I'll Clover Your Field...In Bed

Rating: 5/10 (23 February 2008)

So I walked down to a free preview screening of Cloverfield last night. I predicted a few weeks ago that it would be a disappointment both critically and financially, but I was wrong on both accounts. The reviews at Rotten Tomatoes are quite enthusiastic, although there are more than a few detractors, and the preview screening last night had a rush line that would have filled a theatre and a half on its own, meaning it will probably be huge. In comparison, the screening for Lions For Lambs was only three quarters full, even though it was free. While there are many things to praise about this movie, I can't give it a recommendation. Beyond the gimmick of being told entirely in point of view of one of the characters camcorders, there is not much in this move that would be different from conventional monster movie, and there-in lies its faults.
The movie covers the travails of a group of 20-somethings after a Godzilla-like monster attacks Manhattan. The logical improbability of our camera-man, "Hud"(T.J. Miller) carrying around a camera for the entire night is surprisingly not as intrusive as it could be. Thankfully, the footage is regular film quality, despite the fact that it would really look more like a home video. At a few points, the other characters tell him to stop being an idiot and to put the camera down. Fortunately, he never does, or we wouldn't have a movie. This gimmick brings a sense of urgency to the film that greatly helps the proceedings. In particular, there is one scene where our heroes are stuck in the middle of an army attack that is absolutely harrowing. The gimmick also allows for a neat visual trick whilst our heroes are traveling in the pitch black of a subway tunnel and they learn how to use the night vision feature. Unfortunately, the human elements of the film don't work nearly as well as the visual.
The film begins at a party full of impossibly good-looking 20-somethings who are there to surprise, Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who is going to Japan for a job. "Hud" is put in charge of getting testimonials with the camera, and he is possibly the worst camera man of all time, barely able to get anyones face on the camera. The film begins with a little self-conscious John Hughesian drama between Rob and Beth (Odette Yustman), a good friend whom he slept with about a month earlier (footage of "the morning after" from that particular event is spliced in throughout the film). Also, our cameraman has a little crush on Marlena (Lizzy Caplan, who has more than a little resemblance to Zooey Deschanel) and starts embarrassing himself as he keeps drinking. I know that this wasn't a great treatise on human nature, but it was executed with humour and the leads were suitably bland in a way that we didn't feel bad laughing at them.
Once the monster attacks the city, however, the humour feels forced as does the drama. "Hud" is the token annoying fat guy used as comic relief. He's not very funny, it's kinda like if Hurley from "Lost" was filming everything on a camcorder, if Hurley was just a little bit skinnier. When Rob decides to go back into the city to save Beth, which is the prime motivation of the plot, it just feels stupid, not heroic. It might have worked better in a conventional film, but by emulating reality, the filmmakers should have known not to try this. It immediately reveals how scripted the whole situation is. I would have liked the film better if it had just focused on the characters escape from Manhattan. It doesn't help the situation that these characters are so thinly developed that they can all be described in one sentence.
The film does have a lot of good conceptual ideas, however, including the little monsters that fall off the big guy. It never reveals where the monster came from, although "Hud" does his share of conspirasizing. Another high point of the film is when one character gets bit by one of the little monsters, it has some very interesting results. The monster, once shown, is suitably impressive, but I still wish they had shown less of it, a la Jaws.
J.J. Abrams is capable of making good entertainment, but I think he does better in a television setting. I know he's not the director, but I think he probably had a good deal of input on the film. My expectations for the new Star Trek are tempered after this and Mission Impossible: III. Mr. Abrams also seems to have a fetish for lean brunettes...with stubble. Michael Stahl-David could easily be a younger version of Michael Vartan from "Alias" or Matthew Fox from "Lost". He is also just as bland as either of them.
Still, if you're hankering for a good action movie, Cloverfield is better than most. It's only 80-odd minutes long and contains more than enough excitement for the average action-fiend. "Hud" is remarkably good at editing, often in the middle of running away from gunfire. He keeps things interesting in that away, and thankfully, the camera battery doesn't run out either.
bartholomewrichards.blogspot.com