, of course, then it runs the risk of inducing reactions such as yours. Silly...? Maybe. It's important to note the allegorical significance of an unknown, threatening Other attacking New York city. It's a brave and bold decision to make that the city of choice, considering how close to people 9/11 still is. The scene in which the camera and those around it take temporary refuge in a store as their view of the street outside is veiled by a horde of smoke, dust and debris (while mounting chaos ensues outside) is an effective evocation of the events of that day; people running, buildings falling, chaos to the fore; questions, screaming, and no answers. It's not exploitative, though; and I found the otherwise annoying characters and trite characterisations that pop up in this sort of film were given much freshness from the POV camera; the in-camera edits make for interesting early development and economic character expositions, capturing only the back-end of conversations and the people involved reacting to their being spied on, etc. (and we are, throughout, literal voyeurs to the entire thing). I also found the "flashbacks" (footage shot before the film's narrative takes place, brought on by errors in the recording tape) highly effective. (I haven't seen Planet Terror; it seems to have little in common with this film, though.)
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Mar 22, 2008 1:41:30 GMT
Unlike you, I found the choice of New York formulaic again with that stunt with Statue of Liberty for example. Probably that is the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of USA.
|
|
Pherdy
Ghost writer
Posts: 596
|
Post by Pherdy on Mar 22, 2008 16:26:30 GMT
I thought it was cool that at one point the protagonists raid an electronics store for phone batteries. Intended or not, it's an interesting comment on the way in which we consume media (how dependent we are in a case of crisis), the questions we ask of it ("how come Jack Bauer's phone never runs out!?" [...] Throughout, too, I couldn't ignore the fact that other people are filming the same event on their own cameras and phones... this is very much a film about the filming and multi-media capture of world-changing events. The monster plays a secondary role to this Exactly what I thought after seeing this, and what made this film a little bit more than a hyped, formulaic monster film. I wonder, how would a Giant-Monster-Attacks movie be if it attacked Smalltown America instead of NYC? Without the iconography of skyscrapers and landmarks, instead attacking anonymous farms, churches and zebra crossings...
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Mar 22, 2008 17:10:30 GMT
I wonder, how would a Giant-Monster-Attacks movie be if it attacked Smalltown America instead of NYC? Without the iconography of skyscrapers and landmarks, instead attacking zebra crossings... I don't think a smalltown American would know what that is.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 22, 2008 17:39:55 GMT
I did not find the movie engaging at all. Warning, Spoiler: They stretched the hand-held camera concept way too much. With buildings falling and stampedes on the street and choppers crashing and creatures attacking, the camera is somehow in perfect condition. Crossing over to another building from the abutment between them and rescuing the girl friend was there plainly for formulaic reasons. And what's with the non-stop running, screaming and explosions. And when it did seem to stop for a while, they are discussing random facts in a dark tunnel just immediately after one guy loses his brother. How do you not find this all silly and more importantly how is this different from other monster/zombie movies? How do you rate Planet Terror for example?On one level, it's a fairly simple monster film, a throwback to the likes of Godzilla (note the country to which one of the protagonists is emigrating: Japan), but it's also unique in that it's told entirely from the ground. Our knowledge of the "event" is necessarily limited to what the would-be victims can see. You criticise the implausibility of this by attacking the fundamental problem of an indestructible camera. Fair enough, I suppose; another friend criticised the film for the audio being far too crisp and audible for its own good (suggesting it'd be better if the government had seen need for subtitles due to loss of sound - if that isn't critical gluttony I don't know what is). If the reverse were true, though, you'd barely have a film; the premise begs that sort of leeway, the same way TV's 24 "requests" viewers not to have a hissy fit over Jack Bauer's endurable bladder. Talking of 24 and similar examples of today's media, I thought it was cool that at one point the protagonists raid an electronics store for phone batteries. Intended or not, it's an interesting comment on the way in which we consume media (how dependent we are in a case of crisis), the questions we ask of it ("how come Jack Bauer's