Caution: Spoilage Contained Here…
Finally, the hype machine that is the Cloverfield marketing campaign can finally end its reign of terror. After this next weekend, hopefully the trailers will die and the ARGers (Alternate Reality Gamers) will figure out what’s behind the mystery they’ve been spending months of their lives trying to figure out. So what exactly is Cloverfield about? Think Blair Witch meets Godzilla (1954), and since that isn’t the first or last time you’ll see or read that comparison, think of a movie that results in something less profound than either.
What is Cloverfield? I have no idea, as this movie never stresses the word outside of the title screen but if you’re one of those trying to figure out what the advertising was hiding, it’s simple. It’s a giant monster. Think of the Lochness monster if it could walk on land and shed face-huggers from the Alien franchise.
“Wait dude, why did you ruin that for me?”
Trust me, I didn’t ruin a thing. The film does that for you with its annoying characters. And you find out what it looks like about 15 minutes into the movie, so calm down.
Rob (Michael Stahl-David) just got an important job in Japan, so his friends decide to throw a going away party for him. At this party, he has a bit of a tiff with his ex-girlfriend, Beth, who was rude enough to bring her new boyfriend to this shindig. Meanwhile, under the direction of Rob’s brother Jason (Mike Vogel), his best friend Hud (TJ Miller) captures the event with a camcorder.
What happens next is when the movie finally gets going. Something big shakes the ground and the party heads downstairs to investigate. As they stand there, out on the street, the head of the Statue of Liberty comes flying towards them. No one has any idea what is going on - it feels like another terrorist attack. But the cameraman captures something that isn’t normal.
The next half-hour of the film, as the group runs frantically throughout the city, is wonderfully intense. No matter where they go, where they turn, something is falling from the sky or blowing up. Why couldn’t this film be more about survival and less of what was going on with these characters? Rob gets a phone call from Beth, pleading for help, so he decides he can’t leave the city until he finds her. How heroically familiar and annoying.
All we know of them is what the camcorder tells us. The development of these characters is non-existent because it seems that this movie isn’t about them. This tape is played in the exact condition the government found it in. It’s an interesting gimmick that has worked well in other films, but doesn’t really solidify a purpose here. Were the filmmakers ashamed of their creature? They couldn’t actually think that we’d give a shit about these kids, could they?
It’s a tiresome day in the world of film criticism. How many films can we see where we have to complain about how ineffectually caustic the characters are?
It’s hard not to compare this movie to the recent I Am Legend. In that film, Robert Neville (Will Smith) was a scientist living in Manhattan all by himself after a man-made virus killed most of mankind or turned them into vampire-like creatures. They only came out at night but we saw only what Neville saw. They didn’t need the camcorder technique to show us only what a character sees. Cloverfield used that to try to break from the mundane. Too bad it didn’t succeed, regardless of those few breathtaking moments here and there.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:01 am
[…] of the ever mysterious Cloverfield tonight and finally figured out what all the racket was about (read my review here). It follows a group of 4 annoying Manhattanites as they try and survive some sort of traumatic […]
January 16th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Spoiler alearts are neato
January 16th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Wow. I honestly won’t read or consider another review from someone who would so casually ruin a movie for others simply because he himself didn’t care for it. Honestly one of the rudest things I’ve ever seen. I hope Rotten Tomatoes reads what I’m writing them about this review.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Dennis: I wouldn’t actually call them spoilers… you find out 20 minutes into the movie what you’re dealing with. The advertisements left it out because they wanted to attract as much attention as they could. I guess they didn’t feel that showing a monster in the trailer would get a lot of attention. It’s there, and I can’t help but talk about it when it is indeed what the movie is about.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Oh come on, the guy even wrote ‘Cauation: spoilers…’. Technically, he didn’t ruin anything for us, and yes, the monster is the hype cause, face it, we don’t really know what it is till we see the movie.
Other than that, the review was pretty decent. There will always be people who disagree with a fellow’s POV.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Seriously, there is no rebuttal to what Dennis said. He had a clear point. They ARE spoilers. Have you read any other reviews for this movie? Sure, they talk about the monster the entire review. But never, do they once give you a picture of what the monster looks like. You described it pretty clearly. No one expected you to not talk about the monster. But we did expect a review that at least didn’t ruin what the movie had going for it. Say the sixth sense’s twist was in the first 10 minutes. You don’t ruin that for movie-goers because it happens early and/or you didn’t like it. Everyone knows a monster is in the movie, you just didn’t have to ruin what it looked like for any of us.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Cristina: I actually added that there after the comment. Wouldn’t want to ruin it for other people or anything… but seriously, if you want to keep something hidden from yourself, why would read a review about it? Makes no sense.
