"Cloverfield"
It already sounds suspect. CGI will no doubt consume the movie and then the audience will be "treated" to an acting performance by a subpar thespian who just gets in the way of all the exciting monster action (you hear that Sony, why oh why did you cast Ferris Bueller as the main character in what could have been the biggest film in history?).
But it's a new year. And "Cloverfield" delivered a new type of monster movie, not one with the above mentioned traits. No dude in a lab coat who will carefully explain what we're up against. And more appropriate, no perfectly wrapped-up ending.
"Cloverfield" is an intense, almost scary event movie that can only be described as half 9/11 and half Godzilla. Shot entirely in hand-held camera style, it has no big-name stars and a modest budget. As great as the 1995 "Gamera" movie was and 2005's "King Kong," "Cloverfield" is the first movie since the original "Godzilla" that made me think there was a monster tearing up a city.
Let's get one thing straight: "Cloverfield's" monster is nothing special. It has as many powers as Varan and Manda which isn't saying a lot.
The film's power is the documentary style that elevated a stupid concept such as "The Blair Witch Project" into a thrilling, must-see flick.
"Cloverfield" and "Blair Witch" aren't even in the same league.
Meshing disaster and kaiju action isn't too difficult. What makes "Cloverfield" so effective is the legit despair we follow. It's just a guy filming a party who then goes on to film the destruction of New York. The mysterious beast makes a mess of a city like any good monster. The only difference is we are along for the ride, first-person shooter style. Shaky camera, senseless deaths, running from fear and screaming loudly, it's like we are there.
No elected officials, scientists and military men there to console us. In fact we (the movie) are right next to the helpless military on the streets. We trudge and fall around the city trying to find a trapped friend. And we see our friends die.
Some people have complained about this movie.
The ridiculous notion of no monster backstory. No definitive or happy ending.
Guess what? That's life. If a giant monster attacked your city what would be priority No. 1, finding out what the monster is and where it came from or getting the hell out of town? Things would get messy.
If anything people should attack the implausibilities of "Cloverfield." There are many such as one character getting impaled by a thick rod then running around the city as if it's not a life-threating injury. And the question of battery life since the movie takes place in the span of about seven hours.
All useless. The rest of the film is so thrilling useless questions shouldn't be a problem.
The images of falling buildings and ensuing smoke eating up the city brought back eerie memories off 9/11. And the complete decimation of the city and overall girth of a monster will always bring up Godzilla comparisons.
The acting is credible with no star overshadowing the other and two characters who are so hot they remind me of true-to-life anime characters (look up Jessica Lucas and Odette Yustman if you like gorgeous women).
With so much authenticity it's no coincidence the ending is quite ambiguous. It's not as head scratching as "End of Evangelion" but watching till the end of the credits might help.
If you like a great non-traditional kaiju film you must see "Cloverfield."
