Saturday, February 09, 2008

Movie Review: Clovefield


I went to see Cloverfield with Pinky and Valpot today. There has been so much hype for this film it has been impossible to miss it unless you've been living under a rock for the last six months. If you have chosen the rock abode, then you won't know that Cloverfield is a monster movie told from the prospective of a group of young, attractive and well to do New Yorkers and their magical video camera (I saw magical because it never ran out of battery or tape and survived being dropped and bashed about numerous times without any loss of quality). The actors were pleasant, the special effects were amazing (I can't help from wondering how amazing I Am Legend could have been if they had the same fx company) and the monster was suitably monstrous. Unfortunately, unlike almost every reviewer who thought this movie was scary, I found it distinctly lacking in chills and overwhelmed with inconsistencies that made it amusing. The sound of the monster was laugh out loud funny. The army mobilized into New York with astonishing speed. There was no development, growth or change in the characters from the beginning of the movie to the end. The jerky camera movements grew more and more distracting as the movie progressed - who remembers to frame their shots as they are running for their lives? And I also found that, despite the slightly original idea of the video cam, the story narrative was very linear and traditional. As I watched it I wanted to find out more about the monster and less about the people. My enjoyment was also hampered by my two companions having to leave because of feeling sick brought on by the jerky camera movements. Ultimately I enjoyed the movie but it was an empty feeling, like candyfloss, and sickened me before the end.

3 comments:

VALPOT said...

I found it disappointing, and yes, sickening. But the jerky camera movements (which were totally exaggerated) added nothing to the story, which still could have been told from the perspective of this group of people anyway (without making anyone sick or been irritated by the lack of realism. Maybe if I was a journalist I might film the monster as I ran from it. Otherwise, I think I'd just run - and why did one of the friends think it was up to him to film it so that others would know what went on? Doesn't CNN have helicopters any more???)
It could have been great - but it wasn't. Could have been good - but it wasn't. Wasn't bad either, just a wasted opportunity with not a lot going for it.

Anonymous said...

i have been living under a rock for a long time with less and less incentive to come out. this reviews confirms my view that cinema is dead

Yaron, Israel said...

I think you are correct about most of it BUT without the camcorder approach it would have been one more Hollywood blockbuster and with it it's more innovative.
I disagree about the CNN have cameras too since on 9/11 camcorders materials were valuable and gave another angle on the events.
I liked the film but went out with the same "emptiness" feeling.