Friday, January 18, 2008

Cloverfield Review

Cloverfield? What's Cloverfield? Oh, it's a monster movie that's gotten a lot of hype? I see. Ok, let's go see it so I can slam it in a fun review. We go to the theater to get tickets, arrive just after it sells out, and wait around for two hours for a later show. Our tickets are taken and we get in line. Before long, the line has gone all the way to the side exit and looped around back to where it started. "What the hell is the big deal about this movie?" my brain asks. "Fuck if I know," I reply. Finally, we go in, get our seats, and it starts.

No intro, no credits, no title. It begins with a message saying that the footage is owned by the Department of Defense and was recovered from the area formerly known as Central Park. The rest of the less than 90 minute movie is said footage, shot on a normal guy's handheld camera. Most of it is footage of a giant monster attack on New York.

But this is not your ordinary "monster movie." The best part of it is that it was shot in the way it was. It puts you right up next to the main characters, and it just feels entirely real. Cuts occur when the camera would have been paused, and previous footage is shown when the camera would have been fast-forwarded too far. Some people might complain that the camera was too shaky; a few people even said it made them sick. To be honest, though, I don't think it could have been done any other way and still been good. It works incredibly well, and it's just one of those things you have to see to understand, and for your own sake, see this one in a theater.

Largely as a result of this technique, Cloverfield is intense. All night I've been trying to think of a more intense movie that I've seen lately, and I just can't think of any. The best part is, it doesn't rely on cheap thrills like so many other horror/disaster movies. It just puts you in the shoes of the main characters, and it works extremely well. Sure, there are a few "oh shit" moments, but even they fit well; nothing feels like it was tacked on just for shock value. Again, it really makes you feel like you're right there.

Another thing that helped a lot was that there were no big name actors (that I noticed) in the movie at all. Having a recognizable actor in a movie is a big distraction, and this was not the one to do it in. And better still, the acting is fantastic. Every character is wholly believable, and nothing is overdone; even the scenes of desperation have a realistic feel to them. The audience's reactions to this film were some of the most pronounced I've ever heard in a theater.

Ok, now that I've gone on a big rant about the realism of the film, it's time to talk about what isn't real. It's not perfect. The visual design is done in such a way as to make it look like it was done on a handheld camera, and overall it's extremely convincing. In a few scenes, though, there's just a bit too much light, or slightly too perfect contrast, which indicates artificial lighting in some scenes. Luckily, it's not overdone and the vast majority of the scenes look just how they should. The biggest problem is in the sound design. The microphone on a small handheld camera is almost always very small, and in the midst of the enormous sounds and screams going on all over the place, it would often get distorted. What you actually hear is very clear. I understand the design choice as hearing a ton of static every few seconds wouldn't make for such a cinematic experience, but just a touch of it in some places would do a lot for the realism. Also, in one or two scenes, you can hear what the main characters are saying very clearly when in reality, it should all just be a jumbled mess considering what's going on all around. I mean, yes, it's important to the plot and everyone would want to know what they were saying, but a lot of the realism comes in the fact that you really don't know much about what's going on.

Really, that's about all I could complain about in this one. It's extremely well-done overall, and it creates one of the most intense and realistic experiences I've ever seen. Such an original and ambitious idea certainly deserves a lot of credit. Judging by the sell-out crowds, I think it's going to do well. What we have to watch out for is overdoing it. If the success of Cloverfield generates a surge of similar films, I will be pissed off. This movie is a statement for originality in a number of ways; let's not ruin the idea.

I keep thinking I'm going to get to review a terrible movie. I realized that I have yet to rate a movie at less than three stars on this blog. Usually, I hesitate to give a movie more than two and a half, unless I really think it deserves it. What can I say? I'm thoroughly convinced that Cloverfield deserves it. Like any movie that exists or ever will, it's far from perfect, but when I look at this one as a whole, I can't help but feel that it went above and beyond what we think of as a film and truly succeeded. Some people would argue with me forever on this, but when I think of how this movie made me feel as I was watching it and even now that I'm only looking back on it, I see no alternative. For these reasons, I proudly bestow upon Cloverfield my very rare five star rating. Go see it.

Caius's Rating: 5 stars

The Great Debaters Review

The Great Debaters is a movie that honestly surprised me. I went into it with every expectation of seeing a run-0f-the mill drama, but it turned out to be far superior to the average. That said, it's far from perfect, but still a solid film that any fan of the genre should see. People who are not so into dramas will likely see all the same genre trends in this movie, except they're done much, much better than normal, making for a good experience overall.

On that note, this movie does tend to stick to genre conventions. Like so many others, it tackles race and gender issues very deliberately, contains scenes of violence, sex, and alcoholism, and throws tears into the eyes of nearly every major character at some inspirational moment. My biggest gripe along these lines comes in the last three or four scenes of the movie, which scream the ending of just about every underdog story ever put on film.

