This one’s been making a lot of buzz around the interwebs when it was first released, but as always I wasn’t in a geographical position to take part in the fun. It seemed that there were only two camps for those who’ve watched it, one for those who thought it was a poorly made spoof of a monster film, and one for the guys who thought it was nothing short of brilliant.
So where did I end up pitching my tent? Well, it should suffice to say that there isn’t much criticism going ’round the camp fire. We’re a happy bunch over here, and we like films that are shot on hand-held cameras.
For those of you who don’t know what this movie’s about, here’s the gist of it: Some rich young folks over in New York City are having a wild going-away party for one of their friends, and it’s all being documented on a hand-held camera. Suddenly a the earth starts to quake something fierce and everyone storms out of the building. When they look up, they spot something coming toward them, and when it lands they see that’s the head of bleeding Statue of Liberty herself that’s been torn off… But by what?
Naturally, they draw their own conclusion when a gigantic monster of an unknown origin comes a-stomping down the street, wreaking havoc upon anything and anyone. The rest of the movie is pretty much a straight-forward monster flick where a group of people makes some pretty f*cked up decisions, but it doesn’t come off as cheesy or anything like that. In fact, it comes off as the opposite, which is why I think “Cloverfield” must be the best “Godzilla”-related movie ever made. That doesn’t perhaps sound like a compliment, but it sure as hell is, ’cause this is really well made film in almost ever way.
Sure, it’s not the deepest shit you’ll ever lay your twinkling eyes on, but anyone with something that even resembles brain tissue should be aware that these flick don’t exactly debate the inner turmoil of the human soul (though they might have a stab at portraying what your innards might look like…). You watch these films to get scared, and for it to achieve that, it must make you believe in the story and the characters that are bound to get emboweled at some point. Very few movies have succeed in doing that, but “Cloverfield” is thankfully one of them.
And the main reason behind that fact was the way it was shot. The hand-held camera, though at times dizzying, worked incredibly well at making this story realistic. The home-video feel of the entire flick made me relate to the (amazingly beautiful) people that were unlucky enough to get into the middle of a small-scale apocalypse. It brought humanity to the picture and made you really care for every soul that got devoured. It was, as mentioned, nothing short of brilliant from start to end, and I have little doubt in my heart that “Cloverfield” will become a modern classic in the genre.
But lets not hope that everyone starts making movies with their hand-helds. It was really cool this time around, but it’s definitely a concept that will grow old very fast.
“Cloverfield” is the best thing I’ve witnessed in cinemas for a long time. If you haven’t watched it yet, then get your lazy ass off towards the nearest theatre or you’ll regret missing out on this ’till you’re stone cold and six feet below.
Highly recommended, though not for the faint of heart and the easily sickened.
9.0/10
Posts
I *am* of the faint of heart - which is too bad, as Drew Goddard wrote this movie, and, well, he really knows his stuff. TV-wise, anyway, and I’d assume that transfers reasonably well to the big screen.
And in a few weeks, we’ll start knowing how it translates to comic book pages, too, when his run on Buffy Season 8 starts up. ^^
22. February 2008 @ 04:46 ( Permalink )
Saw this film a few weeks ago and I absolutely loved it. I’m quite critical of movies and rarely do more than 3 movies a year get 8 out of 10 for me, but after the excellent I am Legend here is another disaster film that is truly astounding. Riverting from start to finish, I rated it 9 out of 10.
24. February 2008 @ 03:08 ( Permalink )
You and me both, then
It’s so nice when we can all agree on something. I certainly hope I’ll like “I Am Legend” as much as you did.
24. February 2008 @ 07:08 ( Permalink )
First of all, Amras, the aspiring English teacher in me has some nitpicking to do: mind your “these” and “this” and “fate” and “faith” (not relevant here, though, but in another post I read somewhere), and also generally your apostrophes.
Then: A very good movie, indeed. Intense, just about the right length (it seemed a lot longer than its mere 82 minutes or whatever), fairly well acted, great effects, tragic realism, and a monster that… well, to be honest, I’m bereft of words.
I mean, you said it might be the best Godzilla emulation ever, right? An underestimation: It’s a fucking Aliens-dandruffing Cthulu, for Chris’s sake!
Still, I don’t think I’d go so far as to a 9, though. An 8/8.5 was enough for me.
6. March 2008 @ 15:53 ( Permalink )
I’ll keep that in mind (doubly so since I do believe that Loki said much of the same in a comment not long ago). I seldom write all-out misspellings any longer, but these homonyms (?) tend to crop up when I’m tearing through an entry without letting them mature a while before I post them.
The high grade is a result of me watching “Jumper” just before I skipped onwards to “Cloverfield” (pure genius and trite crap makes for a stark comparison…) and the ingenuity and originality of its concept .Though, sadly, I highly doubt that this film will perform well on the small screen, so a rewatch might set it back a mince.
(Btw, an “8/8.5″ is a higher grade than 9/10
)
6. March 2008 @ 16:19 ( Permalink )
Homonyms, yes.
And if you love Cloverfield so much, the writer’s first Buffy-issue is in the comic book shops now! Run out and buy! Amras, anyway, I suppose Terje might have to scuffle and drag his feet zombie-style.
6. March 2008 @ 22:46 ( Permalink )