TNR BLOGS

August 29, 2008 | 4:54 PM
August 29, 2008 | 4:44 PM
August 29, 2008 | 4:42 PM

August 27, 2008 | 11:42 PM
August 27, 2008 | 6:45 PM
August 27, 2008 | 6:43 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

August 29, 2008 | 6:47 PM
August 29, 2008 | 4:44 PM
August 28, 2008 | 6:37 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
18.01.2008
Mini-Review: Cloverfield

As a general rule, if you say a film doesn't live up to its marketing, you're saying it's pretty bad. That's not the case with Cloverfield, which is a very solid entrant in the cinematic subgenre of--well, I'm not going to say what subgenre it is. You may well already know. But some people don't, as I discovered earlier today when I mentioned two words (one, the title of a James Dean movie; the other, the title of a Charlize Theron movie--don't think about it if you don't want to know) to a friend who was considering going to see the movie, and he gave me a look that could have stuck six inches out my back. That was the genius of Cloverfield's enigmatic, viral marketing, and far be it from me to spoil it for any other remaining innocents.

Suffice to say that something terrible has taken place on the isle of Manhattan, and Cloverfield is a chronicle of what happened. The movie's conceit is that it's a "found" artifact, the contents of a video card discovered in Central Park after the event. Most of the early footage on the card is taken up with a going-away party for a twentysomething named Rob (Michael Stahl-David) who's departing for a job in Japan. We meet him and his friends, discover the unfinished emotional business he is leaving behind, yadda yadda yadda. About twenty minutes in, however, there is an earthquakey rumble; when the partygoers run to the roof to see what's up, a distant explosion hurtles debris so far that they're forced to flee back inside for cover.

Things go steadily downhill from there.

Rob et al. first attempt to escape Manhattan by way of the Brooklyn Bridge, but they don't make it, and neither does the bridge. After receiving a panicked message from Beth (Odette Yustman), the best-friend-he's-just-realized-is-also- the-love-of-his-life, Rob and his steadily dwindling band of friends decide to go uptown to resue her. Along the way, they're forced to wander through a pitch-black subway tunnel and climb onto the roof of a damaged skyscraper teetering far enough to one side that it makes the Tower of Pisa look vertical. And they have a few encounters with--well, no, I'm not going to say, even if everyone else already has.

The movie suffers from the inevitable corollaries of its gimmick: It's inconceivable that people fleeing for their lives would keep filming the whole time, and the jittery, handheld camera work is frequently vertiginous. (Sit in a row well back, if you're able.) Moreover, none of the characters comes to life particularly well, and the tragic emotional impact the film intends to deliver is fairly muted.

That said, Cloverfield is a sharp, frequently harrowing James-Dean-movie-Charlize-Theron-movie (henceforth JDMCTM) movie, as good an entrant as the subgenre has seen in memory. Like Spielberg's War of the Worlds, it has echoes of 9/11, though thanks to its New York locale it doesn't have to reach so hard to earn them. And while the movie lacks the gorgeous production design of Spielberg's sci-fi holocaust, it's far more intense and immediate. It also clocks in at a satisfyingly lean 80-some minutes--and that's including a ten-plus-minute credit sequence. 

No, it's not the genre-busting marvel that some fans were anticipating. But for those able to keep their expectations modest, Cloverfield is a hell of a JDMCTM movie.

--Christopher Orr

Posted: Friday, January 18, 2008 2:05 PM with 30 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

primwallflow said:

Spoiler: the monster is Keyser Soze riding Rosebud.

January 18, 2008 2:26 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

Chris, please put me out of my misery. What's a JDMCTM movie? I was going to see this movie but the hand held camera gimmick has put me off. I'll probably get it on DVD and by the time that happens, I'll know the ending.

So, come on, out with it. TNR readers can handle it.

You don't want to be accused of being a successful purveyor of viral marketing yourself Mr Orr now do you? Out with it, what's a JDMCTM sub-genre?

