An Indifferent Cloverfield Review
A quick intro to my reviewing style. I prefer to give a recommendation that is for the general public. Not for the niche groups out there or a personal preference. However, I must admit that last remark is a bit of a lie since movie reviews and selection at the "blog" level is all about opinion and personal preference. I digress. I try to evaluate the film to what tries to present and what it accomplish.
For example:
I recently went to watch Alien Verses Predator: Requiem. I expecting just about nothing and had a blast. The real question to address is: Would I recommend this film to the viewing public. Probably not. It is best for the Predator or Alien fans and the sci-fi/horror genre. It does accomplish what it came out to do, but don't have high expectations. Go to the cheap show too.
I hope you all enjoy this brief review of mine.
When I saw the first teaser of Cloverfield, I thought it was going to be a 9-11 film. I was expecting many jerky camera angles abound and a strong sense of patriotism; kind of like WTC, but not as preachy. I may have preferred if it was such a movie because then I could have seen a whole film. For the record, I did watch some subsequent trailers and found out it was a monster movie. Also, I will try not to spoil the movie very much. If you do leave comments, my non-exsistant readers, then please try not to spoil for others or at the very least have a label warning or two.
I would like to delve into some plot points of the film, but that would spoil the film too much. As I said before, I would like not to spoil the film for those who want to see it still. So lets talk a little about the monster with vague details, then get to the heart of the matter. I actually did a little extra reading before i wrote this bloggified review. Listed in the wikipedia entry for Cloverfield, it states that Abrams wanted to make a movie monster for "our generation". One that wasn't Godzilla or Gamera like. He wanted something new and different. The creature design and concept was a nice classic approach that had some familiar somewhat modern [movie] concepts to it. This alone could not save the film.
I'm not saying Cloverfield is a horrible film. I want to recommend the film. It is well made. The shaky cam was not too distracting to the presentation. At least there was some justification to sixty percent of the shaky. To give the film a word, it would be: quite decent. Hell, it even made sense to why we watch this movie through a video camera. The film had a strong and consistent plot. There is a great sense of connectivity between characters, especially the two main leads. The unfortunate side turned its ugly head once the film had ending. It felt as if I had only seen half of a film.
Yes, Internet. I know I am suppose to interpret what happens after the film, but damn they don't give you much left to work with. When I leave a film with questions to be answered, I like to have three quarters pre-fulfilled. I see the world as a half filled kind of guy, to me that is what this movie felt like. Half Full. The main concept presented was "How do normal folk try to survive a monster attack". In addition the plot involves time, save a relationship between the two main characters. I find it an interesting approach to the monster genre. Less is more is fine and good for the monster's scattered appearances. I understand that the film wanted to focus on the couple and citizen's reaction to a disaster to this scale. The romance subplot seemed to be a major factor point. Enduring love and all that good stuff.
If you want a traditional monster movie, don't go to Cloverfield. There are no stereotypical scientists. There is no exposition about the creature's creation. There is no explanation to his ravaging (thou to be honest, do you really need one for a monster movie?). I found these qualities of the film the most charming. I wish there was a bit more monster thou.
The film does try and partially succeeds with its goals of creating a new monster for the 21st century and having a new perspective on the monster genre. It does fall flat when it trying to be different as well. A moviegoer is presented with a partial story, which I hope is intentional. Aside from the main characters, their objectives, the appearance of the and the ravaging there after from the monster; almost all other elements of the story were left to the viewers imagination. I find this a bit unfair. Even from the small snips of the world Cloverfield is from; there is a definite story about the world out there for the viewers to learn. Much like the mayonnaise jar that to the world of Lost, the world of Cloverfield is only released bit by bit. Unfortunate for us, we don't get seasons of Cloverfield for things to be exposed. There is some promising news of a sequel if the movie does well. Oh, and in Japan, there is a plan to create a manga that will act as a prequel to the movie's events.
In the end, I have a strong indifference to recommending the film for the general public. It is good enough for the matinee, but not for shelling out the full movie price of ten dollars. I only paid 9.75, but I still want to makers of Lost to give me my 4.75 back or at least a couple (meaning two, three is NOT a couple) free downloads from iTunes for their show.
