Cloverfield and its Sorta Kinda Not Really Sequel

Following the release of The Blair Witch Product, there was a brief lifespan where found footage films were new and hip. This technique takes the perspective of a character of the film deciding to film everything going on, and it’s through this lens that the audience sees. This is the style of Cloverfield—it’s horror like the low-budget witch hunt film above, but this is all about normal young adults living in New York that get caught up in an attack from a giant monster thing.

            If you’re sitting there thinking that a blend of found footage and giant monster flick sounds like something that belongs on the SyFy channel, don’t discredit it immediately. Using both the strength of a strong marketing campaign before the release of the film and the fact that J. J. Abrams was a producer, this movie gained traction.

            Besides being found footage, the film is known for one other interesting aspect. The plot revolves around an attack from a giant monster, and you get glimpses throughout the film, but you don’t get a good look at it. And this is by design to keep the audience grounded in the characters’ perspectives. Basically, a lot of the film rides on it being found footage. So does it work? Well, I will say that there’s a bunch of running around that causes shaky camerawork to a nauseating effect. And I’m sure just with that witch in the forest film, the handheld cam is supposed to entice more suspense and horror from the film. There’s a couple moments from the film where I thought to myself “Huh, that’s pretty cool.”… But that’s it. There’s a scene in a subway tunnel obviously meant to be scary, but I really don’t think the movie was scary.

            Ultimately, it’s a monster flick with boring characters trying to upgrade itself with a fad. I guess I enjoyed watching the movie, but it held no impact on me otherwise. Well, that’s not totally true because the ending is the most preventable ending I have ever seen. You know what’s going to happen a minute (this is actually a long time when you know what I'm talking about) before it actually happens, and it makes you realize how dumb either the characters were or the screenwriters were because they needed more tension at the end. It’s stupid and dumb and I don’t like it.

            In the words of J. J. Abrams, let’ move on to the blood relative movie! Let’s move on to the movie that wasn’t even written in the same universe until Abrams’ production company bought it and reworked like probably a page worth of material to make it tie in to Cloverfield! That’s right. I’m talking about 10 Cloverfield Lane. After a car accident near Lake Charles I think, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is “rescued” by Howard (John Goodman) and taken to his bunker next to his farmhouse where she also meets Emmett (John Gallagher, Jr.) who had a track scholarship to Louisiana Tech but decided not to go because he thought he was too dumb. Which he really probably is. The bunker they’re in is fully equipped and prepared for an apocalyptic situation that Michelle is skeptical about but Howard is adamant towards; it’s a good thing it’s well equipped, too, because we spend the majority of this film in this bunker listening to Howard’s eclectic taste in music and watching fictional films like Cannibal Airlines.

            Just to be clear, this film doesn’t use the found footage format. And that’s a good thing for this film. But the camerawork is not what I’m concerned with here. I always talk about story and characters, but this film has a unique situation on how these 2 critical elements are intertwined with each other and the success and failure of each.

            I wouldn’t say the characters are boring like they are from the previous film. You get your surface characters and they each tell stories designed to make you care about them more later in the film and whatnot. They aren’t poorly written, but I didn’t fall in love with anyone—but character arcs are so critical in a confined movie like this with 3 principal characters. Never really cared about Michelle—I always found her rash and quick to jump to conclusions. Emmett tries to bring humor, and I laughed on occasion, but he is a bit more of a filler character. The interesting one is Howard. John Goodman is downright incredible. He’s supposed to be a character that wavers between moral father figure and possible pervert kidnapper. And I’ll explain some of the problems with this from the story perspective in just a bit, but the characterization itself by Goodman is scene-stealing.

            I have multiple problems with the story, so let’s see how much I can get out. This movie doesn’t know what it wants to be. It hints at a drama focused on the characters, but then it’s like the movie thinks to itself, “Wait a minute, I’m supposed to be a horror film!” and then makes characters think or act irrationally. Like when we first meet Howard, he is this mysterious character that doesn’t explain anything and only leaves a plate of food while Michelle is tied up to her mattress, so this makes her jump to the conclusion that he kidnapped her. I swear in the first 20 minutes Michelle stabs Howard and hits him over the head with a bottle; the very following scenes to both of these incidents is Howard explaining his backstory which provides rationale as to the way he acted. It’s plot convenience for the sake of unnecessary tension, and I will have none of it!

