This is an ordinary American audience who finished watching "The Spy The pungent mockery of this film after "Shadow III". The famous film theorist David Bodwell also used a considerable amount of space in his blog to put forward the trembling style of the director’s so-called "realistic documentary film tribute to the battle of Algiers". A more systematic questioning. It is inevitable that the final piece of the classic "The Bourgne" series will attract such criticism. Because its camera is theoretically completely free, high and low angles, long-range close-ups, and smoothness or vibration can be selected at will. So when your director is more focused on restricting the shot to a certain style, it naturally increases the space for controversy on the so-called applicability.
But "Cloverland", the title of this film is reminiscent of the latest Hollywood monster horror film on Chang'an Avenue and the Military Museum. It cunningly avoided the above-mentioned trouble: all the vibrations in the picture reasonably came from the digital camera of the person involved in the crime. The audience can't blame the director even if you are so shaken to spit out bile!
But everything has advantages and disadvantages. The price of rationality in exchange for the loss of camera freedom is that narrative methods are inevitably restricted.
Of course, the opening part of the film is relatively easy to handle. The interview activity at the student reception led by a handheld camera not only introduces the relationship between the main characters of the film, but also provides a transition for the audience to adapt to this lens style: the roller coaster can't always rush to the top as soon as it comes up, right? Then the situation suddenly changed. A series of earth trembled, and then the goddess fell. Why did the director make the monsters have trouble with the goddess, and also used home runs to express dissatisfaction with her head? The motivation comes more from the narrative: the characters and the audience in the play must feel the panic from the beginning, but the source of the panic must not be revealed prematurely. At the same time, due to the specific lens of the film, the director has enough excuses to create this kind of suspense: it's not that I don't want to tell you, but he can't shoot it. Therefore, the avatar flying in the air has become a good choice. So far, the effects of specific lens methods are positive and positive.
But then the problem of the subway escape process began to appear. First of all, why did the boy with the camera walk behind the two girls? Out of timidity? Obviously not. The real reason may be that the director can only show the plot in the picture relatively reasonably if he let the boy go at the end. Why is it relatively reasonable? Because there is actually another way. It was the boy who ran in front of the other three people and quickly stepped back to shoot. However, the director must have realized that this kind of gossip reporter style was too absurd in the specific context at the time, so he could not only choose a slightly more serious war photographer's follow-up method. And this inaccuracy caused by the limitation of the camera method was further enlarged in the scene of a small monster raid, and the girl was bitten due to rescue. In that situation, defending the spirit of the camera to the death may only be comparable to professional war reporters inspired by the Pulitzer Prize on the Iraqi battlefield. In the end, this episode not only failed to advance the atmosphere of horror and suspense that had been successfully created before (although I saw the heirs of the trolls), but it also inexplicably incorporated a weird sense of comedy.
The protagonist's indomitable rescue of his girlfriend trapped in a damaged building is a must-have patterned plot in American genre films. Originally, this kind of story is that emotion is greater than reason, and there is no need to go into the logic of character behavior too deeply. But I have to say that modern Hollywood movies still tend to make this model increasingly superficial and vulgar. The relationship between men and women in the process of sudden crisis is no longer concerned with the in-depth portrayal of the characters, but more like a narrative tool that serves purely for the development of the plot. So, it looks like chewing wax.
It is a good idea for the military to provide helicopters to meet them. The director cunningly used the plot to create the conditions for himself to make an overhead shot. In this passage, the audience saw, for the first time, the giant monster that ravaged New York in its entirety. And now that the panorama is there, the close-up will not be far away. So the helicopter fell down in time, and the audience was "lucky" to have the opportunity to get in touch with the monster together with the protagonist. At this point, the special effects master has not been busy, and the audience has not watched this horror film in vain.
When it comes to the value of the film, it is nothing more than expressing a relatively stale theme with a brand-new idea and technique. Moreover, the success of this attempt is still open to question (Rotten Tomatoes has a very low evaluation). As for the psychological state of the American people after 9/11 hidden behind the story, I personally think that it is a bit too fanciful. Movies in which giant beasts ravage the metropolis have appeared in early Hollywood, and Americans are traditionally good at it. The most recent "Godzilla" was filmed in 1997 before 9/11. Therefore, it is not so much that the 9/11 incident gave this kind of horror film a new perspective, it is better to say that it has inspired the same terrorists to act in a certain way.
View more about Cloverfield reviews
