Who has got the cure for the sit-at-home blues? Ask Dr Grabthar. Now with bigger, easier to read font!

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

A Late Cloverfield Review

If you haven't seen Cloverfield then I recommend not reading this post (until you do)

So I went to see the highly anticipated monster movie Cloverfield last night last Thursday (I wrote this straight away and then mucked about before posting) with my lady friend, Mr Tibby and his friend Richard. For months and months we have been happily led around at the whim of JJ Abrams and his viral marketing crew. Snapping up any little tidbits of information whether they be right (it is all on handicam) or wrong (see picture below, which is very wrong).

But now I've seen it and I can say that while it didn't live up to all the hype it was a pretty good film and a nice adaptation of the genre.

But do be careful when you see it, the handicam can cause motion sickness.

SPOILERS FOLLOW – Dirty big spoilers too, so just in case… SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

First what I liked:

The handicam – with the camera placed as it is in a "normal" film the moviegoer is placed into the role of observer; a silent voyeur of the action. With the handicam (manned by Hud) the moviegoer becomes part of the cast. You become just as interested in what is happening behind the camera as with what you can see. Literally: "is there something behind me?"

The monster – The monster is pretty cool. It's not Godzilla, it doesn't hide, it kicks ass and (spoiler) it possibly doesn't die. Also we see the monster as our character, Hud, see him (more on why he's "our character" later).

Themes and Visuals – As we left the cinema I overheard a woman just in front of us say "Well I'd give that a one out of five. The only funny bit was when [a guy in the audience] laughed". This woman was obviously thinking she was going to the latest Scary Movie instalment (called Meet the Spartans btw). Or, more likely, she was expecting some guy in a rubber suit flailing his arms about and maybe giant heroic characters like they had in Predator. Needless to say her comment pissed me off. She's probably the same kind of person who thinks zombies movies are actually about zombies (and not about rampant consumerism or popular culture sickness).

Monster films always capture the fear of the day. Godzilla was the embodiment of the atomic age, with the monster itself being created by a nuclear bomb. Naturally this resonated with 1950’s Japan. Then the Cold War came along and suddenly it was invaders from Mars (the “red” planet) and other monsters that were just stand-ins for communism (see Invasion of the Body Snatchers). The seventies and eighties gave us the aforementioned Zombie movies, the nineties brought more UFOs.

The themes of Cloverfield (which is actually the military's designated name of the monster, for some reason) seem to be rooted in the current American fear of terrorism. The introduction of the monster could be transplanted easily into any film about the terrorist attacks of 2001 (as has been noted by many reviewers). Things explode, buildings collapse, and huge dust clouds roll along the street. People stand stunned in the street and wonder: who has done this to us? And why?

I don’t agree with Russell that it’s “just a movie” and people should get over it, I do agree that no one should get in a tiz about it (though Russell offered no links so I couldn’t say who it was). Part of the reason why this film is so good is that it hits that note in your head. You know that the movie is referencing the events of September 11, 2001 (hell, some the backgrounders are yelling it out) and you keep remembering that as you go through the journey with the characters.

Monster films that don’t have the connection to people through these themes and event don’t capture people as much. Just look at the remake of Godzilla or The Invasion for instant flops; the world wasn’t worried about nuclear warfare in the late 90’s or ideological brainwashing last year. Make it relevant or expect it to flop.

The other theme (for me) is the obvious one of voyeurism. Everyone has cameras and cellphones and are "documenting" the event. The Statue of Liberty's head flies through the air and skids along the street and the first thing that happens is that people take photos of it. Mix that in with the fact that we are watching the action through a handicam and you’ve got the other big phenomenon of the day: YouTube (do you really need a link?).

Given that so much of the marketing for the film was done virally on the internet the format and the voyeurism seemed perfect. Actually as quick aside, I was surprised at the amount of footage from the trailers that turned out to be important scenes in the film.

What I didn’t like about the film:

Most of the points raised by The Bad Astronomy Blog (especially Nitpick 4, but not Nitpick 6). That was easy.

But the thing I really didn’t like was the main character: Rob.

So we have four main characters and two supporting characters. And when I say that I suppose I mean that we have two main characters and six supporters. The two main ones are Rob and Hud (behind the camera, possibly a script in-joke on “heads-up display”), everyone else is just talking cannon fodder.

Rob is, I suppose, the protagonist. But I just couldn’t stand him! He doesn’t care for his friends, like Hud who blindly follows “his main dude” everywhere. All he does is willingly put them in more and more danger. I kept wanting him to die.

For me the protagonist was Hud because, mainly, he was us. I just didn’t like him when they showed his face. His voice was Judge Reinhold (circa Fast Times…) his face was Seth Rogen. So when Hud, died the film ended for me (apart from the cool little “are you watching” wink right at the end).

Also the group are a bunch of rich kids. Rob is 20-something and is off to Japan to be vice-president of a company for goodness sake. Beth, the improbably alive love interest of Rob, is in her father’s apartment overlooking Central Park. I found it really hard to associate with these characters. They weren’t attending a cool party in the city; they were throwing a cool party in the city.

Also it fell into the traditional horror/monster movie problem of no grief shown for those who die. Rob sees his brother die, breaks down on the phone to his Mom (much, much later) and then that’s it. Marlena explodes in front of them and there’s very little emotion, even by Hud who had the “hots” for her. And speaking of that: when they get to the field hospital, why don’t they mention Marlena is badly hurt?

