SW@ Ticket

It all started on Yahoo! Groups about three years ago, in my second year of college. Since then, SW@ Ticket has grown to over 60 issues (57 weekly and several semi-weekly “special edition” posts) and roughly 200 movie reviews. Side projects SW@ Ticket Sniperscope (movie previews), SW@ Soundtrack (music) and SW@ the Hell (social commentary) have achieved three, seven, and two issues respectively. If you’re new to SW@ Ticket, this is obviously your first issue (to request copies from the SW@ Ticket archive, reply to swatdsu@yahoo.com, Attn: SW@ Archive Requests). But to keep the legacy going, I’ll continue the numbering at 58 with the review I submitted to get here. Enjoy!

Apparently, JJ Abrams, who co-penned “LOST” (hands down, my favorite TV show of all time) and is currently working on the next Star Trek movie, thought it would be a good idea to “Give New York its own Godzilla” and bring a dead film genre—the Monster Movie—back from the primordial depths of the ocean that is Shark-Jumping Hollywood. And when I saw the trailers for “Cloverfield” and noticed that the co-writer of my favorite show was also behind what a thirty-second commercial turned into the scariest, coolest concept film I had ever wanted to see, I, well, wanted to see it!
I was OK with the whole Blair Witch handheld-camera idea and the half-hour or so that was dedicated to some guy’s farewell party. It’s important in any scary movie (even one that only claims to be scary) to properly develop your characters before you have the baddie rip them all to pieces; it gives sort of a Shakespearean-drama quality to something that in better times, the Bard would be hesitant to wipe himself with, for the fear of catching some rare, creativity-crippling disease.

But after the farewell party, the story dissolves (or is frantically wadded up) into chaos. All Hell breaks loose and there’s a whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on—and exploding, and running, and dying, and poorly-rendered crab-dog-monkey-spider-things causing the death of various minor characters and the exploding of various vital body parts—but no explanation of the monster’s origins, no plot or development thereof, and none of the true suspense that I have come to love while watching Abrams’ show. And I suppose that if I said all this to someone who liked “Cloverfield,” they would tell me that poor rendering and absence of plot are key elements when making a movie that “gives New York its own Godzilla.” But didn’t Hollywood already do that in a little remake called “Godzilla,” wherein the title lizard attacks New York? Hmmm…. Anyone want to ponder that? Another problem is the “revitalize the Monster-Movie genre” premise. I mean, if you wanted to put the defib paddles to the genre that Godzilla made famous, couldn’t you come up with something a little less experimental and a little more impressive? Using “Cloverfield” as the vehicle to bring back Monster Movies is like a retired pro-wrestling legend coming back to the WWE: a steroid-injected, pointless, obviously fake gimmick that can only hobble so far.

Extras: The creature-design featurette sheds some light on what Clover (the larger, more destructive monster’s moniker) is supposed to be and where it came from. But the other behind-the-scenes bonuses only frustrated me because amid all the usual scene breakdowns and spoiled techno-trickery, an assistant will periodically pop up and tell the cameraman to stop filming the featurettes, as this is a “secret location.” The reason for my frustration was that, after asking myself when something different is going to happen, what I’m watching, and why I’m watching it, I found myself asking her Why are you keeping this a secret? If “Cloverfield” is the equivalent of a retired wrestler, keeping its development a secret is the equivalent of hiding said wrestler’s steroid use from the public: anyone with sense and functioning eyeballs can see what the finished product will be, and they know it’s going to be just plain wrong.

Rating: D-

Trackback URI | Comments RSS