Cloverfield

Title: Cloverfield
Director: Matt Reeves
Cast: Lizzy Caplan, Michael Stahl-David, Odette Yustman
Year: 2008
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for violence, terror and disturbing images.
Date of Review: January 18, 2008

So, how to possibly describe Cloverfield? I’ll just get it right out in the open - the movie is uneven. It has some occasionally annoying characters going through horrifying situations made to seem as realistic as possible despite the fact that they’re inherently unrealistic, and they make some ridiculous decisions through all of this which can’t really be covered by the “they weren’t thinking rationally because they were in shock” excuse. The effects are well done, and it has some surprisingly iconic images. And let’s not forget to mention that there are points throughout which are - get this - actually, genuinely scary. But it just feels so unsure of its own motives that I can’t possibly say it’s “brilliant”, but at the same time can’t deny it has moments of brilliance.

Of course, for the past few months everyone has either been salivating to see what the monster looks like, or wanting to save the surprise. The viral marketing campaign for this movie has been insane, with videos and pictures being leaked to whet peoples’ appetites, and also disorient them with regards to what is and isn’t real. Is the monster visible in the clouds in the film’s poster? Or is it in the smoke? Was that a leg we briefly saw in the trailer, or was it a tail, or some other appendage? Or maybe it was just rising smoke? Then all of those news reports which were leaked not too long ago featuring hand-help footage of an ocean science facility being destroyed by something under the water raised even more questions. Is the monster a government project? Is it perhaps an alien? Did that science facility even have anything to do with the origin of the monster, or is it just meant as a red herring from the oh-so-clever J. J. Abrams? And then, perhaps the biggest question of all - will we even get to see the monster? Well, to set one thing straight without spoiling anything for you, we definitely see the monster in all its glory, and it’s very well done. Looking at how the film was made with a $30 million budget would lead one to believe much of that money was spent simply on the design and execution of the monster effects. And it certainly paid off, because it is something we have never seen before, and even if you wanted me to spoil it for you - which you don’t, trust me - I don’t know that I could describe what it is. Rest assured, it’s a great design.

But how good is the actual movie? Well, this is like the celluloid equivalent of someone with multiple personality disorder. Part of the movie thinks it’s a serious and frightening depiction of the mayhem which would be caused by such a monstrous attack on New York City. The other half is an almost unintentionally funny and satirical look at American vanity. Of course the 9/11 parallels are the first thing everyone’s going to look at, but that’s really not a huge part of it. There are some obvious images meant to evoke memories of that attack, but the entirety is played out more as “a general foreign body attacking American soil”, instead of a strict recollection of that event. The shot of the head of the Statue of Liberty being thrown by the monster and then landing in the street is literally showing America having its liberty thrown back in its face. And to add to that, there are a few parts with obviously placed American flags being destroyed that just seem like too ham-handed a way to show that this is an attack on America’s soul and way of life, not just buildings and streets.

Most of the problems which arise are in the characters, though, who are all divinely good-looking rich people engaged in an almost soap opera-like existence where everyone’s gossiping and trying to find out who’s sleeping with who. That’s fine and good, but when the film’s biggest shtick is that it’s trying to show “realism”, this type of life just doesn’t connect with very many people - not to mention the characters’ apparent invincibility and the presence of the most durable camcorder ever made. But to then have the characters go on and make some incredibly ridiculous choices - like choosing to scale a toppled over building - just doesn’t make much sense at all, regardless of the honorable reasons behind these actions. Later on in the film, there is a scene (which was briefly shown in the trailer) where the main character is talking into the camera saying how “he has no idea what’s going on”. This also makes no sense and doesn’t excuse his stupidity, since the film we have seen has consisted of footage compiled entirely of situations in which he was involved, and he definitely saw and knew enough that he should have been trying to get as far away from the city as possible.

Getting away from the negatives, though, there is a lot of good stuff to be seen in Cloverfield. Considering this is a PG-13, advertised up the arse, sell as many tickets as possible money-maker, there are enough moments of terror and tension (not to mention some excellent design ideas) which manage to make it a pretty good and very entertaining movie. And considering it’s not even an hour and a half long, it never overstays its welcome. While the film has been made with handheld cameras, it’s done strategically enough to never feel nauseating like the internet videos it is mimicking, and we get a great build-up to the explosive finale. I could actually see more comparisons being made between this and The Mist, than something like Godzilla or King Kong, because of its more personal scope and emphasis on our anxiety towards the unknown. It looks for the fear that would be felt down on the ground during a situation so horrible, and it often finds that and makes us feel helpless and vulnerable. But it can’t be denied that it’s deeply flawed, and these characters just aren’t likable or relatable enough to really feel the emotional impact that the film also occasionally strives for. If I could only use two words to sum this movie up, they would be “effective misfire”.

7.5 / 10