UPDATE: Unsurprisingly The Hater has put it better than I:

3. Human Emotions. I know what you're thinking: If during a terrible disaster you had to tell your mom that her son, your brother, was dead, you probably wouldn't then follow-up that painful news with a lie about being evacuated just so you can go rescue a pseudo-girlfriend who is probably already dead anyway. In fact, talking to your mom would probably make your desire to escape the danger that much stronger. But, whatever. Have you ever had to weigh your family, life, and dead brother against your probably dead pseudo-girlfriend and almost certain death at the hands of an alien monster? No, you haven't. You don't know what it's like till you're the one getting miraculous cell phone service in the subway.

Anyway, it is a really good film and I hope you liked it as much as I did.

4 comments:

Craig Ranapia said...

Also the group are a bunch of rich kids.

Um, and so? Here's my problem: I don't give a shit if they're downtown trust-fund babies and wannabe corporate overlords. They're boring, and I can't for the life of me believe writer Drew Goddard also co-wrote 'Conversations With Dead People', one of the best (and most intensely character-driven) episodes of Buffy.

I wish Joss Whedon had written this damn thing -- at least you'd have had enough character beats and quirky dialogue laid into that arse-numbingly boring party scene that I'd care about what happens to these people.

Yes, I know its a horror/disaster film that is only 80 minutes long (and around ten of those are the end credits); and I'm not asking for freaking Hamlet, but it would be nice if someone gave a shit.

And speaking of that: when they get to the field hospital, why don’t they mention Marlena is badly hurt?

I think they did, but by this point I was over trying to make sense of the sound of Emo Whiny-Pants, Retard with a Cam-corder and Token Ethnic Diversity Girl screaming like rabid stoats.

Here's the real question: Why was Marlena hustled behind a screen to explode? Apart from avoiding a profit-killing R or NC-17 rating from the MPAA?

Up to this point, my willing suspension of disbelief has been chugging along nicely but that was when it collapsed, never to return.

I wouldn't go as far as to say it was "a really good film", as opposed to a decent way to waste 90 minutes. A slickly produced exercise in disaster-porn (though the 'shaky-cam' POV is a one-use gimmick -- if it had been any longer I'd have started bleeding from the eyes too), but can't say I'll be rushing out to buy the DVD.

Technical: 7/10. Yes, the drunk-cam was a gimmick with diminishing returns, and the 'big reveal'
of monster itself in daylight was a big mistake. Looked like Gollum on the mother of all 'roid rage trips to me. Still, making the film look that raw requires a lot of time, effort and technical savvy. Credit where credit is due.

Acting: 5/10 - and I'm being generous, because the perfunctory script was hardly a fair test.

Script: 0/10. If you're going to tell fundamental story logic to go get fucked, characterization is critical. Drew Goddard, in my view, didn't even try.

Hadyn said...

Cheers for the comment Craig, and I agree with what you say, but I'll this stuff...

Here's the real question: Why was Marlena hustled behind a screen to explode?
I had no problem with that cause I assumed there was some sort of contamination thing (blah blah blah) and they need to put her behind the bio-security-back-lit-screen. My beef with that was why Hud held the camera in the air.

Too often in the film Hud was filming things that would require him to be actively filming instead of running for his life (or saving someone else's) even though the dialogue and scene would suggest otherwise.

The Rich kid thing
It's not a coincidence that the best horror/monster flicks have characters who aren't big income earners (with maybe Mars Attacks as an exception).

Acting and Script
Best pretend you've never heard of this Joss Whedon, or good story construction or talented acting :)

Best line I heard about the Token Black Girl:
"Black people had two jobs in that movie. Loot and get the fuck out of Manhattan. And you 'll note we accomplished both with alacrity"

Craig Ranapia said...

Ah, and many thanks to Kung Fu Monkey for reminding me of Horror Movie Rules #1,785,401: When you're in a dark tunnel FOLLOW THE RATS. 'Cause something that scares the crap out of a mofo New York sewer rat will fuck up your cracker arse without breaking a sweat.

It's not a coincidence that the best horror/monster flicks have characters who aren't big income earners (with maybe Mars Attacks as an exception).

How about 'Halloween' -- which I'd defend as a fine movie, despite the unspeakable wave of slasher torture porn that followed in its wake? Laurie Strode and her (rapidly dying) friends are solidly in the American middle-class, and without wanting to get into a media studies wank-off about it I'd say the American horror film is very much an anatomy of bourgeois anxieties. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as Jerry Seinfeld used to say. :)

Anyway, who wants to bet that Rob and co. were a giant sub-prime credit crisis waiting to happen. Hey, perhaps that's my sociological pearl: Case Designate Cloverfield is a vast analogy for the anxieties and insecurities of white collar Gen Y Wallpaper subscribers, whose fabulously cool lives can be ripped apart at any moment by vast and inexplicable forces totally beyond their understanding. (Don't know how you fit the crabs from hell into that theoretical superstructure though.)

Hadyn said...

Case Designate Cloverfield is a vast analogy for the anxieties and insecurities of white collar Gen Y Wallpaper subscribers

Heh heh, brilliant!