So...Cloverfield

I saw the movie Cloverfield yesterday, and I've decided that I want to talk about it. That means that there are going to be some, but there are going to be a PLETHORA of spoilers below. So, if that is an issue to you, stop reading now.

I mean it.

Okay, so...Cloverfield. When I first saw the trailer, I was kinda excited about the movie as I am a big-time fan of giant monster movies. Then I read a little about the movie, and I lost some of that interest. I was worried about the film-making style, what with the whole thing being shot in hand-held camera style, i.e.: Blair Witch Project. Then, as it got closer, my interest grew again and I was pretty anxious to see it once again. So, I saw it.

And was very disappointed.

Not in the film-making style. That wasn't so bad, actually. The hand-held personal angle of the storytelling was somewhat compelling, even. And the personal interest side of the story works--for the first two-thirds of the movie. The problem is the last third of the film.

You see, Cloverfield isn't a monster movie. It's a movie about 9-11. A massive amount of damage is done to the city, and we follow a group of people trying to survive the devastation and rescue the love interest of the tale. Not bad, really, but after they save the woman they have nothing left to do. That's because the monster isn't a part of the movie. The monster is, at best, a tertiary character in the film.

Let's look a little deeper, shall we. The film is told as a documented version of what happened to New York after a huge disaster strikes the city. Without warning, a huge blow destroys significant portions of the city, and even one towering skyscraper (which I thought was the Empire State Building, but there was some debate on that with the people I went with) collapses and send dust through the streets causing even more damage. No one knows who or what has done this damage to the city, all they know is the destruction around them. It looks like a war zone.

Sound familiar? And don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with this. My favorite Kaiju film (that would be a giant monster movie in case you didn't know) is Godzilla. Godzilla is a reaction by Japanese film-makers to the atomic bomb being dropped on their country. The amazing power and devastating power of the atom is brought to life as a monster that they have to confront and deal with, and ultimately they figure out a way that the power can be tamed and the threat destroyed.

Not so much here. Part of that is due to the fact that, as of today, we as Americans have no idea what happened on 9-11. Oh sure, we know who is responsible and some of the logistics of the event, but we don't know exactly the events that led up to it and created the disaster. There is no face to put on the monster. Hence the reason that we get a monster in this film that is vague and unclear. And when you do see it, it doesn't make sense and looks kinda stupid. So we have a monster that isn't something that we understand or can kill or control in any way.

And this creates problems in a film-making sense. Once the main characters find and rescue the love-interest of the film, the creators don't know what to do. There is no happy ending--hell, there isn't even much of an ending, more of a stopping--because they don't know what to do with it. That's because they take absolutely no time at all to develop the threat of the monster. We never find out what it is or why it's doing the things that it is. There is a vague indication that the thing has come from outer space as the last scene in the movie is a flashback (the video tape that the events are being filmed on have footage from about a month earlier that shows something that looks like a meteor landing in the ocean), but that's it. We don't know anything else. And they deliberately go out of their way NOT to tell us anything. They have chances. And that, above everything else, is what makes the movie frustrating. The human interest side of the story works for the first two-thirds of the film, but after that they need to pull the story back to show more of what's happening. Provide depth to the tale. They don't do that.

I have heard the argument that the film doesn't do that to preserve the "reality" of the film. Oooookaaaay...let's look at that. They wanted to give it a realistic approach. Fine. Then why does the monster change size and shape? Early on, it is clearly shown that there are multiple tentacles that destroy a building, but later we see no tentacles at all. And no, it wasn't the beast's tail, as that is still just a single thing, and there were MULTIPLE tentacles. And then we see the monster walking around the city upright, like a humanoid, but later when the creature is shown clearly, we see nothing but the amazing gimp-beast, lumbering about with no legs and only backwards shaped arms. And, to top it off, at no time does it look threatening. It looks--dumb. In fact, it reminds me of the newborn alien from Alien: Resurrection, which was the thing that made that film bad. But I honestly don't want to sit here and attack the design of the monster; just because I thought it looked dumb doesn't mean that everyone will--that is a matter of personal taste.

So, let's look at the "reality" of the humans. First off, there is the matter of "recording the events for history" that is emphasized so often in the movie. For someone doing that, this guy goes way out of his way not to show anything. The few times that things do happen that would be worth documenting he turns the camera away from things, not giving us a clear view of anything. An example: the monster finally shows up and the military attacks it, and he chooses to film his friends cowering in the corner rather than show the attack. And then there is later in the movie where they have all gotten to the evac point the military sets up--and the helicopter taking them away flies right over the monster...for a long time. Long enough for the monster to destroy the helicopter. Yeah, the military does that sort of thing all the time. And let's not even get into the concept that they are able to walk down a dozen flights of a building that is leaning into another building--and the building that is holding up the other building is fine except for some superficial damage. So, no, the "realistic" angle doesn't hold up.

But overall, the film is disappointing because it forgets to be a monster movie. A monster movie is about the monster. At some point Hollywood has forgotten that. Cloverfield is about a bunch of people that die--and yes, they all die--and we never find out why or what is killing them. And that isn't a story, it's a scene. Shame the people who made the movie don't understand the difference.