Cloverfield

It's pretty tough- check that- it's practically impossible to live up to hype. I had my first run-in with hype when Batman (Tim Burton's version) came out in 1989. Severe disappointment didn't even cover it. My buddy Jon and I anxiously awaited it's arrival and when it came we were there- super long line wait 'n all. When the movie was over and the lights came up everyone was on their feet applauding. We were on our feet too saying "Let's get the fuck out of here!" Thank God for Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins- faaaaaaaaaaar better. Any-who, with the marketing and mystery surrounding Cloverfield the hype was nearing epic proportions and I started to worry because I didn't want Batman-like disappointment again. Due to a busy schedule I wasn't able to see Cloverfield until the other day and I was not disappointed. Quite the opposite in fact.

I was extremely anxious for the first 15 minutes because I knew what was coming and I just wanted it to happen. But the film is getting you to know the characters and their situation a bit before, well...you know. Rob is moving to Japan and his friends are throwing him a going away party. His brother Jason and his girlfriend are the main hosts and Jason passes off "camera testimonials" to Hud. Hud spots Marlena, who isn't really supposed to be there and falls in love or lust or whatever, with her almost immediately. The biggest problem, however is that Rob has recently slept with Beth, a longtime friend, first time lover. She shows up to the party with some fucking tool because Rob didn't know how to talk to her after they had sex. It's alot right? And, really, it happens in a short amount of time, but that's what was great about it. It's also what's realistic about it. I hung with a fairly large group of close friends throughout college and that's how it happens; word travels fast and everyone knows everyone elses business in 2.2 seconds. There is a very real feel brought to this movie, not just from the handheld handicam camera work, but from the writing and acting.

Although I was getting into the story, I was also very anxious through the first scenes of the film because I knew what was in the mail, so to speak. When it happens, I had stopped being anxious and was really getting into the scene at hand and then- WHAM- it hits. From there the fucking wheels come off. This is an intense movie. And tense. I was tense throughout. My fiance almost chewed her fingers off her hand after she took care of the nails. There are moments where the action settles down a bit but the intensity stays.

The idea of first person camera work intrigued me and was largely the reason I was attracted to this film. Execution is another story- things can get screwed up easily, but not here. Here it works. Very well. The action and the reality of the situation are palpable because of the camerawork. The constant movement of the frame- panning, adjusting, twisting and tilting...it feels real. You are never taken out of the moment with a cutaway. And there's no editing to speak of. I mean there is but it's just the camera being turned off and on so sentences and scenes get cut and then WHAM you're back into a new one. There are no cutaways or reaction shots. There also is no music telling you how to feel in each scene and believe me you don't miss it. The reality of it all weighed on me and in large part it was due to the technical work, but the acting was a huge part of it as well.

The cast is made up of, not unknowns, but not well knowns- if you known what I mean. You'll recognize or vaguely recognize most of them, or maybe not at all if you don't watch a lot of TV. Everyone was very natural and in a movie like this where it's shot, essentially, raw documentary style how do you act natural in the middle of a very unnatural situation. Natural in this situation would be an orgy of shock, confusion, shit-your-pants-fear, I mean someone might have a breakdown and someone else might take charge. Even though there is a script, it feels like there isn't by the interactions between the characters. Hud, played by TJ Miller, is the man behind the camera and he is constantly making comments and observations. His performance is paramount to the film coming off and he plays it very well. I also liked, Michael Stahl-David, who played Rob, and Lizzy Caplan, who played Marlena. Jessica Lucas plays Lilly, and she's currently on CSI. She has the potential to be a big star. As an aspiring writer/producer/director I get really excited for people that break into the big time and it was exciting for me to see all these young actors kicking ass in a Major Motion Picture, produced by a Major Hollywood director/writer/producer, which, conveniently brings me to my next point

JJ Abrams is the producer, NOT, the director, which isn't to say that he didn't have alot of input- I'm sure he did, but at the end of the day, he's the producer. I can pretty much guarantee you he wasn't in the edit room, day in and day out, like the director, Matt Reeves probably was. People get this confused alot and as a result sometimes the director or writer doesn't get the credit he or she deserves. This film is a mammoth undertaking and one false move could fuck the whole thing up. Matt Reeves did an amazing job and I applaud him. He's a writer/director who co-created Felicity and directed The Pallbearer, both very credible pieces of work, but an out of control, train off the tracks monster movie they were not. I can't wait to see what this guy has up his sleeve next. By the way, I'm taking nothing away from JJ Abrams. I'm sure he had alot of input and the man is clearly talented- he delivered the best Mission Impossible movie by far- but people think it's his movie and it's isn't. Not entirely at least.

I want to address something I've read in some reviews, not all, but some. People have complained that no one in their right mind would have continued filming through all the chaos. I disagree. Completely. First of all you can't definitely say what any one person would do in this situation because you don't definitely know, but that's beside the point. I know someone who would continue filming as he was trying to run for his life. He would have actually been going out of his way to get cool shots. His name is Pottyboy. Got to his site and you'll see what I mean. But even that doesn't give the slightest idea of how much has shot in his life. This is also besides the point. Making a case for the movie being unbelievable because you don't feel someone would continue filming is a stupid point to make. There wouldn't be a movie in the first place if the person didn't film it, so you shouldn't be in the theater if you don't like the concept. By taking a "realistic" or "documentary" approach the film opens itself up to such criticisms, but I feel they are unfounded and moot. When you go see Transformers you don't say "How did they get a guy in the middle of the highway to film them fighting?" Why? Because it's a movie, entertaining you, hopefully, so you know it's not real. Well Cloverfield is presented as "found footage" therefore we should buy into the fact, even though we know it's not real that someone did continue filming whilst running for their life and enjoy what we see, much like we'll buy into Transformers. This is why we go to the movies, folks, so we can be entertained. Hopefully I've made myself clear on this because it baffles me that someone would use that as an argument.

Either way, Cloverfield is an amazing film and I can't wait to see it again. An extraordinarily effective and groundbreaking approach to a monster movie that lived up it's brilliant marketing plan. Good luck to anyone who tries to top it. They'll need it.