
Directed by Matt Reeves
Written by Drew Goodard
Starring Pretty People and one not so Pretty Cameraman
Your Parents lied to you.
Perception is everything.
It dictates how we learn, how we remember, how we react. And what are we without those 3 things?
Perception is everything.
You need more proof? Look at the world. Immediately after September 11th we were ready to point our guns anywhere. Piles of dead troops, a missing Bin Ladin, and a recession later --- we want to pull out. Why? Our perception changed.
Don't be afraid to say it. Perception IS everything.
That's why "Cloverfield" (a film with its fare share of 9/11 comparisons) borders on brilliant. We are no longer taking an objective approach in the monster movie. We are IN the monster movie. We are moving with the film. We become immersed in it to the point where we want the screen to turn right when we turn right. If we turn around we want the images to show us what's behind us.
It's a technical accomplishment.
Sure, it's nothing new. Subjective camera work has been around for years. Even before the underappreciated, "Blair Witch Project" and continuing past the Normandy scene in "Saving Private Ryan." But "Cloverfield" (still not sure where they got that title) is, possibly, the most competent example of it to date (barring music videos like "Smack My Bitch Up.")
The story centers around a Godzilla-styled attack on New York City. It follows a group of characters who survive the initial attack during a party for their buddy who's leaving to Japan (providing a wink and nod).
Like any horror movie it's a game of who will survive. The characters that did bite it sometimes surprised me (expect a zombie sequel) and sometimes didn't (uh-oh, sappy love story---you were warned). If I were watching a normal film, I think I wouldn't have been so thrown.
And there lies the problem with "Cloverfield."
Movies like this can't really satisfy because it's more about the experiment than the narrative (The audienced sucked teeth and booed at the end of the film, but there were screams and cheers during). Here, the experiment almost wins out on the narrative. That is until a few too many clichés overtake the film. It's the clichés that really hurt this particular style of film, because in a movie where we are put in the film, the characters do things that would only be suitable for movie characters. Not me.
Regardless, you would be doing yourself a disservice to not see it in the theatre. It's about the experience.
Written by Drew Goodard
Starring Pretty People and one not so Pretty Cameraman
Your Parents lied to you.
Perception is everything.
It dictates how we learn, how we remember, how we react. And what are we without those 3 things?
Perception is everything.
You need more proof? Look at the world. Immediately after September 11th we were ready to point our guns anywhere. Piles of dead troops, a missing Bin Ladin, and a recession later --- we want to pull out. Why? Our perception changed.
Don't be afraid to say it. Perception IS everything.
That's why "Cloverfield" (a film with its fare share of 9/11 comparisons) borders on brilliant. We are no longer taking an objective approach in the monster movie. We are IN the monster movie. We are moving with the film. We become immersed in it to the point where we want the screen to turn right when we turn right. If we turn around we want the images to show us what's behind us.
It's a technical accomplishment.
Sure, it's nothing new. Subjective camera work has been around for years. Even before the underappreciated, "Blair Witch Project" and continuing past the Normandy scene in "Saving Private Ryan." But "Cloverfield" (still not sure where they got that title) is, possibly, the most competent example of it to date (barring music videos like "Smack My Bitch Up.")
The story centers around a Godzilla-styled attack on New York City. It follows a group of characters who survive the initial attack during a party for their buddy who's leaving to Japan (providing a wink and nod).
Like any horror movie it's a game of who will survive. The characters that did bite it sometimes surprised me (expect a zombie sequel) and sometimes didn't (uh-oh, sappy love story---you were warned). If I were watching a normal film, I think I wouldn't have been so thrown.
And there lies the problem with "Cloverfield."
Movies like this can't really satisfy because it's more about the experiment than the narrative (The audienced sucked teeth and booed at the end of the film, but there were screams and cheers during). Here, the experiment almost wins out on the narrative. That is until a few too many clichés overtake the film. It's the clichés that really hurt this particular style of film, because in a movie where we are put in the film, the characters do things that would only be suitable for movie characters. Not me.
Regardless, you would be doing yourself a disservice to not see it in the theatre. It's about the experience.





