5 Reasons Resident Evil 1 was BETTER than Cloverfield (spoilers)

[GAXwilliam]

And by Resident Evil I am talking about the movie. Which one? I am comparing Cloverfield to the first Resident Evil movie, although all three are undoubtedly better pieces of cinema than Cloverfield.

First off, let me express my deep frustration at how bad Cloverfield turned out being. I was so hyped to see this movie, because up until now I had been a J.J. Abrams nut. To hell with that. He ruined Lost and Alias before that. It is clear to me that trusting him with even his own original story/franchise is a mistake. God only knows what will happen to Star Trek. I do have to give him at least some credit with the latest Mission Impossible because it wasn't complete garbage.

So why did I chose Resident Evil to compare to Cloverfield? That one is easy. First, people generally believe RE was crap. Second, I just watched it the other day for the first time.

Without further adieu, here are 5 reasons why Resident Evil was better than Cloverfield.


5. Acting - Lets start off with acting. I defy anyone to say that they watched Cloverfield and established any investment into it's characters. I mean, how could anyone say that they did? Abrams spent almost no time on the back story in this movie. All you really know is some guy named Rob is leaving town for Japan. That is it! Contrast with Resident Evil and you have at least 1 character that you can care about (Milla Jovovich) and a few others that for better or worse are entertaining. I won't say Michelle Rodriguez sets the world on fire with her performance, but at least it was memorable (if even in a bad way, you at least know who her character was after it is over)


4. Story / Plausibility - Here is your story in Cloverfield. Guy is leaving town to Japan. New York gets attacked by sea monster. People die. Thats about it. Just like Abrams threw the back story of his characters out the window, he likewise ditched any explanation behind his monsters origins. Much like Lost, you are left guessing except with this movie there is no sequel (or is there?) to fill in the missing chunks. In Resident Evil there is a clearly defined story. Evil corporation experiments with bio weapons, mistakingly unleashes virus which turns most of the worlds population into zombies and for some unexplained reason, gives Milla super powers. Not GREAT fiction but at least there is a plot!


3. Action - Save maybe 3-4 minutes at the end of the movie, Cloverfield is boring as hell. There is a lot of walking around aimlessly in New York City, a lot of people screaming hysterically and just generally inane chatter. Why would someone carrying a video camera documenting the destruction be so intent on filming his friends backsides? There is a monster outside of that shop window where our survivors are huddling, yet he is going to show us the terrified look on his buddies face? It reminded me a lot of Signs, where you never see the alien till the end. Sure, that alien was cool but you spend 60 minutes leading up to it. In Resident Evil there are tons of action sequences. Hell, the entire movie is an action sequence.

2. Execution - I think most would agree that it is harder to make a video game inspired movie than an original IP. I have to give Resident Evil a lot of credit for making a "video game" movie that frankly, didn't suck. It is watchable. Cloverfield on the other hand, is not watchable. I am not just talking about the gimmicky concept behind making it all "Blair Witch" either. Somehow Abrams succeeded in creating an original movie with tons of promise without one likable character.

1. Direction - I am shooting at the big guy here. I don't even know who directed RE but i will take "that guy" over Abrams any day. Seriously, the handicam thing was terrible. It was an abortion. Yes I "get" the gimmick, but it was just poorly executed. A movie with this much potential was relegated to looking so amateur. Again, I know that was his point but his point was totally off.

Verdict: Stay away from this one.

 

[qbert4ever]

Wow. It seems as though you missed the entire point of the movie. The reason you had no backstory on the characters was because you were not meant to have one. the entire movie was basically meant to portray that you were watching a video camara that was found in the rubble. Can you honestly say that you would make a better camara man under the circumstances they were in?

You can't compare this movie to RE1 because they are not the same in any way, shape, or form. it's like comparing apples and oranges. Next time you try to voice your oppinion, stop, think, and make sure you know what the hell it is you are talking about.

So in short, I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

Also, Hud was f'ing awsome. the conversation about flaming homeless people was one of the funnist things i've heard in a while.

