.jpg)
I feel that as a critic (VIDEODROME RADIO), you have to apologize for liking a movie like Cloverfield, or apologize for the movie's shortcomings. It's hard to positively review a movie like this without breaking free of the chains of "Criticdom," arguably the most snobbish, picky, and jerk-ass filled kingdom in the universe. There is a great fear that you are sullying your own intelligence as well as that of the reader, by way of liking something that isn't cerebrally epic.
That being said, I thought Cloverfield was time and money well-spent at the theater. I would gladly see it again and would recommend it to anyone interested in seeing it. It's not going to either change your life, or make you think too much about it, other than how much you enjoyed it, or didn't, once it's over. While there are a lot of movies full of depth, character development, and story that you will want to rush back and see again (most recently: There Will Be Blood), this movie is relatively low on plot. It is high, however, on monster from the sea destroying New York City.
The monster movie can be highly metaphorical: The original Godzilla's (Gojira) take on America and nuclear weapons or the amazing 2006 movie The Host's meditations on America's shaping of modern-day Korea. Cloverfield, though rife with 9/11 imagery, simply is not a metaphorical monster movie. Although it took images directly out of the 9/11 media-overload, the movie is not commenting on terrorism, the Bush administration, or Giuliani's presidential campaign.
You are watching a monster from, as explained by characters and what minimal story there is, the deep ocean tear the Big Apple to pieces. You are watching this movie through the lens of a camcorder held by an imbecile who has the notion that "people need to see" what's going on. He's a dummy who was given a task to do (videotape a friend's going-away party) and in light of the events (giant monster), is taking his job as documentarian very seriously. It's no coincidence that this same character is the movie's comic-relief. He gives the audience a chance for laughter between the bouts of terror. He's no't too funny, because realistically, who could be, under the circumstances of running from, and occasionally toward, a Lovecraftian monster that wants nothing more than to bite you in half? The only time I felt like the movie was overly-written was when there was a joke that was actually funny, and not simply trying to ease the tension. The characters in Cloverfield, as in all horror movies, make poor decisions, and wind up in great danger as result. There would be no movie if they had a good head on their shoulders and made sensible decisions.
The inventiveness of the movie seems to be what is most open to critical attack. There is the fact that we see a character's cell phone battery die, reminding us this is "real," while the camera's battery runs without dying from night until the next morning. The fact that the movie's absolutely brilliant sound design shouldn't be possible given the technical limitations of a camcorder is also unrealistic. I think it was smart that filmmakers didn't "keep it real" in these aspects, otherwise we'd have a rather short movie that would be better off being broken up into pieces for free viewing on youtube.
In an age where most of what Hollywood craps out is drivel that isn't worth watching at all, let alone sepnding your hard-earned money to see, only to sit in a room full of strangers talking, text-messaging, and annoying the hell out of you, this movie is theater going at it's funnest. Cloverfield holds the audience's attention (away from their cell phones) and gives them a much needed break from reality. I don't think it'd be half as enjoyable to watch in your living room. It's fun to watch, slickly produced, and absolutely worth your 84 minutes. Movies like Cloverfield are the reason we have movie theaters. A (theater only!)
- Hank
Rated: PG-13