Cloverfield Creeped Me Out
Saw Clovefield this morning and the film has been haunting me all day. It’s abstractness, catching glimpses of the monster here and there, trying to figure it out, has left me distracted and scouring the Web for more information.
A commenter I read at one site said to watch the ocean carefully in the background of the film’s final shot. I wish I’d had this advice before going into the film, because I definitely thought I saw something going on there; although, I am also certain that whatever it was, would only raise more questions.
What is the monster? The kids at the comic shop believed it was a creation of H.P. Lovecraft’s Cthuhlu mythos, which would explain its seemingly supernatural nigh-invulnerability. One of the film’s characters suggests it might have come from the sea, which would explain the ravenous lice that rain from its body, what might have been air-bladders on it’s neck, and its fin-like tail. This same character also suggests space and top-secret government projects.
The unknowable nature of this film’s monster and much of its action is what brought me into its world. One character’s death is extremely unnerving because we don’t get to see it directly, but what we see in the shadows makes our imaginations run wild with gruesome possibilities. This is a film that, despite it’s high-budget, wholly convincing special effects, wisely relies on the audience’s imagination to fuel its believability.
The mysteries of this film, all the questions it raises, not the answers, are what made it so effective at leaving the audience disturbed and seeking any details that might help figure it out. It’s a film that will lend itself to weeks of debate and speculation.
While Cloverfield gave me bad chills, a teaser trailer before the film (also by Cloverfield’s director) tingled my spine in a very good way:
Slusho!
Comment by Nick Hamden — January 21, 2008 @ 3:04 am
Cloverfield was a good movie. If they were to shoot it any other way, it would have simply been another American Godzilla movie. What I wonder is what the hell is the monster’s skin made of? I too missed that “thing” crashing into the ocean at the end. My buddy did see it and as such am pretty sure it is to explain where the monster came from. Unfortunately for us, its life wasn’t cut short via our bacteria like in War of the Worlds.
Comment by Sour Swinger — January 21, 2008 @ 11:13 am
I haven’t seen Cloverfield yet, but based on your reaction here I will check it out this week.
-BMF
Comment by BMF — January 21, 2008 @ 11:14 am
Totally. Especially if you’re the type of person who loves to fully immerse yourself into the movie. The only thing to be careful with is motion sickness. For the first 15-20 minutes of the movie, I was getting dizzy. Though I finally got used to the shaky camera. I heard its not uncommon for people leaving because of feeling ill/throwing up.
Comment by Sour Swinger — January 21, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
I’ve heard the camera work was similar to Blair Witch and the fight scenes from the Bourne Ultimatum. If that’s the case, I’ll just have to put some space between me and the other movie patrons.
-BMF
Comment by BMF — January 21, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
Thanks for posting that Sour Swinger. I thought that’s what I saw happening in the background. I can’t wait for people to start posting slow-motion shots of that scene and others. I’m definitely analyze the film in frame-by-frame shots when it comes out on DVD.
Comment by ideonexus — January 21, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Oh that reminds me. If you stay to the VERY end of the credits. At the last few seconds a radio transmission is heard. Unfortunately when I went, none of us were ready for it. We were waiting to see if something were to appear. When we started walking out it happened. My one friend just saw it again with the intent of hearing it. The transmission said “Its Still Alive”.
Comment by Sour Swinger — January 21, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
I don’t know if I should say thanks for the tip or hate you for the spoiler… I’ll go with thanks for the tip. I’m going to see it in about an hour. I’ll post a reaction when I’m done, if you’re interested.
-BMF
Comment by BMF — January 21, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
If you don’t want spoilers, don’t read a blog post with the title of a movie you haven’t seen in it :)
:P
Comment by Clint — January 21, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
No spoilers have been posted. Just things to look for.
: )
Comment by ideonexus — January 21, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
LoL. Reading about the object falling in the water is definitely more of a spoiler than that transmission part. I’d guess about 95% of the people won’t even know about it because its literally at the VERY end of the credits. Who really stays that long?
Comment by Sour Swinger — January 21, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
I pretty much always do.
Comment by Clint — January 21, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
Yeah, but that would require me to use common sense, wouldn’t it. (not reading a thread for a movie I haven’t seen) ;)
Anyway, my thoughts are as follows:
The camera work was excellent in terms of drawing you in and making you feel like part of the movie. I was totally amped leaving the theater, waiting for something to pop out. It didn’t help that it was dark and there wasn’t anyone walking out the doors when I left.
The creatures were a mix of previous movie and video game monsters. The main monster was fantastic! Part Rancor, part Strider from Half Life 2, and part old school Godzilla. Tail whip to the bridge FTW!
The lice (for lack of a better term) felt like they were a mix of Aliens, the head crabs from half life 2, and the jaws creatures from Donkey Kong Junior. The whole section involving the subway felt like it was out of HL2, right down to the crowbar.
The story progression, while seemingly a love story, was more a story of natural selection. Without going into actual plot points I’ll just say: Word to the wise, chicks and gadgets will get you killed.
