I survived 'Cloverfield'

From Kent Olson:

This film is supposed to be a realistic portrayal of what it would be like if a monster acted a city. The unknown answers to what is happening and the chaos of missed information. However, as a film, it lack of an griping story line with characters that didn't become engaging, therefore the film lost its dramatic value. Along with the chaos of the action around, there was the chaos of the camera movement. While, the camera work did the job of articulating the concept behind the film; the camera work left artistic and dramatic use behind. There were no shots that allowed for dramatic emotions, such as; closeups, depth of focus, and beautiful framing were some of the many tools that were not used to create an emotional attachment to characters in the story line. All the camera provide was documented footage of well choreographed action sequences. All of the tools that have been used in cinema before were cast aside to make a very expensive "Blair Witch Project" concept that lacked any real dramatic value. It is my opinion that the movie "Cloverfield" was a conceptual masterpiece, but a tragic loss as a film. There is no reason to make, reproduce or continue genre pieces such as this. It was not a breakthrough of film, but a break down of film. A postmodern piece that takes the nihilistic tendencies of breaking down what a film is and what a documentary is and then taking those broken pieces together in a way that did not provide a epic or groundbreaking experience.

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Latest reviews

Comments

comments powered by Disqus