Fresh out of the theatre today, I was taken by surprise; "Cloverfield" knocked my socks off. Yet some actually were demanding their money back. Why? Because this is a controversial movie for all of the right reasons. Here are a few:
1. THE RETURN OF "SHAKEY-CAM"- The old (well, not really old) technique that gives film an amateur, onthe-spot realism that put "The Blair Witch Project" on the map. "Cloverfield is the triumphant return of this type of movie. The difference is that "Blair" made it a gimmick. "Cloverfield" commits on all levels.
Yes, the beginning was confusing, until you piece together that the movie is being filmed over footage of two of the characters earlier on. But as far as creativity and presence is concerned, this works. The idea of taping over another tape is realistic and makes for a genius way to do flashbacks.
As far as the shakey cam itself, it's just as legitimate and nessecary as a choreographer or color scheme in a movie; it's make the movie that much more believable. You'd be taken out of the scene if the characters were constantly stopping to get Scorcese-style panoramics.
2. UNKNOWN ACTORS HOLD SMALL BOX OFFICE DRAW- True, but with the name J.J. Abrams, who needs anything else? I wasn't a huge fan of Abrams until I started watching ABC's "Lost," but I will now give anything associated with Abrams a shot.
The actors aren't bad, either. If any second-year film student thinks about it, you would have to have unknowns. The closest actor to fame is Michael-Stahl David ("The Black Donnelys"), who plays Rob.
This is a "random" tape found after a disaster, and I doubt Tom Hanks chills with his friends in a swank Manhattan loft.
3. SHORT, POINTLESS EYE CANDY?!- Not... one... bit. The movie was a mere hour and a half, but as the credits roled, I felt like I had sat through two and a half hours of non-stop action. I was thrilled. Drew Goddard (writer) proved you don't need to write a saga, you just need to get the story out.
And "pointless" is the exact opposite description of this movie. I'll admit it right here: I teared up. Yeah. I, a 21-year-old male, almost cried in a monster movie. Why am I not ashamed? Despite not being macho, this movie was also not JUST a monster flick. It was a fast-paced story about how far a person will go for someone they love. The underlying story between main character Rob and his ex-girlfriend, damzel-in-distress Beth (played by Odette Yustman) really shone through.
So, which is it? Is "Cloverfield" an instant classic that will echo for generations or is it the first of a million knockoffs?
The answer is: BOTH. "Cloverfield" itself is a great film with the same shock value and fun of the monster movies of the golden age of film. It's also going to spawn absolutely disgusting followups from other companies, such as "The Poughkeepsie Tapes," a film made by a serial killer chronicalling his twisted work.
If you want to have a great time laughing, crying, screaming, jumping, and screaming, go see "Cloverfield." But be warned: this is only the beginning...