I give the film:
2.5 out of five Babylons
For example:
I recently went to watch Alien Verses Predator: Requiem. I expecting just about nothing and had a blast. The real question to address is: Would I recommend this film to the viewing public. Probably not. It is best for the Predator or Alien fans and the sci-fi/horror genre. It does accomplish what it came out to do, but don't have high expectations. Go to the cheap show too.
I hope you all enjoy this brief review of mine.
When I saw the first teaser of Cloverfield, I thought it was going to be a 9-11 film. I was expecting many jerky camera angles abound and a strong sense of patriotism; kind of like WTC, but not as preachy. I may have preferred if it was such a movie because then I could have seen a whole film. For the record, I did watch some subsequent trailers and found out it was a monster movie. Also, I will try not to spoil the movie very much. If you do leave comments, my non-exsistant readers, then please try not to spoil for others or at the very least have a label warning or two.
I would like to delve into some plot points of the film, but that would spoil the film too much. As I said before, I would like not to spoil the film for those who want to see it still. So lets talk a little about the monster with vague details, then get to the heart of the matter. I actually did a little extra reading before i wrote this bloggified review. Listed in the wikipedia entry for Cloverfield, it states that Abrams wanted to make a movie monster for "our generation". One that wasn't Godzilla or Gamera like. He wanted something new and different. The creature design and concept was a nice classic approach that had some familiar somewhat modern [movie] concepts to it. This alone could not save the film.
I'm not saying Cloverfield is a horrible film. I want to recommend the film. It is well made. The shaky cam was not too distracting to the presentation. At least there was some justification to sixty percent of the shaky. To give the film a word, it would be: quite decent. Hell, it even made sense to why we watch this movie through a video camera. The film had a strong and consistent plot. There is a great sense of connectivity between characters, especially the two main leads. The unfortunate side turned its ugly head once the film had ending. It felt as if I had only seen half of a film.
Yes, Internet. I know I am suppose to interpret what happens after the film, but damn they don't give you much left to work with. When I leave a film with questions to be answered, I like to have three quarters pre-fulfilled. I see the world as a half filled kind of guy, to me that is what this movie felt like. Half Full. The main concept presented was "How do normal folk try to survive a monster attack". In addition the plot involves time, save a relationship between the two main characters. I find it an interesting approach to the monster genre. Less is more is fine and good for the monster's scattered appearances. I understand that the film wanted to focus on the couple and citizen's reaction to a disaster to this scale. The romance subplot seemed to be a major factor point. Enduring love and all that good stuff.
If you want a traditional monster movie, don't go to Cloverfield. There are no stereotypical scientists. There is no exposition about the creature's creation. There is no explanation to his ravaging (thou to be honest, do you really need one for a monster movie?). I found these qualities of the film the most charming. I wish there was a bit more monster thou.
The film does try and partially succeeds with its goals of creating a new monster for the 21st century and having a new perspective on the monster genre. It does fall flat when it trying to be different as well. A moviegoer is presented with a partial story, which I hope is intentional. Aside from the main characters, their objectives, the appearance of the and the ravaging there after from the monster; almost all other elements of the story were left to the viewers imagination. I find this a bit unfair. Even from the small snips of the world Cloverfield is from; there is a definite story about the world out there for the viewers to learn. Much like the mayonnaise jar that to the world of Lost, the world of Cloverfield is only released bit by bit. Unfortunate for us, we don't get seasons of Cloverfield for things to be exposed. There is some promising news of a sequel if the movie does well. Oh, and in Japan, there is a plan to create a manga that will act as a prequel to the movie's events.
In the end, I have a strong indifference to recommending the film for the general public. It is good enough for the matinee, but not for shelling out the full movie price of ten dollars. I only paid 9.75, but I still want to makers of Lost to give me my 4.75 back or at least a couple (meaning two, three is NOT a couple) free downloads from iTunes for their show.
I give the film:
2.5 out of five Babylons
Labels: 2008 movies, Cloverfield, Monster Movies, movie review
posted by GJ at 8:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home