SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Mini-review: Cloverfield

THE PLANK JANUARY 18, 2008

Mini-review: Cloverfield

BY CHRISTOPHER ORR

 

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

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 30 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

30 comments

Spoiler: the monster is Keyser Soze riding Rosebud.

- primwallflow

January 18, 2008 at 2:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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?

- The Ignorant Populist

January 18, 2008 at 2:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- Chris Orr

January 18, 2008 at 2:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- The Ignorant Populist

January 18, 2008 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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?

- drdannyu

January 18, 2008 at 3:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- blackton

January 18, 2008 at 3:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.)

- benjamin81

January 18, 2008 at 3:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Iggy wins!

This is fun- what is next?

- boneill

January 18, 2008 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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

- boneill

January 18, 2008 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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!

- The Ignorant Populist

January 18, 2008 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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

How about Rebel without an Aeon Flux?

- blackton

January 18, 2008 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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

- boneill

January 18, 2008 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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

- adaglas

January 18, 2008 at 3:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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

- boneill

January 18, 2008 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- drdannyu

January 18, 2008 at 4:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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

- boneill

January 18, 2008 at 4:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- boneill

January 18, 2008 at 4:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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...

- The Ignorant Populist

January 18, 2008 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- maxzig1

January 18, 2008 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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...

- Chris Orr

January 18, 2008 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- boneill

January 18, 2008 at 4:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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

- adaglas

January 18, 2008 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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...

- The Ignorant Populist

January 18, 2008 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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...

- The Ignorant Populist

January 18, 2008 at 4:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- adaglas

January 18, 2008 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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!!

- drdannyu

January 18, 2008 at 5:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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).

- jet

January 19, 2008 at 12:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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

- jckasper

January 19, 2008 at 1:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- Chris Orr

January 19, 2008 at 11:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- jm_rice

January 20, 2008 at 1:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close