Upon first hearing of Cloverfield, I was skeptical. The idea, though vague, seemed like something that could be kinda cool... or really shitty. As the release date for the movie steeped in mystery came closer, I unconsciously became more and more excited waiting for it. The movie had grabbed me ferociously without my knowledge and tossed me into the frenzy that is the hype-machine.
I found myself rooting through theories and prospects concerning the movie from what the monster looks like to why the film was titled "Cloverfield". But yesterday... yesterday the movie was released (I love midnight showings in crisp, clean DLP). It was one of the few films that I have ever anxiously awaited that lived up to my outlandishly high expectations.
The film was a masterpiece. As I am sure most of you know, the events of the film were seen through the eyes of a simple citizen of New York recording the happenings through a video camcorder. A party is interrupted by explosions that rock the city, and without giving away too much plot, hell breaks loose.
I would really hate to accidentally ruin the movie for you, so I will be brief on details. In short, the movie is a credit to the Kaiju genre (if it can be called that). I hope to see the monster celebrated on a scale of Godzilla. In fact... I would thoroughly enjoy to see the Cloverfield monster attempt to take over Japan with the two monster's locked in epic mortal combat for the fate of Japan.
Critics have been talking about how the movie is disrespectful to the memory of 9/11 Scott "Rudy Giuliani" Foundas of LA Weekly described the events in Cloverfield "cheap and opportunistic". Calling Cloverfield cheap and opportunistic in regards to the tragedy of 9/11 is like saying Godzilla is cheap and opportunistic, benefiting off of the sad memory of Hiroshima. The movie is simply unrelated to 9/11 and to draw the parallel, one must think any destruction of New York City cheap and opportunistic. People who over-analyze things piss me off.
The movie is quickly paced, uniquely and magnificently directed (the first person view was the perfect, neigh the ONLY way to show the movie), and acted... adequately. If I had any problems with the movie the mediocre acting would be one. Another would be the lack of character development. I believed that some of the characters could have become likable and endearing with time, but the 90 minute time limit on the movie constricted it shortly. Speaking of the time limit, though it furthered the idea of in-character watching, I just wanted more! Call me selfish, but I would have been ecstatic if the movie went on for another 90 minutes.
That being said... I don't know how well a direct sequel will do. The veil of shadow and uncertainty about the movie and the monster are gone. The freshness of the first person view is fading, and ... I mean... New York is already mangled... Will the monster move to another city or something? I find this conundrum similar to that of Portal. Do we REALLY want a sequel? .
In short... See Cloverfield... now...
I'll wait...
Seen it yet?
~Mike
_\\//
Friday, January 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
