The biggest question on most moviegoers minds this weekend who were flocking to see Cloverfield was whether it would live up to all the hype and internet viral marketing that we’ve been experiencing for quite awhile now.
It started last summer when there was a teaser of the film released and it got everyone a-buzzing. Friends were asking if you had seen the 1-18-08 trailer yet by J.J. Abrams! That was crazy! It was going to be something strange, something different, by the looks of it done with hand-held cameras and involving some kind of monster attack.
Since then, there have been viral websites, production photos, drawings of monsters and all kinds of stuff released out onto the web to create the kind of buzz last seen for Snakes on a Plane (Which did not live up to all the hype). Maybe even more of a buzz since it was J.J. Abrams after all, the guy who brought us Alias, Lost and the new Star Trek film later this year.
I ignored most of it, as I usually try to do, so that the experience of the movie isn’t totally lost because I already know exactly what is going to happen.
So with that being said, I have an answer to the question posed at the start of this review:
Cloverfield flat out rocks!
It was exactly what I thought it would be and then some. It’s an 84-minute thrill ride, with some seriously amazing camera work and special effects that I’ve never seen before.
What is more astounding to me in this film is that they were able to slice into it a nice little side story that had you caring for the characters, more than you’d ever think you could in a movie barely 90 minutes long.
It start off with about 15-20 minutes of setup. Rob Hawkins has just landed a big vice-president gig in Japan and his friends are holding a going-away party for him in Manhattan. The movie first begins though a few weeks earlier where Rob and a girl he loves named Beth, take a trip to Coney Island, with Rob filming the entire day.
But as it happens, his friends grab his camera and tape over it to shoot the footage of his going-away party. Rob’s close friend Lily wants someone to document it and get people’s good-byes to Rob taped for him. Rob’s best friend Hud ends up behind the camera, filming the festivities and the issues between Rob and Beth.
This is where the movie gets its genius. Matt Reeves, the director, used the hand-held camera device so well that it was able to tell two stories by using one fictional tape. While you watch the first hints of the monster attack and then the rush of panic that takes hold of our characters, the video cuts to the old footage being taped over, where we see Rob and Beth in a happier time.
The old footage clips last maybe 2-5 seconds at a time, but somehow they are able to tell us another story while we see the onslaught continue when we get back to the main story.
It just added to the realism of this film. You could almost believe you were watching a real recording of someone’s party, who’s idiot friends taped over an important moment in their buddy’s life.
But the movie of course is a monster extravaganza and that’s where the heart of it lies. During the party, an earthquake happens, or so they think, turning off the lights for a moment and then sending them all upstairs to the roof in order to try and see some oil tanker that had capsized in the river.
Once they are up there, all hell breaks loose as the top of one of the skyscrapers in Manhattan explodes in a glorious shower of fire and shrapnel, and the movie takes off.
From that point on, I couldn’t look away from the screen, nor even care about anything else. That’s when I know a movie is doing what it’s meant to: Keeping me glued to my seat, staring at the action going on in front of me and forgetting about what time it is.
I’m not going to give away what happens in the film, nor how it ends, or what else might be out there besides this giant monster destroying the city.
But I have to really applaud those behind the cameras and the special effects. They take shaky filming of the characters running, ducking and dodging explosions and monster appendages, and then tie into it all the special effects and realism to make it appear as one, solid piece of work.
I’m no expert on how they film this stuff, but it would seem like blue screens would have been impossible, so the editing and effects teams had to be freaking brilliant here to pull it off. And that they did.I honestly don’t know how hard it had to be to take camcorder-like footage of running down the road and then put in such realistic looking effects that just appear to be part of the film.
I will say one thing about the fictional camera they use in the movie. This had to be one damn good piece of electronics to have a battery last that long, survive bumps, drops and crashes, and then on top of it to have a bright flashlight on the front of it and an INFARED setting!
This movie was a roller coaster ride from the moment the first explosion rocks the city to the final scenes of…well, you can see it for yourself.
