Let me just say that even though I left the theatre completely nauseous, Cloverfield was still an enjoyable thrill-ride experience. I really only have myself to blame for arriving at the theatre too late, thus missing the opportunity to sit far away from the screen and be relegated to the front rows of the Silver City cinema. I knew there was going to be shaky camera work but I thought I would be able to handle it. I thought wrong. It took about twenty minutes for the sickness to kick in. I was feeling hot in the air-conditioned theatre and my head was feeling light-headed. So for the rest of the 64 minutes I focused my eyes on the bottom of the screen and watched the plot unfold with my pupils extremely close to my top eyelids. Thankfully, this movie was short. And thankfully it was fantastic enough for me to put my eyes through the strain.Normally, I am not a fan of shaky camera-work. I am aware that the filmmakers are trying to evoke a sense of urgency, but I usually feel they go overboard. I always mock the jittery camera motion found when Jason Bourne is writing a letter in The Bourne Supremacy. Oooo, look at him write that letter; it’s so intense. Now, I am aware that many people will compare Cloverfield to The Blair Witch Project with its real time digital filming. Luckily, Cloverfield justifies its camera work while Blair Witch does not. In Blair Witch, the kids are supposedly documentary filmmakers. What, they can’t afford a decent steady cam? Aren’t they professional enough not to run with the camera on? And if someone goes missing, shouldn’t you put down the camera and start looking for them? It didn’t work for me. In Cloverfield, they explain that it’s just a regular video camera used to tape some farewell speeches. They give the camera to a dude who doesn’t know how to use it properly, therefore leaves it on when walking and running. And finally, the guy filming clearly states that he needs to document everything, thus explaining why he doesn’t turn the camera off at any point. See? Justified.
But enough about shaky cameras, let’s talk about this wonderful concept concocted by JJ Abrams. It’s funny that his name is all over the project even though he didn’t technically write or direct it. That credit goes to Drew Goddard (Alias, Lost) and Matt Reeves (Felicity, The Pallbearer) respectively. Granted it was Abrams idea and boy was it a doozy. I love the fact that this monster movie is taken from one point of view. The audience only gets to see what the protagonists’ see. It makes for a wonderfully disorienting time of piecing things together and ramping up the suspense of the unknown. Even though, the film was shot under thirty million, it still has enough special effects to amaze audiences with spectacle and grossness. The glimpses of the big beastie does look a little to CGI’d but the creepy offshoots still make my skin crawl. And off course, the Statue of Liberty head was a great way to get the ball rolling, sort to speak.
I also appreciated the predominately no-name cast. This non-recognition allows you to be sucked into their story a little easier without having a “name-their-previous-movie” game playing in the back of your head. These actors are great at showing their emotions and fear and do their job well. The stand-out for me was the running commentary provided by the film’s inexperienced cameraman Hud, played by TJ Miller. Goddard gives Miller the perfectly dark one-liners to give the audience moments of comic relief. All the characters seem relatable in a hip sort of way; they are the kind of people you wouldn’t mind partying with on a Saturday night. But maybe that’s just me.
So, should you see the Cloverfield in the theatres? If you have an iron stomach, by all the means, enjoy. If you are like me and get a little queasy, I’m thinking you should rent it on DVD and be ready to pause when the camera motions get out of hand. Either way, you should definitely give Cloverfield a try; it’s wonderfully original and a great way to start the 2008 movie year.
