1.26.2008

Cloverfield sucks

So I've been thinking about the movie Cloverfield recently and why it didn't work. I'm comparing it to the Blair Witch Project (BWP), because both movies were supposedly "artifacts" that were found and then shown to us without editing etc.

I liked BWP, mainly because the script kept you in the dark as to what was happening. Yes, we knew that there was a witch, but the teeth in the torn shirt, the screaming in the dark, the bizarre talismans, all contributed to the weirdness, which took the viewer along for the ride. With each new development, we learn a little more about the evil the trio are entering.

With Cloverfield, there is none of that suspense. Once you see the head of the statue of liberty land on the street (which was shown in the very first commercials for the movie) you knew exactly what you were in for. Okay, a monster. And that's all that happens. Various scenes of the monster attacking. Repeatedly. Then it's over. Also, the characters were rich, attractive manhattanites, and I couldn't wait for them to get crushed.

Both movies gave no exposition, no explanation as to how these events happened.* That's okay, but the mystery of BWP draws the viewer deeper, whereas the mystery of Cloverfield is just frustrating. The headache I got from the shakiness in BWP sort of added to the whole experience too, like the movie screwed up my brain, but the headache from Cloverfield was just a headache.

*Before BWP was released, there was an hour-long "documentary" on Sci-fi, which told the story of how this film was recovered,and put it in context with other "historical" documents that shed light into the origin of the witch. I liked this better than the movie!


2 comments:

Richard J. Luschek II said...

Yes, it didn't work, but I thought the reason was the lack of nudity.

Dave said...

I know, even the monster had a pair of purple sweatpants on...