Andrew: Clearly you haven’t been reading reviews for this film, have you. I’ve read about 10, and they all talk about it. Garth at Dark Horizons (a way bigger site than this little ole’ one) talks about it in MORE depth than I do. So it’s out there.
If you want to be surprised by something, don’t read a review before you see it. If you do, don’t get pissed. Reviews talk about the film - that’s the point of them.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I didn’t feel like this review spoiled the movie for me, because it doesn’t matter how well you verbally describe the way a monster looks, you’ll never actually know what it looks like until you see it.
Grow up, kids.
And don’t read a review if you don’t want to know about the fucking movie!
January 16th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I find it scandalous that, after reading this review, I got a sense of what this movie is about. I also am very annoyed at the opinions expressed in this review. Since when does a movie review contain opinions?
When I read a review about a movie I want something completely unrelated to the topic at hand. A movie review about ‘The Bucket List’ should, ideally, contain no references to that movie and instead be centered around the recipe for an apple pie. It only makes sense.
I’m going to go tell Rotten Tomatoes and boy will you be in trouble.
January 16th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Michael: You should be able to talk about a film in the prism of a review without giving away the specifics of the “secrets” in the film, or the plot twists, or anything we don’t already get from overly informative trailers. This isn’t really film analysis, is it? This isn’t a thesis paper. It is, from what I gather, a pop culture site. People don’t come here for the depth of analysis that requires such “spoilers.” They come, I think, for the gist. You can talk about the monster without giving away the little Alien detachments (maybe I’m clueless, but I didn’t know about those going in and my experience was all the better for it…and no, they DO NOT give them away in the first act).
The problem with the critical mass these days is that the practice of talking about plot in depth (or giving away twists or preciously guarded secrets) is that it is too widely accepted within the profession. It’s why people don’t trust us as much, why critics are receiving such a harsh reputation. And it’s why the people at Bad Robot were so purposefully secretive with this projects, and ALL their projects (seriously, they treat romantic comedies the same way). I think we know too much about movies today before the reel starts rolling. It takes away from the experience.
Anyway, that’s my rant. Thanks for listening. And for what it’s worth, I dug what they were doing with this flick, and I’d recommend it to pretty much everybody.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:19 am
So all the people bitching about these “spoilers” know what the Lochness monster looks like, am I correct?
January 17th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Ryan: My sentiments exactly. My words are going to do the creature justice, no matter what. And film reviews describe important plot points. Why would someone who wants something NOT to be spoiled, read a review or check Rotten Tomatoes?
Hulk: Your sarcasm is brilliant.
Wheeler: I didn’t spoil anything. Cloverfield is about a monster who fucks up NYC. What else should I have talked about? People are only upset because they got suckered by the marketing campaign. You know there is a monster 15 minutes in. The studio decided to try and keep it a secret though, because they figure people might not care as much if they knew it was a straight up monster movie.
And I’ll ask again… if you didn’t want to know anything about it, why the fuck did you go to Rotten Tomatoes and read reviews?
January 17th, 2008 at 9:50 am
**And I’ll ask again… if you didn’t want to know anything about it, why the fuck did you go to Rotten Tomatoes and read reviews?**
Well basically I go to get a feel for how good or bad the movie is WITHOUT hearing about the details. That’s the point of an objective review. If you’re going to include spoilers, it’s EASY to say so up front.
I think it should be clear that if you have to defend yourself 3-4 times in the first 11 posts of a review, you’re failing as a reviewer. I wish you luck, but someone with so little understanding of what a review is will definitely need it.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Dude, did you even bother reading my comment or did you immediately go into defensive mode? Did I complain about you mentioning there was a monster? No. I complained about the details, the stuff you wouldn’t necessarily know or need to know going into the film. And I did it out of principle, ’cause I already saw and enjoyed the movie.
Why did I come here? To see what other reactions are. Then I got sucked into this argument.
And dude, no one got “suckered” by the campaign. Who the hell didn’t know this was a monster movie going in? Is that what you feel happened to you? Are you maybe a little hurt? Didn’t get what you wanted so you decided to spoil it for everyone else? That’s cool, man. At least you can hide behind your title as a “critic” and lash out.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I understand the point of a review. I’ve been writing them for over 4 years, for more publications than I can shake a stick at, so I know what people will react to and what not. People only say shit about stuff typical “fanboy” shit. I’m not saying that’s bad, but no one has ever attacked me for anything I’ve written outside of a Star Wars movie or a Kevin Smith film. Those properties have a certain level of geekery (which isn’t a bad thing at all) that others do not.