            But the plot convenience is not the biggest insult this movie makes. That would be relating itself to Cloverfield. So much of this move depends on Michelle believing that the air outside will kill her just because Howard said so. That’s an interesting idea that could make any plot reveal interesting if it weren’t for the fact that anyone who knows anything about the previous film will know exactly what the situation is exactly like. This also means that we know the inevitable. What I mean by this—and if you consider this a spoiler, then you don’t watch movies enough and probably won’t ever see this film anyways—is that we’re going to see the outside at some point and there’s going to be monsters. That only leaves the question throughout the film of how we end up outside. And that’s a much less interesting question when the best character is the sort of antagonist.

            Probably the biggest similarity between these 2 films is the fact that I didn’t like the endings. You can give me somewhat valid reasons for the monsters in 10 Cloverfield Lane, but I still see a huge disconnect between those things and the giant creature from the first film. And I just think the ending is stupid. If you want me to give a spoiler reason why, feel free to ask me about it. Because it’s also stupid and dumb. Not as atrocious as the garbage ending from the first film, but still pretty offensive.

The story creates innate flaws within Goodman’s character, but he is talented enough to overcome these to give a still excellent performance. Oh, and this is the first film directed by Dan Trachtenberg. For a first outing, I’d say he gives pretty strong directing, and that’s no small feat with a film like this. If you’re still curious about these 2 films, I have 2 recommendations. If you’re bored one night, at the very least you can call these films somewhat enjoyable. Or if you are simply curious at the outcome of both films, look up a quick summary. That might bring as much joy as actually watching the films. 

Ghost in the Shell

If I were to summarize my opinion of this movie to a hypothetical audience, I’d tell them that Ghost in the Shell essentially has 3 acts: a promising start, a flat middle act, and then a somewhat redemptive final act. If you’ve read any other reviews for this film, you know that the critics would flip flop what I said about the second and third acts. And critics are idiots, so that’s why I’m here.

*Before I go any further, I need to put in this sidenote. I won’t be addressing the controversy of this film about whitewashing for 3 reasons. 1) It’s a claim made my idiots that made up their minds about the film well before it ever reached theaters. B) It’s actually a really easy claim to refute and prove wrong. And 4) I’m simply here to discuss the merits of this film and give my recommendation on whether you should watch it or not or hopefully provide a different way of seeing the movie if you already watched it.*

            As I said from the beginning, this movie has a strong start. There’s a bit of reading at the beginning to introduce cybernetics—basically telling you to be prepared for cyborgs; after that, however, it jumps right into this futuristic world without trying to explain things too much. It wants the audience to accept what’s happening and learn as the movie goes along. It’s a smart approach that really elevates this film. What obviously also stands out are the visuals. But it’s not just that you get a shot of the futuristic Japan and all the digital billboards and upgraded technologies that gives this movie its impressive visuals, it’s the fact that they make sense. When Section 9 (all you really need to know is that Scarlett Johansson is a really powerful cyborg with a human brain and she’s working for a company that built her, and her and her coworkers are part of Section 9) analyzes a crime scene using virtual red laser technology, it feels like an approach that is both convenient and useful—something that isn’t always seen by the overuse of holograms in other films. Throughout the movie, ScarJo experiences what are called glitches when going through the real world because it’s like repressed memories from her life as a human coming to the forefront. I’ll discuss the merits of the plot later, but I added it in here because the glitches are a clever way to have shots of the real world and incorporate visuals directly into it, and they are one of the more intriguing mysteries of the film.

            The biggest issue of Ghost in the Shell is how one-note it gets. The digitalness of everything is really cool at first, but it loses a little appeal after awhile. What ends up being criminal in this film is the score and background noise. It’s the same droning sound the entire time, and it takes its toll on you. And in the middle is where a lot of exposition is given with a “twist” as to whom the actual villain is. The thing about it is that lots of the characters are essentially cyborgs, so there isn’t a whole lot of inflection in their voices. When you pair cyborg voices with the annoying score, it creates a muddled middle where you should paying the most attention but instead are at your most distracted.

            The third act is able to pick itself back up a bit. I’ll talk about movie comparisons later, but this is really where the movie tries to find its most humanity and philosophy. Although it doesn’t stand up to the deep thinking of other films, it’s still more refreshing from all the exposition and subpar story development from the middle act. Oh, and don’t expect the most tension or action from the climax; the action is there, but it’s just a by-the-numbers climax scene.

