2008 Woodie Awards
Monster flick impressive despite far-fetched plot
By Brian McCumsey
Rocket Movie Critic
Issue date: 1/25/08 Section: Focus
|
The clever handheld-video-camera shooting style springs past other monster movies into an awe-inspiring, jaw-dropping scare-fest that feels fresh and incredibly entertaining.
I absolutely hate monster movies, but I don't know why. I think part of it has to do with the fact that they feel so incredibly unbelievable.
At least with movies about aliens you have some believability; I mean, the jury is still out on whether aliens exist. Monsters, on the other hand, like our friend Nessie from the Loch, are improbable, impossible beasts that would have been discovered by now had they existed. Luckily, I went into this movie having read absolutely nothing about it. I knew it was a disaster flick in which some catastrophe happens to Manhattan, but that was all.
The monster here is essentially a giant spider/grasshopper/insect-like beast that seems to shed countless numbers of grasshopper/crab-like babies. I guess the father could possibly be a crab since the only reference to the origins of the beast implies that it may have come from the ocean.
Although the lack of a story of origin for the monster seems to bother some bloggers and reviewers on the Internet, I'm glad it didn't have a back story to sit through. Part of the reason "Cloverfield" works as well as it does is because it has lightning-fast pacing and saves us from any long, drawn-out scenes. In this kind of movie, things need to keep moving, people need to get eaten, and we don't need to know why the monster wants to eat those people.
Actually, any additional back story would have killed the "realism" that "Cloverfield" was going for. If director Matt Reeves ("The Pallbearer," TV's "Felicity") slowed the movie down so that the characters could fully explain the origin of the beast, it would have felt contrived and scripted.
One of the strongest points of "Cloverfield," in fact, is the writing. The script, which was written by Drew Goddard (TV's "Lost" and "Alias"), feels, oddly enough, completely unscripted. It led me to wonder if the dialogue had been improvised, and after running a few searches on the Internet, it appears that some of it was. The dialogue feels exactly like what people would say if they were experiencing one of the scariest events of their lives. There are no deep, inspirational speeches that give the characters a newfound sense of strength and ability. Rather, these are people simply trying to stay alive.
The greatest strength and weakness of this movie lies in the handheld, shaky-camera style. The strength lies in the fact that a handheld video camera is not quite as crisp and focused as your typical expensive Hollywood camera. The special effects look phenomenal, and I'm not sure if it's because they were really that good or if it has to do with the fact that the handheld camera does not focus on them as much. Either way, there were some monster-attack scenes that made me slink down in my chair in order to get out of the way.
The reason that the shooting style is also the movie's greatest weakness is that the shaky camera is not comfortable to watch and sometimes feels frustrating as your eyes become disoriented. It's quite possible that some people will have to leave the theater due to motion sickness, as the camera never seems to stay steady for more than about five seconds. The character who operated the camera, Hud, would not be the partner you would want to pick in a video-production class.
Even with that weakness, the film is a fun time at the movies. It feels real, and that alone makes it a welcomed addition to the monster-movie genre.
Rental Pick
Find your way to the video rental store and pick out a movie featuring the late Heath Ledger. My favorites? "10 Things I Hate About You" (1999), "The Patriot" (2000) and "A Knight's Tale" (2001).
Brian McCumsey is a junior history major and a contributor to The Rocket.
Be the first to comment on this story