For instance, I am a big Terminator fan. As such, it hurt my soul to read about the new show, and how lame it was, and almost cried when I actually saw it. How awful. I felt the same way about part 3.
I wrote what I wrote about Cloverfield. I don’t feel as if I went in to too much detail about the plot. 4 annoying yuppy kids with a camera run away from a monster. What more did I write? Did I tell you who was killed? Did I ruin the ending? No, not at all. I discuss the craft quite a bit. I don’t feel as if I revealed anything you couldn’t tell by watching a trailer.
I knew it was a monster movie but people still seemed to not be sure. I wasn’t hurt by it… if anything, I was hurt by the characters and technique. What am I hiding from?
January 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Have you ever wondered where that “more than I can shake a stick at” term came from? I mean, honestly, you could probably shake a stick at a lot of publications, right?
Ha ha. Alright. I’ll stop killing time pestering you. I was only trying to make a general comment in the first place. We’re all entitled to our thoughts and techniques. Keep doing your thing.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Seems silly when your review clearly states that this is a spoiler.
Silly people.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Cliff Notes: My name is Michael Ferraro and I’m old. I don’t like these kids today with their fancy technology and ways I don’t understand. They don’t even listen to the Doobie Brothers anymore! This movie had a monster in it and I wish he would have squished all the kids right off the bat because I hate their youth and vitality. The end.
January 19th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
[…] Bronsonfive summarizes the film’s visual style and story as “think Blair Witch meets Godzilla (1954), and since that isn’t the first or last time you’ll see or read that comparison, think of a movie that results in something less profound than either.” […]
January 19th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
MK: I’m not old. I don’t hate youth and vitality. I hate rich whiny yuppy kids. I hate when a film ends with “I Love You.” The kid stayed in the city to get his ex-girlfriend. Did you really need his love spelled out for you more than it already?
And I didn’t hate this movie… I gave it 2.5 stars. That’s an alright review in the grand scheme of things.
January 19th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Oh Wow Michael! Now you did give away the ending! i was with you until that post!
For the record I really didn’t care for the movie (if anyone actually cares about that at this point.)
Here is my take on the movie, and some might consider this a spoiler. Its not a review its my recap of the movie, so here it goes, you have been warned:
Imagine if Godzilla got it on with the one alien that got away from Ripley and they had a Giant baby that could attack the city and send out killer drones. Now take Mr. Bean on vacation with his video camera, and stick him in The Blair Witch Project instead of the college students. Now take Mr. Bean’s Blair witch adventure, put it in the middle of the New York 9/11 terrorist attack instead of the woods. Add in some touching moments of people helping people, and going back for their friends. Thats it. Hijinx ensue. The end.
Did I miss anything?
January 20th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I was so surprised when I read your comment in RT. (even though you said it wouldnt be the only time that reference was made) I had told someone that very thing today…was like The Blair Witch meets Gozilla. Just thought I’d let you know I felt the same way…and it’s not just age, because I saw it with my son & he felt the same way
January 20th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
just a bit of a P.S. here. It wasnt a bad film. Just that all that shaking & rolling was a bit disorienting. That made it less than enjoyable for me.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I like my reviews to have some sort of different angle. Who wants to read the same thing on 100 different websites? That is lame.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I plan to. This review didn’t “ruin” anything for me. We know a monster is in the movie.
Why would someone go to a movie to see one special effect?
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Just saw the film an hour ago and am trawling through the reviews to compare my reaction with the general consensus.
Have to agree with Micheal’s general view. It’s very hard to root or empathise with the characters. I’m still trying to decide is it because they have all the depth an acting capability of Ralph Lauren catalogue models, bad direction or the screenplay. The scene in the subway where Rob(?) tells his mom about his brother’s death should have drawn tears out of a stone but fell totally flat. His quest to find Beth was just yawn inducing and I actually found myself checking my watch at the commencement of the tower scene (9:47pm to be precise). It was ridiculous. I can believe in a 200′ high monster a hell of a lot easier than in three kids hauling a lung punctured trauma victim down 40 flights of stairs.
The good bits? The parasitic anthropods, and their bites. ‘Nuf said. The monster itself is a hybrid masterpiece that Lovecraft would be proud of.
My final two cents (euros worth that is), Micheal, NIL ILLEGITIMUS CARBORUNDUM! Over the last while, I am getter more and more disillusioned with comment boards in general (blogospheres, Youtube, R-Tomato) and the knee-jerk, profanity driven excuses given as responses to anything that dares to upset the “received wisdom” or step outside the status quo of fandom. Would people be as expletive driven if they had to provide a (genuine) phonenumber, address and photo-id?
I think not. Anyway genug schoen!