Yellow stars and green clovers
Filed under Reviews on January 22, 2008
Keywords: Claire Danes, Cloverfield, Michelle Pfeiffer, movies, Neil Gaiman, Stardust
My dad and I went to see Cloverfield yesterday. I’d seen the trailers online, played around with the viral marketing website, and read some early reviews, most of which were positive. At my wife’s birthday party on Saturday night, a friend who went to see it told me he hated it.
I loved it. The hand-cam didn’t bother me. That was my biggest reservation. Fast camera motion on the big screen tends to give me headaches. We sat pretty far back in the theater, and I think that helped.
Most of the complaints I’m aware of center on the camera work. I’ve heard the comparisons to Blair Witch Project, but I think it’s a shallow analogy. Blair Witch was smoke and mirrors. Cloverfield offered plenty of meaty shots of the monster.
The acting was convincing, which was important because this wasn’t really a monster movie. This was a disaster movie. The story focused on how people reacted to the disaster. As such, there are a lot of unanswered questions about the monster, though the movie provides some clues. I appreciated the opportunity to think, and the “man-on-the-street” perspective. It felt much more realistic to me. I left the theater satisfied, and considering a return trip.
Another movie I plan to watch again before returning is Stardust. Based on the story by Neil Gaiman, this fairy tale featured some big names, all of whom performed their roles to the hilt. Claire Danes was perhaps the only exception. There were a couple of scenes where her facial expressions contorted her features to near-caricature proportions. Still, the chemistry between her and Charlie Cox more than compensated. Michelle Pfeiffer was wonderful as the witch. Perhaps the best part of the movie was its freshness. This isn’t your tired, old Hollywood fantasy.
Related Posts
- A shiny review
- Review: Pirates of the Caribbean 2
- How do you measure a movie?
- Kong rules
- Dragonlance: the movie
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
This is very good news, as I’ll be seeing Cloverfield tonight. I’m sad to hear that there’ll be a fair bit of unanswered questions, but I think it’ll be helpful knowing this isn’t a strictly defined monster movie. That resets my expectations a bit. Which is good.
Thanks for the review.
I enjoyed Stardust, the illustrated novels, when it first came out many years ago. I’m a bit dubious about the movie, but I’m sure I’ll get around to it.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
My pleasure, Jeff. Hope you enjoy it. If you really want to get some of those questions answered, IMDB has a pretty good FAQ. I also spent some time this morning browsing cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com, which covers all viral marketing done for the movie.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:38 am
I enjoyed it immensely. Damn, that was intense. And it really helps that I live in NYC and was familiar with just about every location in the movie. (I’m never going to Spring St. station again.)
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Hmm, I thought Cloverfield looked interesting but I doubt I’ll find the time to see it, especially since my wife doesn’t care for “monster” movies. I did see Stardust in the theater though - it was definitely fresh and new and my favorite scenes were with Robert DeNiro. There were only a few times when I was saying “meh” to myself. A must-see, in my opinion.