Film & Water #33 – Cloverfield

4 responses to “Film & Water #33 – Cloverfield”

1. I’ll admit, I haven’t seen Cloverfield. Mostly because, like you guys, I was already burnt out on found footage movies by that point. And, I hate to admit this, I’m not a big fan of giant monster films. Sorry, just not really my cup of tea. Having said all of that, this episode makes me reconsider that. I need to check it out now. Well done, gentlemen!

   I was totally floored to see this “sequel” advertised. I remember asking Cindy, “Is this a sequel to the giant monster movie?”. I had no idea it was coming out. I applaud them for taking such a different, novel approach with it. The movie could suck wind, but they still earn points for NOT going with the obvious found footage sequel, or even a traditional film version of another monster attack on a major city.

   Chris

   Reply

2. I haven’t even listened to the episode yet, so I may come back with additional thoughts but I wanted to put this on record. To date this is the only film that has made me physically ill. My doesn’t like when my brain can’t predict what the camera is going to do (it’s the same reason I can get nauseous watching other people play first person video games,) so found footage can make me a bit queasy. This was the first and so far only time it has actually made me violently ill, as I had to actually leave the theater to throw up in the first trash can I could find.

   Here’s the main bit of praise that I’ll level at the film: the combination of this style of shooting and the design of the monster work well together. The monster gets made fun of a fair amount, because when you look at it completely, say as a toy or a maquette, then it’s kind of goofy. But the way that it bends in odd places or moves weirdly is perfectly suited for a film that doesn’t allow you to get a good look at it. When you see what looks like a giant limb between the buildings but then it bends in a way that isn’t what your brain says should be happening, that creates a terrific “What in the hell IS that???” effect for the first watch through.

   Overall though this was a film that was badly let down by its marketing. Cloaking it in mystery was a fun way to start the marketing, but because they wouldn’t let up on that angle it meant that people were saying “well, it must be MORE than just a giant monster movie with a new gimmick.” It was so pervasive that some people even thought it was secretly a Voltron movie because of one misunderstood line of dialogue from the first trailer. So after all that build up it turned out to be… a giant monster movie with a new gimmick. And it’s a perfectly good giant monster movie with a new gimmick (my own vomitous reaction notwithstanding,) but the marketing very deliberately led people to expect it to be more than that. The film is simultaneously a case study in building buzz and then also for letting the hype override the final product.

   Reply

3. Ok, now having listened I have some additional thoughts. Matt Reeves is a skilled director but in many ways he didn’t come into his own for me until Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, which is phenomenal. I probably would have liked Let Me In if I hadn’t seen Let the Right One In first. My issue there isn’t so much his direction (because in some way it’s better presented than the original) but just the tone shift. The original is a story of loneliness, bonding and young love with horror elements. The remake is a horror movie with bonding elements. Plus they changed what to me is a pretty key detail about one character that just struck me as severely wimping out on the material.

   I’m actually WAY more excited for 10 Cloverfield Lane than I have any right to be, largely this is because I think John Goodman is one of the best working actors, and has been for a long time. And I have to tip the hat on their ability to finish the film and nobody had any idea until it was done and months away from release. Would that such a thing was done more often, except that when you look at it the situation is pretty unique. It’s a movie that appears to be small enough that you could film it on the QT, but uniquely it ties into what is considered a bigger movie and is getting a wider release than a small movie like this usually would. If you think about there are PLENTY of movies that we don’t know much about (or anything) until they’re done. I mean who the heck heard of The Purge before the first trailer? But this is a case where it ties to a franchise, and that makes it seem all the more unique.

   Which brings me to the topic of “the mystery box.” As I alluded to in my first comment, it’s a fine idea in theory and certainly works to build the initial interest. However I feel that Abrams and his cohorts adhere to it too strictly to the point of annoyance. It’s one thing to keep details under wraps but it’s another to let speculation run rampant to the point that people don’t even know what the heck the movie even is, because this will invariably lead to a percentage of viewers simply not getting what they expected because you were too vague. Super 8 comes to mind, because since it was a JJ Abrams film with a monster, there was a great deal of speculation that it connected to Cloverfield. It didn’t in anyway whatsoever, but Abrams wouldn’t even say as much as just confirm that there was no connection. I think even he knows he went overboard with his approach to Star Trek Into Darkness, where he didn’t just hide information but flat out lied to audiences about Cumberbatch’s character in the lead up for the sake of a “twist” that actually doesn’t matter in the context of the story. I think The Force Awakens is an example of doing this correctly. Many details were hidden, but we at least knew what the movie was.

   Reply

4. It was a cool found footage film. What do I expect from the new one? I think it’s going to be this locked room thriller with the monster in the background. I am a big fan of genre films that are made with little means. I might recommend Pontypool, which is a fine example, a weird zombie apocalypse (of a sort) happens outside, but we’re trapped in a radio station, experiencing it mostly through sound. I love that stuff.

   Reply