January 18, 2008 2:34 PM

Chris Orr said:

C'mon, iggy. You can figure it out. A James Dean movie with a one-word title and a Charlize Theron movie with a one-word title...

And as for the wobbly handheld: It's occasionally annoying but not too awful. (Not as headache-inducing, I think, as The Blair Witch Project.) If you're interested in seeing the movie--again, with moderate expectations--don't let the handheld camera keep you from seeing it on a big screen.

January 18, 2008 2:40 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

A "Giant" "Monster" movie!

Right, right...it takes me a while. I see, very good.

I don't have much expectation for the film, so I'll probably enjoy it.

January 18, 2008 2:55 PM

drdannyu said:

No, no, Iggy.  it's obviously a Giant Celebrity movie.  Obviously, some NYC-based celebrity (Sarah Jessica Parker?  Tim Gunn?) gets too close to a particle accelerator (or something) and turns enormous, eats the Bowery, etc.

Seriously, if it IS a "Giant" "Monster" movie, then that's one hell of a lousy attempt at being cryptic on the film-makers' part.  Hmmm...head of the Statue of Liberty is missing?  Something rampaging through the city?  Um....killer virus?  Baseball bat wielding street gang?  John Rocker?  Oh! *smacking forehead* A giant monster!

PS>  Movies where New York gets destroyed make me sad.  I love New York.  Why can't they ever destroy...I dunno...Lansing?

January 18, 2008 3:08 PM

blackton said:

and here it was with me thinking it was a "Harvest" "Jinx."  or maybe a "Danger" "Hancock" movie. Damn you iggy. Now Harvest Jinx is a movie I was kind of getting excited for.

January 18, 2008 3:10 PM

benjamin81 said:

Why is it always New York that gets attacked? You'd think a giant monster would attack, say, Philadelphia or Vancouver once in a while. (Yes, I know, it's the marketing nabobs who think a movie set anywhere but NY or LA has only "regional" appeal. But I would pay good money to see Boston attacked by giant space lobsters.)

January 18, 2008 3:12 PM

boneill said:

Iggy wins!

This is fun- what is next?

January 18, 2008 3:15 PM

boneill said:

Damn, I was thinking I was going to watch a movie about a Giant Cider House Rules

January 18, 2008 3:15 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

Good point Dann. Come to think of it, there's very few monsters who destroy Cork, and if ever a place needed destroying...

Look Black, stop slagging me. My mother was very proud of that C I got in school. And my father beat me with a bag of hard boiled spuds until I understood that just because I'm thick doesn't mean I'm stoopid.

Vote Edwards!

January 18, 2008 3:18 PM

blackton said:

you know, a giant monster did attack Detroit but no one noticed the difference.

How about Rebel without an Aeon Flux?

January 18, 2008 3:21 PM

boneill said:

I think a good movie would be if a giant monster attacked Pittsburgh.  It could be called "Eh...Whatever"

January 18, 2008 3:25 PM

adaglas said:

How about a herd of giant radioactive moose rampaging through Regina, Saskatchewan?  Who wouldn't see that?

January 18, 2008 3:42 PM

boneill said:

Or a volcano that spits out tank-driving Godzillas with X-Ray vision and switchblades?  It could be called "The Wierdest Spring Break Ever"

January 18, 2008 4:00 PM

drdannyu said:

Or how about a musical horror movie in which Paris Hilton sings, and people are disemboweled on screen (possibly to avoid having to hear Paris Hilton singing)?  Maybe also starring...oh, I don't know...Andrew Lloyd Webber's ex-wife?  That guy from "Buffy"?

We could name it "The Worst Idea Ever Story-boarded."  Wait...what?  It's already in production?  Crap.  Well, there's always bone's Godzilla movie, which sounds like Oscar bait by comparison.

January 18, 2008 4:15 PM

boneill said:

It is Oscat bait, Doc.  Hillary Swank has already signed-on.  She is Oscar gold!