They set out to make a great monster movie and that’s what they did. I can see some people being disappointed on a few plot elements, especially those kind of folks who like answers to every mystery they see, but to me, that was part of the brilliance of the film.
You get dropped into the lives of a group of friends, go along with them as they try to save each other from a massive attack and then as quick as it starts, you get the end.
It was filmed like a home movie and ends like a home movie would.
I loved it.
As word of caution though, don’t sit close to the screen if you can help it. The camera shakes pretty bad and even sitting way in the upper echelon of the stadium seats at my local cinema, I still got dizzy at a few parts.
(on a side note, I loved the Star Trek teaser as well…too bad it’s not out until Christmas 2008)
AML Rating: A
I am very eager to watch this film. Did they show the star trek teaser with cloverfield? and was this movie as good as its hype? I heard people saying that there were more camera shakes than suspense in the film.looking forward to it a lot.
i want to ask you about some things u have done on your site, which i was not able to implement on mine. Can i have ur chat id or mail id or something.
The Star Trek teaser was indeed on this film…you can see it posted on this site.
The movie does have a lot of shaky camera work, but I thought it was pretty cool, although I’d say you should sit back from the screen aways.
The suspense was good, not scary, but just suspenseful and good action.
I’ll email you Prem.
I thought this movie was absolutely awfull. No plot, camera work stolen from Blair Witch.
A big monster tears up new york. I’m impressed they could stretch no content out for an hour and a half.
I saw this flick last night and liked it a lot. The camera work takes some getting used to in the beginning, but once the action got started I really didn’t notice it that much. Moreover, unlike the Blair Witch Project (which was an awful movie), you actually felt like you were part of the action here. I liked the fact that I couldn’t see everything which left me wanting to see more – very effective I thought.
I don’t want to spoil anything, so after this flick has been out for a while it may be good to get a discussion going – maybe a good Friday question Mike?
Steven’s last blog post..Top 100 Movies: No. 70 – The Godfather Part II (1974)
Where did you get the last picture from? There was nothing like it in the movie. The only thing you see is what the hand held camera sees. Just interesting that the picture is even out there, which could be deceptive on how the movie is.
I just found it online, it must be a production photo from filming.
what is a blue screen, i thought they were green…
Egh, green screen…blue screen…can I lie and say I’m colorblind?
Good to hear! I’m excited to watch this movie as soon as I can sneak away from the house to watch it.
No need to correct, you were right the first time… blue screen is right….
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/blue-screen.htm
If you go and watch it, go in with little expectations and just enjoy the ride. It is almost like an independent movie (handheld camera, no-name actors, style of story-telling) with a nice budget (i.e. special effects). Very entertaining!
[...] Cloverfield only cost $25 million to make. I had commented on this to my wife after watching it, wondering aloud how much it could have cost considering most of it was done by a hand-held camera. The special effects had to be the only big-budget item in the film. The actors were mostly no-name people who likely didn’t demand much money. [...]
i am going to see the movie at 2pm today, with like 20 other friends. do u think it will still be really crowded?? will we be able to fit all of us in the theater??
2pm, even though it’s a holiday, I suspect you’ll be okay. I’d still get there 30 minutes early at least though.
wish I had off today to go see it….but nooooooooooo, I have to go to work….
I read that you should stay until the end of the credits to hear a voice or something… Keep that in mind, if you haven’t already seen it.
Yeah, I am going to post on that voice later today or tomorrow.
I like films that do that… thanks Jina for mentioning….
Did Cloverfield live upto the Hype?…
Most of the action is up to the viewer who will use the shadowed image and distorted sound as an adrenaline stimulant as effectively as he wishes.
……
[...] probably don’t want to read much more of this blog post if you haven’t seen Cloverfield yet, but if you don’t care about spoilers and such, then by all means, keep [...]
I liked Cloverfield, although I did feel like I was sea-sick all through it because of the jerky camera work. I was glad it only went 80 odd minutes.
Ian’s last blog post..Lesbian vampire killers