Cloverfield: Monstro

Some people have derisively compared this film to The Blair Witch Project because it was all told from the point of view of someone's shaking camera. Unless you have motion sickness, I don't think that's a bad thing. What matters is who's in front of the camera. While The Blair Witch Project featured annoying people screaming at each other, this movie actually made me care about the characters. In fact if it had continued with the romantic drama tone established during the first half hour, I STILL think it would have been worth watching and that's the biggest compliment I can give it.

Of course people will be watching this movie for the visceral pleasure and Colverfield delivers. Many thrilling visual and sound effects wowed me (there were a few times I yelled out in shock at a sudden scare). Any horror film will also benefit from a sense of entrapment and this movie pulls off the seemingly impossible feat of making New York City seem claustrophobic because there was seemingly nowhere to hide from the monster.

What is the monster? Whatever it is clearly is meant to be an allegory for the carnage 9/11 inflicted on New York, much the same way Godzilla was meant to be an allegory for the damage inflicted on Japan by the atom bomb. There are moments seemingly recreating the documentary footage from 9/11, and they give the film verisimilitude. Touching upon real life horror, plus creating characters that we can relate to and care about, and assaulting our senses with incredible sights and sounds leads to entertainment worth watching many times over. Perhaps the 80 minute run time will bother some people, but on the other hand I think that's better than a film wearing out its welcome. Great job J.J. Abrams and company!

Sometimes the idea of a movie can transform the experience of watching it, and sometimes only on remembering it. The challenge is to have ideas that are not only clever and appear so, but which actually make good, effective films that matter.

I went into this thinking that it would be an evolution of "Transformers." That film worked for me, and worked in ways that were beyond anything I had seen. Sure the story was dumb and the very idea of the robots was childish. But the way the film was put together was a bit astonishing. In old movies, if there was a monster destroying a building, well then you saw the building being destroyed as if you were a placid god in the sky somewhere. With Transformers, you never really saw things this way. You saw them as if you were an observer threatened by and involved in the action. You were running, avoiding, occasionally glancing and sometimes accidentally seeing part of what was happening.

It was new, marvelous. But we always knew the cameras were not associated with humans, at least not the ones on screen. The idea was to trick us into adopting the disembodied cameras we always accepted and allowed us, the audience to be threatened, to be there.

Now this. Some of the effects are the same. At least in the beginning of the disaster, we only partially see what is happening. And there are many times when the camera is unsteady. But I got the impression that although the camera was handled by a panicked character, we always saw more than he would have. The camera was always where we would have wanted it, arranged to increase the dramatic effect.

Transformers was silly and we could assault it. Cloverfield was supposedly real and it assaulted us. That makes the deliberation of camera a whole different thing. Its control is external to what's happening. We do realize this without thinking about it, and it diffuses the terror and changes it to spectacle. This folding technique only works when you have the commitment of the audience. They thought they would get it with the teen soap opera at the beginning. Didn't work for me.

It would have worked better if she hadn't ASKED to be rescued.

Nice bridge though.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

I genuinely enjoyed this movie and found its concept to be interesting. However, I do know some other people who have not enjoyed the shaky camera style.

They needed Godzilla to fight that thing, not tanks or missiles!

Jokes apart, it's a well-acted and well-made found footage feature, no doubt whatsoever. However, I remember liking the movie much more when I first saw it in my teenage years. I vividly recall caring for the whole ensemble and the devastating tragedy that struck them out of nowhere.

More than a decade later, I cannot state the same, though. Perhaps it's the overexposure of the found footage genre in general or the fact I've now gotten habituated to such filmmaking and have seen much better works in the process. Whatever the reason, it did not resonate with me on the same level this time; I wish it did.

So, I went to a 5PM showing of Cloverfield today. It was pretty good. I found the characters to be very human and developed quite nicely over the course of the story. The special effects were excellent, with quite a few "oh $#!@" moments.

Be warned: If Blair Witch Project made you nauseous, then I don't recommend Cloverfield. The *entire* movie is filmed in the "handy-cam" style of the trailer - but in my opinion, it works better here than in Blair Witch. It helped draw you into the movie and make you feel like you were in it, and it made the CGI more convincing.

Very intense film.