Cloverfield

[Jon]

Cloverfield
5 out of 5

This is supposedly a tape found in what was "formerly Central Park" and details the attempts of a small group of people to rescue their friend after a mysterious and sustained attack on New York by a mysterious something. Or you could just say Monster Movie. Like every other monster movie you can think of. So it could be predictable and boring, but director Matt Reeves has done something incredible for modern cinematic entertainment. He's lifted the bar, just a little. This should be considered a milestone.

It starts off in a party and after ten minutes, I was fed-up of the, yes, predictable and boring soap opera unfolding. But this has to be by design to lull the viewer into a false sense of security because then we get the noise and the panic. From then, much of the film is a pure assault on the senses and one of the most original movies to come from Hollywood for a few years. Every now and again it drifts back to the soap opera, and the basic conceit of the camcorder stretches credibility frequently (conveniently films everything required; one heck of a battery, etc), but it always manages to snap back and make you jump and/or squirm (Statue of Liberty! Night vision!).

Hidden in the chaos is a brilliant piece of direction and editing that harks back to old fashioned movie making. CGI in recent years has become lazy, or perhaps because it's expensive, they insist on showing everything. But Matt Reeves positively refuses to show us much more than a tantalising glimpse here or there, bravely making his creature almost shy. This is the sort of audience manipulation that directors like Hitchcock and Spielberg built careers on. Yes, I think it's good enough to stand that comparison. That said the core story is far to simple and old to withstand such a comparison for long. Maybe there's a subtext if you want to find it, but narrative structure is an impossible dream! A lack of backstory obviously builds tension, but also makes for a simpler script.

Visually though, this film is triumphant and stands as testament to the longevity of cinema as viable entertainment in the face of video games. Phew. A few bits actually reminded me of Half-Life , but video games have a long way to go to look this good. With 3D just around the corner and directors with a vision like this to use it, Hollywood is in good hands.

But then the same could have once been said about The Matrix which also benefited from new ideas with no backstory. So please, no sequel. Unless it's bloody good.

[Rick]

From what I read (have no idea where it was) there was talks of a sequel that wouldn't be a sequel. As I understood it the sequel was going to take place during the same time as the original movie only it would be from the government's POV (the ones who have the tape).

Not sure but it seems as though that would simply be an OK monster movie. Nothing like the original.

Has anyone else heard or read the same thing or something similar?

[Jimmy]

Has anyone else heard or read the same thing or something similar?

You have not imagining it.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cloverfield/news/1706543/

But everyone remember what happen with the Blair Witch sequel? Even if I've find it much better I'm a rare exception...

[Achim]

But everyone remember what happen with the Blair Witch sequel? Even if I've find it much better I'm a rare exception...

I think that is a good comparison right there.

I didn't think Blair Witch 2 was a great film, but it was passable at the least. The one thing one has to acknowledge that they did change the style entirely and didn't just try to do "more of the same". If Cloverfield 2 goes a similar way then there is potential.

I read one review about Cloverfield, whioch gave the film a 5/5 but said at the end: If they even do a sequel we'll reduce this to 4/5.

[Jon]

I read one review about Cloverfield, whioch gave the film a 5/5 but said at the end: If they even do a sequel we'll reduce this to 4/5.

That might have been Empire. They said, do a sequel, we're taking back two stars!

But everyone remember what happen with the Blair Witch sequel? Even if I've find it much better I'm a rare exception...

The fact is, a sequel to this will be very difficult. Same approach using someone with a camera will stretch it past credibility, while doing it like a regular film (perhaps the only way of building a backstory) will betray the first one as a gimmick. Which is exactly what happened with The Matrix. That was a much better film until they had to explain how it worked and what should happen next. At that point, all the cool bullet-time atmosphere was shown to be nothing more than a magician's illusion.

I suppose if they follow the military, they could do it like Aliens with multiple camera feeds. They'll be accused of ripping off a classic, but no-ones done it in the 20+ years since anywhere near as well, so they could ride it.

I forgot to say in my first post, my praise for this film has to be put in context as a Hollywood film. The Host is just as good and also found a few original ways to tell the story of a monster. In fact, they both concentrate on a small group of people looking for one of their own instead of running with the crowd. 

[Achim]

I read one review about Cloverfield, whioch gave the film a 5/5 but said at the end: If they even do a sequel we'll reduce this to 4/5.

That might have been Empire. They said, do a sequel, we're taking back two stars!

Yep, that was it! (I always buy Empire (I may be able to get it in Taiwan, but actually never even bothered to check) when I fly to Germany and for the return. Makes for great in-flight reading.)

I forgot to say in my first post, my praise for this film has to be put in context as a Hollywood film. The Host is just as good and also found a few original ways to tell the story of a monster. In fact, they both concentrate on a small group of people looking for one of their own instead of running with the crowd. 

Doh! I never even seen the parallel (calling it similraity would even be an understatement) to The Host: which is indeed a great film too.

[goodguy]

But then the same could have once been said about The Matrix which also benefited from new ideas with no backstory.

So, Cloverfield is the new Matrix? I still have a hard time to believe that. But even so, I do wonder what you would consider the new Dark City? Now that might be a movie I want to watch.

[Jon]

Well, only in the sense that The Matrix is widely considered one the milestones which tried something new and influenced movies ever since. I do agree with that and I do like it as film in its own right, but always found it to be over-hyped and lacking substance. The sequels proved there never was any substance. If (more when!) Cloverfield 2 is released, maybe the same will be proved. I hope not though.

What the heck is "Cloverfield" anyway? I'm really hoping that it means something that the writers already know about. I love it when authors in any medium write a whole story, know all the angles from day one, but only release one viewpoint. Like Star Wars starting on episode 4, or Tarantino knowing how Reservoir Dogs links to Pulp Fiction, but has never spelled it out...