|
If producer J.J. Abrams needs a title for a sequel
to "Cloverfield" he should just call it "Motion Sickness".
This "Godzilla" clone that uses the monster of the film
as a metaphor of the 9/11 attack much as "Godzilla" was
used to deal with Hiroshima, is an enjoyable monster flick
that recalls classics like Japan's most notorious monster
and "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms", "It Came From Beneath
The Sea" and the grandparents of all monster on the loose
films "The Lost World" (1923) and "King Kong" (1933). ***
As with all "monster-on-the-loose" movies the simpler
the plot the better and "Cloverfield" is about as basic
as it can get; the film is told from the point of view of
Hud who is documenting his best friend Rob's going away
party. It seems that Rob is the new VP for a company in
Japan and the big celebration put on by his brother Jason
and his girlfriend. Rob has a blow out with best friend
and long-time crush Lei. Then all heck breaks loose as the
Creature begins tearing apart Manhattan and bowling with
the head of the Statue of Liberty. ***
"Cloverfield" isn't a deep film and isn't meant to
be. While it does make reference to 9/11 because of the
stark images of destruction and our knowledge of that event
(as well as the characters reaction to what is occuring
around them) "Cloverfield" doesn't take that analogy too
seriously instead focusing on scaring and startling us.
Still, the Creature as terrorist (when is a terrorist NOT
a monster?) provides us a window into a world rocked by
destruction and a glimpse into the sometimes brave sometimes
idiotic reaction of human beings in a crisis situation.
The characters are pretty well drawn considering that our
only knowledge of them comes from what we see via the camcorder
(including footage that survived being taped over--a very
clever way to give us a backstory on the main couple)but
the technique means that there are limitations--we know
only what the group of characters we are stuck with know
becoming part of their group via the camcorder and Hud's
occasionally insightful and idiotic musings. "Cloverfield"
will never be "The Godfather" but it's a very good film
within a genre that has varied from the idiotic ("The Giant
Gila Monster") to the exceptional (pick any of the ground
breaking monster-on-the-loose movies you'd like)and it is
an enjoyable ride. If it is the cinematic version of junk
food, it's extremely tasty and enjoyable junk food. Could
it have been improved? Sure--we could have had better acting,
character development, background which the director could
have introduced in the same format as the other stuff but
for its limited scope and ambitions its a fine film (that's
even comparing it to Abrams' other film projects from "Regarding
Henry" to "MI:3" or "Lost"). ---
Image & Sound:
The monster from "Cloverfield" isn't pretty and neither
is the DVD transfer but then, like "28 Days Later" it isn't
meant to be. Shot on high definition digital video that
was deliberately degraded to make it look like it could
come from a camcorder, "Cloverfield" looks surprisingly
good. It's a pity that Paramount had invested in HD-DVD
because otherwise we might also have this on Blu-ray. That
said, it might not be a huge improvement in terms of image
quality. So, in a nutsheel, "Cloverfield" like the Blu-ray
of "28 Days Later" looks as it was intended to look. It
hasn't been improved or altered for its DVD debut. ***
Audio is quite active (ironic that the images look like
this could have come from a camcorder but the audio doesn't
sound like it comes from one) with a nice, crisp surround
mix focusing on dialogue during the quieter sequences as
should and could be expected. ---
|
