Cloverfield

USA, 2008

Director:

Matt Reeves

Starring:

Matt: A+

Adam: C+

ADAM:

The much hyped Blair Witch style monster movie opened in America two weekends ago and promptly took the number one slot in the box office charts. It then proceeded to drop by 76% the following weekend which is just about, although not quite, an all-time record. So either all the Coverfield fanboys had scrambled to see it on opening weekend and there were none left who hadn't seen it the week after, or word of mouth was pretty abysmal.

Maybe it was a little of both. I can certainly understand the word of mouth being poor. The first comment I heard upon leaving was "that's an hour and a half of my life I'll never have back". There were groans of disappointment when it finished. No clapping. No murmers of approval. I think you get a sense of how an audience is gauging a film when you're there and I certainly didn't sense an audience on the edge of their seats.

For those who have no idea, Cloverfield is filmed from the perspective of a group of young friends celebrating the imminent departure of one of their buddies, who's off to Japan. The first half hour sees us become acquainted with what'll become a group of 5 through video tributes filmed by the Hud, who's been given the job of documenting the entire night. Around 30 minutes in a series of explosions over downtown Manhattan disturbs their celebrations and causes them to leave the apartment. Whilst outide they witness what seems to be a meteor or something similar crashing down the street, but which then appears to be the head of the Statue of Liberty. Credit is due here for what is a very well filmed sequence. In the ensuing panic our friends get broken up and we follow a group of 5 of them, one of whom is Tom - the guy who was off to Japan, and the person they all look to for leadership.

Comparisons with Blair Witch are pretty reasonable since the style of each film and the marketing of both has trodden a similar path. Although this is a completely different set up, there are comparisons to be made. Not being a fan of The Blair Witch Project I have to say Cloverfield surpasses the only real notable hand-held movie to precede it in every regard. However some of that wouldn't be too difficult. The quality of acting is better here, which is a little like saying it would be better to go blind in one eye rather than two. They both suck, one's just not as bad. Largely though this is very well executed and there is one very notable department in which Cloverfield far outstrips its counterpart and that is the quality of the direction, which here is very well - in places superbly - executed. The editing too is nicely handled, especially in the cuts between parts of the tape we're watching from Tom and Beth's day out at Coney Island back to the events of the night.

Whilst 90% of this film is good or better, the remaining 10% is so abysmal that it destroys a lot of the good work. That 10% is largely the writing of the dialogue. It may be just one part of a screenplay, but if it doesn't work it sticks out like a 90-foot monster and it really doesn't work here. Most of the ridiculous lines are handed to Hud and it doesn't help that he's the weakest actor in the film. I enter the following into evidence...


Hud: What time is the last chopper?
Tom: 0600 hours
Hud: What time is that?
Tom: 6 o-clock
Hud: Oh yeah, I knew that.


Hud: Thanks for saving me. Otherwise I'd be, like, dead.


(3am, our 'heroes' trapped in the subway, war rages on street level)
Tom: Wait a minute, this track carries the 6 [train].
Hud: Uh, Tom, I don't think the trains are running.


(Tom realises his battery is dead. He's desperately trying to retrieve his voicemail. He runs towards an electronics store that's being looted, quite obviously to get a battery)
Hud: Uh Tom, I think the store is closed man.


(A 90-foot monster rages along the streets of Manhattan ripping up buildings.)
Hud: Tom, something strange is happening outside.


He gets my vote for the "you ruined the movie" which they should consider creating as a new category at the Oscars just to spice things up. A shame really as there is some very good work and a lot of effort gone in to making this film. It just didn't quite do it for me.

AL

MATT:

Much hyped and brilliantly marketed, this J.J. Abrams vehicle, directed by Matt Reeves and starring a bunch of unknowns, centres on an attack on New York. But by who? Or what?

Now, I'm afraid I can't really review this without revealing what or who the mystery attacker is, so if you don't know look away now and you'll just have to come back to find out the punchline of this political slot when you've seen it. Anyway, the movie was released on friday and it is now widely known what this attacker is.

It's a hacking great monster.

Anyway, this is a truly revolutionary film. Not really in the way that it uses handheld cameras and provides a first hand perspective, nor in regards to the subject material, characterisation, editing or direction. What then? It's difficult to pinpoint and describe exactly, but it's essentially the combination of incredible realism and utterly stunning visuals the likes of which have never been joined before to such incredible effect. It's a disaster movie crossed with sci-fi, but it is handled so perfectly I genuinely walked out of the cinema and drove home casting a wary eye towards the horizon in case a hacking great monster there lurked. Now, I would personally say that a fictional film starring a huge CGI creature which has this effect on a viewer deserves a huge amount of kudos. Never before have I witnessed the normal and everyday so dramatically collapsed by something that should absolutely, on the face of it, be absurd. Unbelievable. Could never have imagined a monster movie could ever make anyone feel like this. I expected to enjoy it (on the same kind of level I enjoyed War of The Worlds say) but I never expected this. I cannot wait to see whether it will stand up to a second viewing. I might even go back and watch it again before it finishes its run at the cinema.

It gets extra credit because, as I say, there is nothing spectacular about the basic plot, or narrative (it's a very basic disaster movie set-up) and the performances are no more than okay. They don't need to be anything more than that, however, as the dialogue takes care of that. One further aspect worthy of commendation is the very original way there is absolutely nothing (except one tantalising hint in the last shot) of monster backstory. Perhaps that's why it works so damn well.

A word of warning. This will split audiences straight down the middle. Some will simply hate this and find it laughable and part of me can see why, though I will not be able to accept the reasons for it. For 85 minutes you are living in a city attacked by a mysterious creature and it is completely believable and totally absorbing as a result and nothing will change that for me. Also, the camera work (literally) nearly made me sick, but that was all part of the fun for me. It won't be for others. All reservations aside, this gets a provisional A+.

ME