‘Cloverfield’ wows with visuals, disappoints with overhyped plot
January 24, 2008
By Reid Conner (rconner@hilite.org)
Did the new Americanized Godzilla-type movie live up to the hype? With “Cloverfield’s” marketing strategy making it one of the most talked about and anticipated movies since “Snakes on a Plane” (not exactly something to brag about seeing how that movie turned out), it was obviously going to do well, but is it any good? If you ask me, “Cloverfield” was not as good as it should have been.
I’ll start by saying the movie wasn’t necessarily bad. It had a ton of potential, and I actually enjoyed watching it. The part of the movie that killed it, though, is the ending. For anyone who saw “The Mist,” that’s almost the level of disappointment you receive with the end of “Cloverfield.” And no, there’s nothing after the credits.
The story behind the carefully guarded secret that was “Cloverfield” is similar to Japan’s Godzilla stories. The characters are throwing their friend Rob (Michael Stahl-David) a going away party before he moves to Japan for his job. During the party the monster attacks the city, destroying buildings and decapitating the Statue of Liberty along its way. I won’t say what the monster looks like because it’s honestly kind of difficult to describe. Hud (T.J. Miller), who was documenting the party for Rob, follows the group with his camcorder and documents the destruction throughout their escape. The entire movie is shown through the point of view of Hud’s camcorder.
For the actors, “Cloverfield” was only their second or, at the most, third movie that they have starred in. Keeping that in mind, they all played their parts well. It was also Stahl-David’s first time acting in a movie. He played the lead role admirably, managing to convey an air of authority and leadership to the others amidst the panic and chaos.
The way they shot the movie (appearing through a camcorder) is a pretty unique and interesting concept. It got annoying at some parts, mainly in the beginning when there was no action. But once the attack began, and the people were fleeing through the streets, the camcorder gave an intense view of the events as they unfolded.
The visuals are also very well done for supposedly being seen through a camcorder, and that’s a compliment. If they had tried to bring it down to the level you would expect of a hand-held video camera, it would have taken away one of the best aspects of the movie. The ruins, destruction and dust hovering around the city portrayed an impressive scene of panic and chaos.
The action in the movie was decent when it was there, but there were a lot of slower parts where the characters were just running through the city. Although there wasn’t much action, the action that was there keeps you on the edge of your seat. There was one part that was so completely unexpected that I was honestly still shocked by it hours later. More scenes like that could have helped save the movie from its mediocrity.
Overall, the movie was a good effort but could have used a lot of improvement for how hyped up it was. If you see this movie, be ready to enjoy yourself, but don’t expect to come out of it a completely satisfied customer.
Comments
Got something to say?
Loading ...