It's the rest of the movie, i.e. what comes before the ending, that makes it good. Although it goes about the issues very deliberately, it creates an unusually strong feeling of tension around those issues. In some scenes, the cinematic effects really do a good job of putting you in the shoes of the characters. I honestly feared for their lives in a few scenes, and I am not the type of person who gets emotionally invested in characters in movies. So, if you're the type who does, then you'll probably gasp and cry a few times (several of the people I went with did).

The debate scenes serve their purpose well, but they're a bit too movie-like. Allow me to explain. In real debates, the stance that each team is supposed to take is randomly assigned; then they take turns making logical arguments and the winner is determined by judges. In the movie, most of the debates, and all of the ones that had a major plot significance, involved a topic that had something to do with race, and the main characters were always assigned to argue on the side that they would support on their own. For example, in one debate they were assigned to argue in favor of the integration of schools. On its own, that scene is fine, but it's very unlikely that they would have gotten their own side every time. Also, the characters on both sides of each debate had a noticeable tendency to focus more on the emotional side rather than the logical side of the issue. While this can be effective in moderation, it wouldn't leave you with a very strong argument in a real-life debate. The short version of this paragraph is: this movie sacrifices realism in favor of cinematic effect in the debate scenes. I wouldn't normally complain about this issue so much, but this is one of those movies that really tries to portray something real and believable.

The acting is pretty solid. Forest Whitaker is kickass.

I wouldn't recommend The Great Debaters to everyone, but most people will probably be moved by it in one way or another. It's not perfect by any means, and it still needs to stray farther from the all-too-common conventions of similar movies, but overall, I give it my kudos.

Caius's Rating: 3 stars

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Thoughts on some recent electronic music

I haven't seen any new movies since Sweeney Todd, so I thought I'd take a look at music for this entry instead. Nice to have some variety I suppose. I've been listening to several CDs over the break, some of which were released fairly recently. But the thing is, not one of them (to my knowledge) has been released on a major label, so it's unlikely that most of you have heard of any of them. So instead of writing useless reviews, I thought I'd just take a brief look at each of them. If my discussion piques your interest, then I highly recommend checking them out if you like anything electronic.

First we have Pulse of Pain by Michigan. I'm starting with it because it's my surprise favorite of this set. Their style is not at all unlike Depeche Mode in their middle period, but it is still their own, particularly with the songwriting. Although these 12 songs don't exactly reinvent songwriting, they are catchy and they work well with the heavy, but not overpowering, synthesizers. There is no lapse in quality between songs, with the exception of one or two. "The Nomad" starts off strongest, as the single on most albums does, but Pulse of Pain really keeps up the energy through the end, making it a very solid and worthwhile album overall. I highly recommend it to any fans of rock and/or electronic music.

Soft by Nevarakka. This album is a bit harder to evaluate. For the most part, it's generic trance through and through, but there are a few gems on it that really sparkle. "Angel on Earth" might sound like something off of DDR, but I just can't get it out of my head. The best parts of the album, however, are the slowest songs, "Meant to Last" and "Suddenly." Although neither one is incredibly complex, they both go far beyond what anyone would expect of basic trance and create something that can ultimately be described as beautiful (keeping in mind that it's Nevarakka, and not Mozart, that I'm talking about). But that is only two of the fourteen songs. As a whole, this album is a great one to listen to as background music when you don't want to concentrate too hard on it. There is a sameness to the songs, but the positive side of that is that they are all good, though not exceptional. It's a solid 70 minutes of trance in one album; you can't go wrong.

Help Yourself by Fantazja. The synth work here is very original. It works on a number of levels and complements the vocal style nicely. The melodies also deserve a lot of credit. The hooks are brilliant and the progression usually really works. The lead singer is the real problem here. If there is a polar opposite to spitting out words, this is it. His words seem to slide out, regardless of how small a percentage of English speakers can understand them, and it's really distracting. We also have the issue of a sharp drop in quality after the first three songs. "How I Feel," "Remedy," and "Kathy" are all very worthwhile; the rest are fillers. That's not to say that they're bad by any means, but the core of this album is definitely at the beginning.

Details by Frou Frou. If you've heard of Imogen Heap, Frou Frou was her project before she went solo. Personally I'm much more fond of this because of the strong synth work. In case you weren't already aware, Imogen Heap is well-known for her interesting vocal style, which centers largely on her ability to jump between her head and chest voice seamlessly. She does it very well, and I love the style overall, but I must admit that on a couple songs, she does go a bit overboard. Most of them, however, get well past the style and create real gems, especially "Let Go" and "Must Be Dreaming." It's not too heavy, but if you like a light, pop-esque style, then Details is a great one.