'Cloverfield' shallow, typical horror flick

By Molly Gore

Seventy-five years after the release of "King Kong" and 54 years after "Godzilla," it's getting more difficult to keep reinventing the monster-movie formula. Without providing any kind of backstory and failing to develop its characters to a degree that demands we care about them, "Cloverfield" falls short of almost everything but providing visual alarm.

Any realistic or urgent effect created by the hand-held cinematography used in "Cloverfield" is destroyed by the overacting of characters who are too clearly conscious of the camera beyond the camcorder.

The effect perfected by "The Blair Witch Project" is mostly lost in "Cloverfield." The idea of a hand-held camera is a good one, and if the motion were less constant and only employed during scenes of true urgency, we might actually forget we are watching a movie.

The monster in "Cloverfield" ranks highly in visual horror. But the lack of a backstory prevents the audience from feeling any kind of empathy or hate that make creatures like King Kong legendary.

Without humanizing the monster or giving it a purpose, the horror effect is one-sided and less meaningful. The empty storyline surrounds six friends filming their own attempts to survive after their going-away party for their friend, good-looking Rob, is interrupted by the earthshaking skyscraper-sized monster.

The same problem exists in the development of the characters as does with the monster. The movie doesn't give the audience any information about the characters that would make us care much about them. The result is that the sometimes-gruesome fates of Marlena, Jason, Hud, Rob, Beth and Lily fail to pull at the heartstrings.

The characters' unfounded divergences from any path of safety also spark audience curiosity. One notes especially the scene when the crew totally disregards safety to rescue a woman Rob had slept with, even though she lived at the top of a 40-something-story building in the heart of the monster's path of destruction.

And the film's trailer, although well-done and curiosity-sparking, merely created hype surrounding the movie that would be hard for any film to live up to.

The sensation the trailer promised was only delivered aesthetically. Erase these expectations, and "Cloverfield" succeeds exceptionally exactly for what it is, and nothing more.

Realistic inconsistencies beg the question as to why Hud, the man filming, doesn't put down the camera and try to save his own life rather than provide an unknown audience with the way "it all went down."Audience members may also wonder how Hud's camera battery lasted so long. But such minor details cease to matter when enjoying the pure sensation of watching the Statue of Liberty's head mysteriously crash into the street.

The suspense really is palpable and always results in a satisfactory payoff. A prime example is the group's wandering escape through the subway. In the thick darkness of the tunnel, the crew suggests Hud turn on the night vision feature of the camera.

The scene grows quieter as he fiddles with the buttons. At the moment of success, the kick is perfectly horrifying and confirms exactly what we feared but still hoped for: There are vicious sounds and visual hints of tiny monsters gnashing at the flesh of the hip and beautiful youngsters.

The decision to cast unknowns as these young people was a good choice, as a celebrity would likely have drawn away from the attempted "realness."

The film deserves credit for its ability to provide timely and suspended shocks and the monster visuals. It's the lack of a backstory that keeps the film shallow and a little bit stale at points.

You will be scared, awed, wooed and relieved. You will complete the cycle of emotions induced by every terror film of the same sort, but do not look for much more. Sometimes, that's reason enough to go.

Grade: B-

Contact Molly Gore at (408) 551-1918 or mgore@scu.edu.