Cloverfield a.k.a. The Adventures of the Stupidest People On Earth and Their Magical Camera
Before you read this review know that there are spoilers ahead. EDIT: If you want to avoid spoilers I can direct you to two reviews that have a similar take on the film to mine one by Keith Uhlich at UGO and another by Richard Corliss from Time. Those reviewers share the sentiments I express but aren't dependent on giving away specific plot points (becuase those writers are better than I am).
When evaluating a film you have to take it for what it is and not complain about what it isn't. I can't give a sword and sorcery film a bad review becuase it had no murder mystery in it. That makes the task of reviewing Matt Reeves's Cloverfield difficult for me becuase the very concept of the film is the source of so much of my dissatisfaction. The film is meant to be a raw, documentary-style (really, home video-style) version of the giant monster film. The goal is to bring some humanity to a genre where the first thing people think of is a guy in a rubber suit trampling on cardboard miniatures of Tokyo. It's a neat idea. It didn't work.
The film's style ends up highlighting the film's biggest problem. That is the plot depends on unrealistic human behavior and contrived situations. Flaws that I might overlook in a traditional disaster movie come off as laughable here becuase they are so upfront in the narrative. Before the monster even shows up these characters act more like they belong in an hour-long urban dramedy than real life. There's a love story that requires the characters, all of them not just the would-be couple, to act like the fact that two young beautiful rich people had a one-night stand is a matter of life and death. Characters say things that are painfully obvious but in manner as if they have just come upon the world's greatest psychological discoveries. These people shouldn't be shot with a jumpy handheld camera. They should be presented with the shiny and sleek look of something like Sex & The City or Felicity (which Reeves is the co-creator of).
When the shit goes down and the monster starts wrecking havoc you would think that the "yuppies in love" storyline would be thrown to the wind. No such luck. Now the characters actually are faced with a matter of life and death and all the main dude, Rob, can think about is seeing his #1 crush who lives in midtown. They defy a military order to evacuate the city to say nothing off the fact that there's a giant monster doing the Godzilla Shuffle all around Manhattan GET THE FUCK OUT!!! It's in that moment where in an empty alley these five characters decided to set off on this adventure (and film it!) that Cloverfield's biggest problem is most evident. The film's look is realistic but what is playing out before us is so bogus. I'm not talking about the monster, I can suspend my disbelief for that. It's the fact that the entire reason the events we are seeing over the next hour are happening is becuase the characters act like idiots.
From that point on the film strikes a rhythm of going between intense action scenes to calm moments where the characters collect themselves. You can guess what my objection to the quieter character moments are. Yet I also had a tough time with the action scenes. In fact it is where I have trouble with the whole point of Cloverfield. There's a scene early on where the Brooklyn Bridge is destroyed (hey, I told you there would be spoilers). I would have loved to have seen that shot with multiple cameras on cranes and helicopters with precise editing and a powerful soundtrack. Instead we get a bunch of blurry zig-zags. I'll give Reeves and screenwriter Drew Goddard credit for being so committed to their concept. But what it gives us is an inferior version of a monster movie. What could be a really exciting action sequence becomes an incomprehensible mess.
There is one sequence where I think the P.O.V. style pays off. So the monster apparently has some kind of monster dandruff that he shakes off and becomes these spider-like creatures. While walking through the empty subway tunnels the characters run into and then run from these creatures. The characters get attacked by these creepy crawlers which attempt to drag the humans somewhere. Luckily the creatures are defeated even though one woman is bit pretty badly. The claustrophobic feel of shooting with a handheld camera actually works with something so horrifying happening in such a tight space. The scene's effectiveness is undercut later in the film due to some confusing writing. Now apparently if you get bit by one of these ugly things you explode in an hour or two. So...why do they jump on a person and hold on to them for dear life when one bite will eventually kill the person ? Why do they drag the victims away somewhere? What use would they have for something that is pretty much just a blood bomb at that point? The film doesn't have any moments of exposition that explains these monsters. That is actually a welcome relief from some of today's overlong sci-fi/fantasy films. It also means that certain events, like the death of a character, come out of nowhere. I understand the randomness is meant to be another aspect of the film's style. But what we end up with are giant plot holes and confusion.
If you can get into what this movie is trying to do you'll probably enjoy it more than I did. Maybe you won't be filled with class resentment when you are introduced to the cast. Maybe you won't miss a nicely structured plot. I just couldn't help that think that while Cloverfield is different from regular sci-fi movies it is hardly an improvement. It just proved to me why the techniques of traditional moviemaking are so important in the first place.