January 18, 2008 4:16 PM

boneill said:

Speaking of Andrew Lloyd Webber, I heard he is doing a musical of "The Master and Margarita".   When I heard that I nearly vomited my soul.

January 18, 2008 4:17 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

Cool Bone! I got that book as a Xmas present. Looks pretty tasty. Now if I could just get of this f*cking internet I might be able to read something worthwhile...

January 18, 2008 4:25 PM

maxzig1 said:

I like "The Weirdest Spring Break Ever," but let's take it one step farther and do it Weekend At Bernies style, where two godzillas slap x-ray specs on a third, dead godzilla and try to convince everyone that he is destroying a city.

January 18, 2008 4:35 PM

Chris Orr said:

For anyone wondering what drdan is talking about the trailer is here: www.youtube.com/watch. View with caution: The movie's primary purpose seems to be to make Sweeney Todd look like Brigadoon. Poor Giles...

January 18, 2008 4:35 PM

boneill said:

maxzigl- Awesome.  Freaking awesome.

Iggy, "master.." ight be my favorite novel ever.  So  pretty, so perfect, so funny, and brave.   Let me know when you start it.   I am not saying it is the "greatest" novel or anything.  Just my favorite.

January 18, 2008 4:38 PM

adaglas said:

Even better - title it "The SECOND Weirdest Spring Break Ever."  People will be demanding the prequel before the opening weekend.

January 18, 2008 4:39 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

Bone, Max - :)

What in god's name was that obscene clip! It's the death of cinema or opera or something...

Take about the lowest common denominator of two vulgar fractions...

January 18, 2008 4:49 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

Talk about the lowest common denominator of two vulgar fractions....

Is Paris really in it? I suppose it's just a reality programme for her...

January 18, 2008 4:51 PM

adaglas said:

I'll take my ignominiously gory slasher operas the old-fashioned way, in 16th century Italian, thank you very much.  Call me a fuddy-duddy.

January 18, 2008 4:54 PM

drdannyu said:

Never ...heard ..."music" ...from ...movie ...*gaghmp*...before.  Urge... to... stab myself...*yulkp*... in ears.... rising.  Please... please....someone post... sound clip of Beethoven...before it's too...*morf* late!!

January 18, 2008 5:57 PM

jet said:

Chris,

I don't know if you'll read this far, but I did see Clover...at a matinée today.  I think your review is pretty spot on.  But one thing I did find as interesting was the after effect.  Given it's ending, I wondered how I was going to think about the movie as I was driving home (you know, that mental review we all do afterwards).  At first I didn't come up with much.  But much later, I found myself going back to the chaos without trying to; 'reliving' moments of the city scenes almost as if you were experiencing some type of shock release.  Nothing bad, just kind of the 'thrill of the chase' thing.  At least for me, I couldn't figure out why I was jumping to the middle of the film, but could only attribute it to the fact that the film ended the way that did, not allowing me to compartmentalize the whole thing.  In other words, less analysis, more thrill (than I expected).

January 19, 2008 12:32 AM

jckasper said:

Jet: you're absolutely right.  Just got back from seeing it an hour ago and still having flashbacks.  Really really good.

January 19, 2008 1:13 AM

Chris Orr said:

Jet (and jckasper) -- I'm with you. The movie's aftertaste is surprisingly positive for me. And it focuses not on any of the (largely forgettable) characters, or the tragic ending (which was smart, obvious, and strangely unmoving), but rather on the amorphous tension of the middle segments. Ultimately, I think, this is a movie whose somewhat clever concept takes a backseat to some exceptional visual execution. Thanks for the comments.

January 19, 2008 11:15 PM

jm_rice said:

Not genre-busting...maybe not even sub-genre-busting.  Actually, I see a sub-sub-genre.  So, there's a sci-fi genre and a JDMCTM sub and a POV sub-sub à la Lady in the Lake, except here, like Blair, we get ersatz dogme-cinéma-vérité -- grainy, available light, handheld?  Well, from the rushes it looks like better film stock.

January 20, 2008 1:55 AM