Sadly, I missed the last scene with the object falling into the water. I was focused on what the girl was saying and totally thinking “well that was a pretty blatant attempt at irony.” I’m kicking myself for missing it as I’m sure it was the scene that was meant to justify the meaning of the tape, not just to pander to the audience. I can’t picture a government hanging on to that video for any other reason. I’m sure they would have battle footage coming out of their ears… what the would want is an origin.
The song during the credits “Roar(the Cloverfield Overature)” was an awesome throwback to old school monster music. It made me want to dig out “War of the Monsters” for my PS2 just to listen to the music.
Oh and the transmission at the end of the credits? Blatant marketing for “Cloverfield 2: Cloverfield Does Dallas”. Can’t wait!
-BMF
Comment by BMF — January 21, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
I just hope that this isn’t another Mothman Prophecies, because that’s SORT OF what it sounds like what with “not showing it”…
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0265349/
Comment by Clint — January 22, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
BMF,
Awesome perspective. You’ve really articulated some of the aspects of the film that I couldn’t.
Clint,
Not like Mothman at all. You do get to see the monster, just not like Godzilla where it hangs out on the screen forever. The camera’s always bouncing and shots are very quick. I’m sure if you freeze-frame the film, you’d get a good shot of the creature.
Comment by ideonexus — January 22, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
io9.com had a cool little pic of the the last scene. you can check it out here. http://io9.com/347042/cloverfield-graphic-novel-%252B-last-shot-of-movie–wink-wink
-BMF
Comment by BMF — January 22, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
One of the commenters on that thread posted this Wikipedia entry to support the monster’s Ocean origins. A real life sound that fits the profile of a living creature, and would have to be much larger than a blue whale to produce such an ultra-low frequency.
I am in total conspiracy-theory mode now. Excuse me while I google UFOs.
Comment by ideonexus — January 22, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
Glad to finally see an image of that ocean shot from the movie. Will be awhile till I can watch again. As for that Wiki on the sound in the ocean. I say that’s just one of many rumors/ideas that will spawn. Sorta like what happened when we were waiting for the movie to come out. You’ll get tons of people that will over analyze every little detail.
Comment by Sour Swinger — January 23, 2008 @ 11:36 am
@Sour Swinger – Regarding “Unfortunately for us, its life wasn’t cut short via our bacteria like in War of the Worlds.”:
Did our microbes (at least the airborne ones) have ample chance to get to work? I think we only saw about roughly 6-8 hours of the monster’s tenure. I was under the impression that the timespan in War of the Worlds was much longer. So, yeah, don’t bust on our poor bacteria just yet. They may not be visible to the naked eye, but they aren’t magicians, you know! :)
Comment by tgaw — January 23, 2008 @ 11:56 am
@tgaw
Well I was going with the original assumption that the object falling into the water was the monster. In which case, there would have been amble time during its growth period. However BMF posted that link which was saying the object was a satellite that disturbed the monsters deep slumber. Hopefully its not the latter. For a movie that’s going for real, its more believable to be an alien then some deep sea monster.
Comment by Sour Swinger — January 23, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
I just saw Cloverfield last night and had a blast. Is there an explanation in the movie at all about where the name “Cloverfield” comes from? It is used to designate the “case” by DoD, but there is no further explanation (unless I missed it). Maybe it’s just a reference to a field (city) full of delicious, delicious clover (people running around screaming).
BTW, one of my favorite scenes is the subway tunnel scene:
“You guys remember that guy who lit homeless people on fire in the tunnels?”
“Jesus, Hud. I don’t think this is an appropriate conversation.”
“Sorry………I just can’t help but think how scary it would be if we got attacked by a flaming homeless person.”
“HUD!”
Comment by doranchak — January 24, 2008 @ 8:50 am
@doranchak
“When we started the project there was going to be an announcement in the trades. In this case, they wanted to keep everything under wraps. So the movie was going to be made under this outside corporation that was basically a property of Paramount. That corporation had a name that I dont know the name of. I think Clover was the first part of it. Maybe it was Cloverdale. When Drew [Goddard, LOST writer] was putting a name to the project, there was supposed to be a name for the project like there was for The Manhattan Project. So he said, “I am going to use that weird mysterious thing,” and he misheard it. He didnt even understand that it wasnt Cloverfield, it was Cloverdale. Maybe that was because of the street by J.J.s old office, but the truth is he just misunderstood it.”
~Matt Reeves
Comment by Sour Swinger — January 24, 2008 @ 11:26 am
Very interesting, Sour Swinger. Maybe it is all part of JJ Abrams love of “the mystery box”:
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/205
Comment by doranchak — January 24, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
[…] REVIEWS: Ryan’s review was excellent: Read it here. The site is where I got the spoiler information (so open with caution) is HERE. And I found out […]
Pingback by VIDEO: MOVIES: REVIEW: Cloverfield - great realistic horror « Clint’s blog — April 9, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
Loved it. Except for the part where I got dizzy and passed out.
Comment by Coquito Von Tito — April 11, 2008 @ 6:13 am