Cloverfield Review

Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Cloverfield - or how I wasted an hour and a half of my life

By Brad L.

I'll be upfront with you. No mincing words in this blog. I didn't like Cloverfield. It was overhyped and underwhelming. And this is coming from someone who didn't even follow the hype. I saw that teaser in front of Transformers and I was instantly hooked. Too bad the movie couldn't live up to that short teaser.So let's get this bad boy under way.

The Plot:

Rob Hawkins is moving to Japan. His brother and a bunch of his friends throw him a going away party. He's in love with this girl Beth but is acting all non-chalant since he's leaving anyway and despite the fact that she loves him too, but God knows why. A monster attacks New York and madness ensues. People die. Jokes are told at inopportune times (for the characters but opportune times for the audience). Let's get this straight. THERE IS NOTHING REVOLUTIONARY ABOUT THIS MOVIE. It's Godzilla meets The Blair Witch Project. It's the Godzilla Witch Project. Period. Full Stop.

The Good:

1. The movie was meant to look like it was shot on a camcorder and Matt Reeves was successful in this. I applaud the filmmakers for taking so many long single takes and the actors for managing to get it right. It all looks very cohesive.

2. The special effects are top notch. From the destruction to the monster itself, all the effects are well integrated into the final product. It definitely does a good job of making you feel like you are in the middle of an actual monster invasion. Very visceral.

3. Hud. Get it? The guy behind the camera is named Hud. You know, like your Heads Up Display in a first person shooter. How clever. Seriously though. The guy is funny and his comic relief is much needed and appreciated.

The Bad:

1. The actors. Besides Hud and Marlena, everyone was superficial. It did not cease to amaze me that the crappiest of the actors was also the lead role. Bad decision making.

2. The characters. Not only were the actors bad but the characters were written poorly. I never got a chance to actually develop any feelings towards Rob and Beth nor cared if they ended up together. And sure, Beth might have been easy on the eyes but she was not established enough that I would believe someone as weak willed as Rob would actually grow balls and traverse a monster infested Manhattan for her. And I think there were other characters too but they were equally forgettable.

3. No resolution. First of all, I don't want to hear that it was so gutsy for the filmmakers to leave the movie so open ended, not explaining anything about the monster and having the main characters die. It's not cool or "indie" of them. It's been done many times over in film history. Just look to Romero's original Night of the Living Dead and you'll see no explanations for the zombies or where they came from. And the major characters die. The difference? Night of the Living Dead actually has a resolution, even if it is cynical. Cloverfield does not.

Overall, the movie feels cheap. It feels like a cheap thrill. It feels like the camcorder look was used to avoid having to light the project well and worry about cinematography. The ending felt like a cheap cop out and a way to get audiences hooked into a possible sequel. It felt like the writers Googled "monster movie" and just copied and pasted clichés and plot threads. The characters were poorly developed and on top of that, the actors did a piss-poor job portraying them.

What a waste, really.The filmmakers said that their inspiration for the teaser trailer and resulting hype was Close Encounters of the Third Kind. That trailer teased you with the different kinds of Encounters but really gave you nothing of the movie itself. It put audiences into a frenzy with excitement for the project. Spielberg knew this and actually made a satisfying film. Matt Reeves certainly captured the teaser correctly. He should have taken another page out of Spielberg's book and created a film to match expectation.