 FLEB's Movie Reviews: Cloverfield / The Golden Compass
|
Mar. 8th, 2008 @ 01:59 am 
|
|---|
May contain spoilers. Half the fun is in the journey. Deal.
Double-feature at the second-run theater tonight-- last things first.
- Mountain Dew.
- Theater Popcorn, Large.
- Bacon Cheeseburger.
- French Fries.
- Amber Ale, Tall.
Challenge: Now, attempt not to run the list backward in the theater bathroom while watching the movie Cloverfield. My stomach was already sour going in, and after about half the movie, the non-stop jittery camera-work up on the big, full-field-of-view screen, made me actually have to put my hands over my eyes (in a pose reminiscent of the Facepalm technique).
The basic: We're watching a tape of some guy's going-away party, when all hell breaks loose, and some oversize reptile/arachnid thing starts attacking Manhattan. (The trailer tells you about all you need to know.)
Here's a tip for the cinematographer on that one-- moderation, moderation, moderation. If I'm following the premise correctly, the entire movie was supposed to have been "recovered" from a hand-held camera-- the rub being that it apparently lacked any sort of modern vibration-reduction features, and was being piloted by a series of people suffering from debilitating nerve damage and complete lack of basic visual composition skills, or knowledge of how to zoom correctly. The entire movie, even the "calm before the storm" slice-of-life stuff suffered from this wobbly, ill-zoomed treatment. Now, blow this up to about 200x for the big screen, and it's a vomit-inducing ride for anyone whose brain makes any sort of relationship between their inner ear and visual system. In fact, if you weren't a bit queasy after watching this one, it'd probably be worth getting a checkup.
As a simulationist, forger, and examiner of reality at heart, I've wanted to make this movie a hundred times over, and I did enjoy that many of the scenes, actions, and devices in the movie tended toward the realistic, believable, and (this is a big one) didn't get hokey in an attempt to "intensify" the reality. However, the times they did seem to drop the ball were in the lulls, which are precisely the type of times when you don't want to-- there's no action to cover up the blips. The thematic introduction of the movie had a rather hokey treatment...- We're treated to a bunch of bandied-about Department of Defense jargon (when I'd imagine DoD folks would just get on with the damn tape). The number of overlays, pre-roll information, and such was overkill to my mind.
- The time is down in the corner for the first 15 minutes or so, for no real reason. It looks like they attempted to mimic the camera feature that puts the time on the tape, but did so poorly-- the typography and compositing was too slick for an in-camera time-code. By any measure, it was added post-recording. However, it blips forward with each cut, which couldn't be accomplished by anything but an in-camera time-code. Perhaps I'm being too picky-- hell, I know I'm being too picky for most people's tastes-- but if you're going to dedicate yourself to simulating realism, go all the way and do it right. Go out, get a cheap camcorder, and see how it renders the date. It's homework, and not that difficult.
- Speaking of the introductory scenes, the entire exposition feels as if it was filmed by a professional trying to look like an amateur.
- The first couple minutes have cuts in odd/expected places... which is to say they'd be expected places if you were watching an edited movie, but odd places to see if you were watching an uncut tape. Record for a couple seconds, pause, then move to the other side of the room and hit Record again? No, it was camera 1/camera 2 with a cheesy camcorder overlay on it.
- After that, in the party scene, it looks less like an amateur cameraman than a stumbling dipshit. Perhaps I'm wrong, but consider: Someone hands you a camera at the party and designates you the "camera-man". You're making a video for a friend, and you'd probably have the personal dignity and minimal dedication to at least frame your shots in a boring, amateurish, but at least palatable sense. Even if you lacked any sort of artistic eye, you'd at least default to putting people in center-frame full-zoom, and just holding it. Nope, this camera was handled by a drooling subsimian who apparently couldn't zoom out to fit the person talking into the picture, or had to absently, scratch--obviously-- point the camera at his object of affection instead of the person talking. Yes, I realize you're setting up the character development, but some of us here like some logical realism with our gritty "realism".
