SPOILERS BELOW!!!
Title: Cloverfield
Director: Matt Reeves
Stars: Jessica Lucas, Lizzy Caplan, Mike Vogel, Michael Stahl-David, T.J. Miller, Odette Yustman
Review: So, obviously, this movie is shot in a very modern way, with the POV being a handheld camcorder intended to record a party. At first I was sceptical; but I can truly say I liked it. There were very subtle (cliched, but subtle) moments, such as turning on the nightvision to see the little beasts, or dumping the camera on the ground in a place where it can still catch all the goings-on, and I thought it added a very nice feel to it. You could get caught up in it very easily, because it seemed more real. I only fault it at one stage - as they climbed up the corridor in the leaning building, it looked ridiculous, because the camera was still on a level. Something should have been done to make it easier to see the slope, they kind of looked like they were just too stupid to walk properly. Yeah, I know, slap me, I didn't like part of it :O I do genuinely believe that it was a very good choice of filming angle, though.
There was a lot of subtle sound manipulation, too - the phrase "Did you hear that?" was probably the most used in the whole film. Again, it was all very realistic and convincing. It was great when they were all yelling at once, or when just little snatches of conversations or news reports were caught. They got all the necessary information across in a way that wasn't in your face or obvious. A great scripting decision. There were also great bits of cheese that didn't feel heavy, like Rob telling the soldiers he was going after the girl he loved no matter what, which sat very well and showed how much he really did care.
The matter of the monster itself: Yes, a cliche. Giant alien/deep sea creature that spawns little creatures, destroys bridges and buildings, and gets a load of army attention as a result - yeah, yeah, seen it before. Never quite like this though. And somehow, seeing something we've been warned about by the horror industry for years in a "real footage" movie - IT WORKS. It seems more believable because we've been fed it for years (there's actually psychological research that shows we are more likely to be attracted to or appreciate something we are familiar with than something new, no matter how exciting the something new is). Another cliche of the bridge collapsing - but it works because that would truly be their only option. Another cliche of the guy who has to go back to get the girl he's in love with - but it works because that is really what people would do in that situation. Any cliche you see in this film just WORKS instantly in spite of it being a cliche, maybe because it's a cliche. And it's very rewarding.
Finally, my verdict on the storyline: Brilliant. Killing the narrator = 100% absolutely necessary; killing the hero and his damsel in distress = also 100% necessary. Without those two things this would not have been as good. In horror movies you have to know who to kill and how. First, random tragedy strikes down the brother, pulling on those family heartstrings. Next, one of their own is infected, and the narrator loses the girl he liked. Then we lose a close friend, split up from them by the army; then we lose the narrator himself, the first of the victims of the actual monster. Lastly the two main focuses of the film are killed by the government itself. Genius.
Yet another five-star film. (I don't give ALL films this rating, I promise.)
