ChrisThilk Blog

Under discussion:

Cloverfield  (2008)

Let’s not worry too much about the actual review of Cloverfield as a movie. The flick either works for you or it doesn’t and it works for me. I loved it in the theater and thought it was a great thrill ride that was a lot of fun, defied a number of established film conventions and was just a very, very good adventure movie. Additionally I thought it was an interesting document of trying something new with storytelling that, I’ll admit, might not be completely original but was certainly well executed and a nice spin on the “we are the camera” notion.

I’m hard pressed to decide whether the movie works better, as well or worse on the small screen than it did on the big one. You certainly lose some of the scale of the movie, but considering it’s supposed to be told from the perspective of someone’s digital camcorder that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The movie was always meant to be intimate so I don’t think the down-scaling really hurts it so much as it provides a different perspective on the story. The only thing that’s lost, really, is the increased impact of the events of the movie that the big movie screen brings with it, but that’s something that’s true of all movies and not just this one.

If you didn’t see Cloverfield in theaters I’m going to recommend you see it, of course, since it’s quite good. But I’m also secretly hoping this becomes a “midnight screening” sort of cultural touchstone because the theater screen really does add to the movie significantly.

Aside from the movie, the DVD is packed with some very interesting extras, though you may want to avoid them if you don’t want the illusion of the movie ruined for you.

The main feature is a video journal of the movie’s making that features interviews with most of the cast and crew, who talk about the secrecy the movie was made under as well as the way the camera that supposedly is operated by Hud in the movie was used and how they achieved some of those shots. It’s quite interesting in how it shows camera operators doing a bit of the acting, and actors doing a bit of the camera operation. Additionally it’s just kind of cool to see everyone having a bit of fun with talking about how they had to do everything in such mystery to avoid, to the extent possible, details leaking out to the Internet.

Additionally on the disc are two alternate endings, which I won’t spoil for you here but do take the finale of the movie in slightly, if no completely, different directions. Well worth watching if for no other reason than to see where the filmmaker’s heads were at in terms of how to finish off the story.

Other features include a handful of deleted scenes that don’t really amount to much, either in substance or running time. The movie’s trailers round out the disc.

The DVD is being offered with different incentives at different retailers. At Suncoast and FYE locations the movie comes packaged in what’s supposed to be a damaged metal case, like something that would have been found under the rubble.

Under discussion:

There Will Be Blood  (2007)

A word that was thrown around a lot when There Will Be Blood was released theatrically was “epic.” Certainly the movie is epic in the scope of its story, spanning some 30 years and taking place amidst the rural atmosphere of small towns and villages in the western United States at the beginning of the 20^th century. It is indeed epic in the view of the camera, which takes in these landscapes and presents the humans that inhabit them as uniquely small in comparison.

But this is not an epic movie. Instead it’s a very intimate drama about one man and his struggles to be subject to neither another man or his own emotions, what there are of them.

Of course as you likely well know the central figure is Daniel Plainview, played by the remarkable Daniel Day-Lewis. It’s almost impossible for me to put his story into words other than to say it’s one driven by conflict. He runs into conflicts with the people whose land he needs to extend his oil drilling operations. He encounters conflicts with the charismatic preacher of Little Boston who wants to use his town’s oil resources as leverage to extend his own agenda. Finally he enters into conflict with the by then grown boy who Plainview took under his care when the boy’s own father was killed in a drilling accident.

Despite the abrasive (a vast understatement) nature of Plainview, Day-Lewis never portrays him as a complete monster, even when he’s taking another man’s life. Instead Plainview is infused with much humanity, even if much of it is representative of the worst of human nature.

It’s not necessarily that he dislikes people. He just holds a cynical view of the human race and believes most people will do little that doesn’t directly benefit them or serve their selfish interests. And he’s yet to be proven wrong in that regard. So he rubs people the wrong way as a defense mechanism, to keep them at a safe distance until he’s proven right and that there is no good in them.

I can’t say I liked There Will Be Blood on the same level of No Country for Old Men, but it’s still better than just about anything else you’re going to find to rent or buy right now. The movie never loses its focus on the human drama and is populated by actors that never allow their characters to become ciphers or stock caricatures.

The story is based on an Upton Sinclair novel from the early part of the century called Oil and an excerpt from that book, an excerpt that includes one of the key bits of dialogue from the movie, appears on the inside of the 2-disc DVD package I was sent to review. That’s a nice nod to the story’s origins.

The rest of the DVD set is made up of historical footage from the era the movie is partly set in and a few behind-the-scenes bits of footage. But the primary draw is the movie and it doesn’t disappoint.

Under discussion:

Juno  (2007)

A perfectly wonderful little film that has been turned into something else by gushing praise and outsized publicity, Juno is a magnificently enjoyable movie when enjoyed on its own terms

No, it’s not the greatest movie of all time. But it is a small story about big things that features some fantastic but low-key performances by a group of actors we should expect nothing less from.

I’m not going to rehash the story here since if you’ve picked up a newspaper or magazine in the last 10 months you know what it’s about. Instead let me focus on what I enjoyed most about the movie.

First, yes, the writing is wonderful. But I’m a little surprised so many people liked it at a time when clever writing seems to be frowned upon by those who feel the slightest amount of literacy in their fiction is part of a liberal plot against the masses who keep “According to Jim” coming back year after year. I mean…it is, that’s hardly the point.

But this is a movie I would have expected to only appeal from a writing standpoint to the same people who look forward to TV shows from Aaron Sorkin and Joss Whedon. That sort of hyper-literate style has never really been a crowd-pleaser and its embrace by the general public makes me think people cited it so often because they didn’t want to look dumb.

Second, the acting is great. But not because they’re big showy performances, the kind that audiences usually latch on to as being “amazing.” Instead actors like JK Simmons and Allison Janney and Jason Bateman simply let their characters come out and aren’t constantly forcing them upon the audience.

Simmons and Janney are especially impressive since Cody’s script sometimes goes too far in portraying them as uneducated bumpkins, a tendency I think she gives in to so as to highlight the contrast between them and their whip-smart daughter. They always portray their characters as proud, intelligent people who are happy with their lives and consider everything else to be gravy.

Juno is a really, really good movie that misses greatness by just a little more than a hair’s breadth. There are a lot of things to love about it, even while there are some problems there that need to be copped to.

The DVD sports an impressive amount of bonus features, ranging from a selection of outtakes to the screen tests of the actors to a good array of behind-the-scenes footage.

It’s certainly worth picking up whether you’re seeing it for the first time or want to relive some of your favorite dialogue