phone never runs out!?" not to mention, all of the questions arising from Abrams's Lost), and its importance over stuff like foodstock (terrorism and invasive warfare now eliminate the option of pre-planned, long-term supplies such as groceries and nutrition, and calls for immediate necessities such as the cellphone, to tell loved ones you love them just before you die). Throughout, too, I couldn't ignore the fact that other people are filming the same event on their own cameras and phones... this is very much a film about the filming and multi-media capture of world-changing events. The monster plays a secondary role to this; and, as one who felt its final on-screen moments seemed more disappointing than frightening, I'd venture to say its inclusion is only to give the film room to breathe so soon after 9/11 - though, of course, then it runs the risk of inducing reactions such as yours. Silly...? Maybe. It's important to note the allegorical significance of an unknown, threatening Other attacking New York city. It's a brave and bold decision to make that the city of choice, considering how close to people 9/11 still is. The scene in which the camera and those around it take temporary refuge in a store as their view of the street outside is veiled by a horde of smoke, dust and debris (while mounting chaos ensues outside) is an effective evocation of the events of that day; people running, buildings falling, chaos to the fore; questions, screaming, and no answers. It's not exploitative, though; and I found the otherwise annoying characters and trite characterisations that pop up in this sort of film were given much freshness from the POV camera; the in-camera edits make for interesting early development and economic character expositions, capturing only the back-end of conversations and the people involved reacting to their being spied on, etc. (and we are, throughout, literal voyeurs to the entire thing). I also found the "flashbacks" (footage shot before the film's narrative takes place, brought on by errors in the recording tape) highly effective. (I haven't seen Planet Terror; it seems to have little in common with this film, though.) A great write-up Capo, and I pretty much agree with it.....and yeah, that final "reveal" of the monster, I hated it. And yet, a movie sacrifices itself for that goddamn moment, and people like Irishman at BB.Net still bitches about "not seeing enough of the monster" and whines of how the monster's origin is never explained. Well, Roland Emmerich's GODZILLA explained and showed plenty of itself.....and its a terrible movie.
|
|
Blib
Ghost writer
Posts: 623
|
Post by Blib on Jun 24, 2008 8:13:34 GMT
I enjoyed this movie the first time but thought I might lose interest the second time around after having already seen the monster and the build up, but I loved it even more on my second viewing. I've heard all of the different complaints... about the hand-held camera, bad characters, dumb looking monster, unrealistic situations etc... and basically disagree with them all. I thought the hand-held camera style filming could have been a disaster but was set up nicely during the party scene where the camera was left with the not-so-bright friend who seems to learn how to use the camera better as the movie goes on. While I do agree the final close-up of the monster could have been left out, I still thought the shots of the monster leading up to that point were incredible, mainly because we only see glimpses at a time so it really gets the imagination going. Throughout, too, I couldn't ignore the fact that other people are filming the same event on their own cameras and phones... this is very much a film about the filming and multi-media capture of world-changing events. Right after my second viewing of this movie I watched Diary of the Dead (2007) (possibly the worst movie I've ever seen) which goes to such incredibly obvious lengths to preach that same point how the world now lives through cameras and YouTube and we'd rather keep filming than help the people we're filming or even run to save ourselves. I think Cloverfield was much more subtle about making that point and it worked. The cameraman in the movie said at one point "people are going to want to see this" and then that whole subject of why he was still filming was dropped. The characters weren't anything to go crazy about but I thought they were very like-able and by the time they were in the subway I didn't want any of them to die. That's a rare thought for me when watching monster movies. As I mentioned earlier the quick shots of the monster were good, but there were a lot of other visuals as well such as a couple of different explosions as well as a tall building leaning up against another. I'll definitely watch it again, very entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 14, 2009 18:58:14 GMT
My god this film was a fucking joke.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Sept 14, 2009 20:18:12 GMT
Why?
|
|