- It was okay how it was, but I think they could have done with less footage. There were points where the person should have logically put the camera down and, for instance, gone to help someone else.
- Just cut the damned power already. Lights are flashing and sputtering throughout the movie while all hell is breaking loose outside. Wasn't this the city... no, state... that went dark when some power lines in Canada sparked?
On the upside, it had some very good-- I'd call it Lovecraft-style-- horror, where the lack of information was the driver to the fear and tension. Through the first half, three-quarters of the movie even, there was quite a bit of tension and fear without having to resort to cheap "wait... wait... JUMPOUTATYOU!" tactics. It was genuinely gripping. Also, the fake news graphics were impressive. I've seen enough good concepts ruined by shitty fake news reports to give credit for that.
But then, of course, they tended to ruin it by shining the camera right up "the monster"'s asshole, collapsing the tension into a heap of "oh, okay, so that's what it was." About the only "question mark" by the end of the movie was the abrupt ending, both in story and style, as the tape cuts out in an explosion at the end. We're left not knowing what happened to New York or the world, or where the "thing" came from. However, we know what happened to all the protagonists, and we've seen enough proctological photos of the beast to mostly demystify it, so the abrupt "cutoff" ending was less a dramatic device than a transparent attempt at one. Everything was all wrapped up. (Want a look at how to do the "cutoff" ending right? Fail Safe from 1967. One of my favorite movies, and an example of how to do a tense ending right.)
I'd like to see the movie on the small screen, to see how it fares. On one hand, the motions shouldn't be as jarring, leading to less nausea, but I don't know if lack of big-screen 'splosions will reveal deeper flaws.
I have to give this movie two separate overall ratings-- If it hadn't made me so ill that I had to close my eyes for the last half, I'd give it a B+, perhaps even a low A-. It accomplished tension and fright without resorting to any of the simple tricks, and that's difficult and impressive. On the other hand, I'm still sick to my stomach, so I have to dually rate it as a C- as well.
...
Before that, The Golden Compass.
The best I can say about The Golden Compass is that it held my interest adequately through the entirety. It wasn't bad, but like all such magic-and-fantasy movies, it wants to be epic, mystical, a bit larger than life. The Golden Compass didn't really hit the mark on those accounts-- it strove, but merely ended up at "entertaining throughout". One major deficiency-- and one the rest of the movie can be credited for overcoming-- was the dearth of plot points. From start to finish, the entire plot got no more complex than three or four major conflicts. Subplots popped and sizzled enough to keep an adequate level of action going, but when the story ended, you look back to find that the meat of the matter could be summed up in a few sentences.
Also, the premise behind most of the antagonists was cardboard-cutout at best, unsupportable at worst.
Plus, the story, through-and-throughout, seemed like a push toward a sequel. The story lacked adequate resolution on its own, and the movie ended with a straight-from-the-cliche-bin "Okay, we're ready, let's all get on this airship and head off to... Roll credits, see you next time."
It is, though, a testament to the moment-to-moment writing, acting, and other aspects of the movie that it even managed to pull itself together into an enjoyable few hours, given the absence of underlying story. I'd have to give it a B-.
Now, this movie brings up a bit of an old question with me: Why is it that any magic-using society tends to cease development at around the 1920s? Okay, perhaps you can blow-dry your hair with the tilt of a wand, but would it be that much of a travesty to drop in some 110v lines and an electric stove? Ornate golden clockwork carrier pigeon, or pick up the phone and dial? Give the mythical animals a rest! Take the bus? Okay, I know that everyone is taken in by the ornate styles of the past times, and a lot of classic fantasy was first laid out around those times, but let's pop the crutch here and try something new for a change. |
![[User Picture Icon]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/66074639/7316016) |
| From: | ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) talyx |
|---|
| Date: |
March 8th, 2008 01:45 pm (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
I saw about 40 minutes of Cloverfield, all told, only about the first 20 of it consecutive. THe rest I listened to, or peeked at moments that seemed important. Ohterwise I would have been unimaginably sick.
|