            Inevitably, this film is going to draw comparisons to Blade Runner—emphasis is on the humanity behind the cyborgs and not the action itself. The difference is that while Blade Runner cleverly toys with morality and what it means to be human; Ghost in the Shell feels more like an empty shell than anything else. The ideas are presented, but it gets lost through the high budget effects. There’s nothing wrong with having a large budget, but if characters aren’t properly developed, it nulls any meaning. This issue is more apparent in this film due to the poor writing. In particular, a couple one-liners are thrown around that are groan worthy ("I wasn't built to dance!"). Overall, the ScarJo main character Major is fine, and I have no issue with her human’s background story that is gradually revealed; my problem comes with both the supposed and actual villain. Neither of these characters are well-written, and they both have motivations and arcs anybody who has seen a movie can guess right from the start. The worst offense Ghost in the Shell makes is one that will probably be overlooked by most.  It succeeds on many levels of creating an interesting world; however, this world is populated by dull characters. There isn’t a distinction made on why we should pay attention to who is a cyborg, who has cybernetics, and who is purely human. It doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things, so why should we care? And the answer is that we don’t really care, and we won’t be very compelled to hold any discussion of this film after watching it. This movie isn’t a bad watch—in fact I kinda liked it—but there are so many obvious mistakes that could’ve easily been fixed that makes me upset by the final product. Oh, and to end on a properly irrelevant matter, if you’re like me (which you most likely aren’t), then you would’ve noticed that the Asian guy from The Dark Knight that’s all like “As I said, I’m good with numbers” makes an appearance in this film. 

Give Twilight Another Chance

Having never read the books, I’ve always found it easier to be a fan of this series. What truly works for this film is the acting. Seriously, hear me out. Yes, I admit, you can get more emotions out of emojis, but there’s something about the subtlety in the facial expressions. It gets to the point where you’re on the edge of your seat in anticipation of the next time you might see a hint that Edward’s face will give a twitch.

            I guess you could call me a mix of a traditionalist and an innovator. So if you’re going to give me vampires, you better respect their origins while updating them to keep things fresh. Which is exactly what Twilight does! Never before have I been so enthralled by such a twist that has vampires sparkle in sunlight.

            Now if you’re like me, you’re a bit bored of Twilight already. So let’s take a break and talk about something more interesting. Baseball season starts in just a couple days! I think I’ll take this time to help people out by giving pro tips on how to swing a bat at a baseball. The most important aspect isn’t the swing itself; rather, it’s the approach to the plate. You gotta have the right walk-up song, so here are a couple of my top picks: “Stuck in the Middle With You,” “Tik Tok,” “Pumped Up Kicks,” “Can’t Stop the Feeling,” “Yesterday,” “Theme from Schindler’s List,” “Strangers in the Night,” and my personal favorite “La Marseillaise.” Before stepping into the batter’s box, retighten your batting gloves, spit into your right hand, then left hand (order is very important), and rub them together. Kick the bat with your toes, step into the box, and touch the plate with your bat. Now that you’re all set to hit a 3 pointer, let’s go over the basics of the swing. If you’re a righty, right hand goes on bottom with left hand over it. If you’re a leftie, it doesn’t matter because you’re striking out. Now if you can imagine a lumberjack chopping wood, it’s the exact same swinging motion. I think you’re good to go!

            Anyways, Twilight stars Jennifer Lawrence as Tris and the entire cast of Glee for the supporting roles. In a shocking and controversial move, the studio didn’t hire a director because they had complete faith in the cast to give it their all. Rumor has it that due to budget cuts, one-third of the film was shot on the iPhone 4. Definitely a bold strategy, Cotton.

            The film was almost completed in post-production, but due to unforeseen circumstances, the editor had a heart attack and died. The scenes he wasn’t able to cut made it to the final film, drawing praise for the avante-garde plot structure. After the red carpet premiere, Taylor Lautner’s mom herself gave the film a raving 3 ½ stars, stating, “Obviously, this movie is groundbreaking. I would have given it 4 stars, but like I always tell my son, there’s always room for improvement.” Reportedly, after hearing this review, Taylor Lautner went back to gym to hit the shake weights—convinced the half-star loss was due to his underwhelming physique.

            If you’re looking for a jolly good time, going to see a movie is the perfect way to do so. I’m not saying this movie needs to be Twilight, but if it is, watching at 9:30 p.m.  on a Saturday night by yourself cuddled in a snuggie is definitely the ideal way to maximize viewing pleasure.