 

[richasr]

Well I thought all 3 Resident Evil films were perfect examples of what not to do when making the transition of game to film. But I must agree, Cloverfield is a film that makes you think they spent next to NOTHING on it, yet you know it'll rake it in and mindless people will go and see it.

I understand the film is meant to be like it is... but with the sheer hype surrounding it, it is still mightily disappointing.

Theres no story, no characters, no back story, nothing... nice idea but it's been done and done again and another film of this type is not really needed, but a bad one of this type is unwelcome at best.

 

[propertyofcobra]

Wow. It seems as though you missed the entire point of the movie. The reason you had no backstory on the characters was because you were not meant to have one. the entire movie was basically meant to portray that you were watching a video camara that was found in the rubble. Can you honestly say that you would make a better camara man under the circumstances they were in?

This reminds me of the mentality of fans of the "Mummy" movies.
"Anything that sucks about it is MEANT to suck, it's a smart parody of the real thing! We cover our bases that way, so if the entire movie freaking sucks, it's just a clever parody of suckiness in real horror/action/adventure/romance/drama films!"

That they set the premise up as "This movie sucks" doesn't mean that because the movie sucks, it's genius.

 

[tiredinnuendo]

This reminds me of the mentality of fans of the "Mummy" movies.
"Anything that sucks about it is MEANT to suck, it's a smart parody of the real thing! We cover our bases that way, so if the entire movie freaking sucks, it's just a clever parody of suckiness in real horror/action/adventure/romance/drama films!"

That they set the premise up as "This movie sucks" doesn't mean that because the movie sucks, it's genius.

Brilliance.

- J

 

[eggdog14]

I am comparing Cloverfield to the first Resident Evil movie, although all three are undoubtedly better pieces of cinema than Cloverfield.

If you think Resident Evil is a "Piece of Cinema" then I'm sorry to say your opinion is officially meaningless.

 

[GAXwilliam]

Wow. It seems as though you missed the entire point of the movie. The reason you had no backstory on the characters was because you were not meant to have one. the entire movie was basically meant to portray that you were watching a video camara that was found in the rubble. Can you honestly say that you would make a better camara man under the circumstances they were in?

So because I don't share your opinion, I missed the point. Nice

 

[Larenxis]

I don't think Resident Evil and Cloverfield are comparable films. One is action, one is... drama, I guess? The point is, Cloverfield should have had better acting and less shaking during the brief action sequences, but other than that it was pretty good. I enjoyed it and I'd watch it again. And I'm not a "mindless person" who got entranced by the hype, I expected the movie to suck because of all the hype, but even though it's far from perfect it's still better than most. Especially Resident Evil. The only part of that movie I liked was the bit with the lasers, and that wasn't because it was good cinema, it was because it was kick-ass. So yeah, for me, Cloverfield > Resident Evil.

 

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I'm going to side with the two movies are really not comparable. Resident Evil was supposed to be a polished, typical Hollywood movie, which it fails miserably at. Cloverfield is more comparable to Blair Witch Project. Both are supposedly the raw, unedited footage shot by the actual people who were witnessing and experiencing these events. As such it won't have a standard narrative. They won't spend time on back story or answer all or even most questions because if it did, it would feel contrived, and thus making the whole handheld camera operated by a character deal all for naught. A big part of making a movie like Cloverfield is for those large gaps in time where the camera was off and no one brings us up to speed, but merely hints at what happened during the time we missed or the camera turns to just miss showing us something really cool. That kind of thing. These things make the movie look like it's real, not a made up fiction, but archival footage shot by the poor souls who'd witnessed these events. The deviations from decent narrative structure are not only necessary, but desired.

It sounds like it's not your bag. That's fine. I'm sure I think plenty of movies you love are not fit to be buried in landfill. But don't complain about people telling you that you're missing the point when you're just missing the point. Cloverfield is not about what happens, but about the way it is told.

Again, that's not to your tastes, and that's fine. Hell, I haven't even seen the movie, yet, but I don't go to the theater anymore, anyway. Since Cloverfield does deviate from classical narrative structure, which has been a defined form for a couple millenia, it's likely to only have a small audience compared to the larger mainstream audience.

Also, we had gotten a lot of these camera footage movies in the wake of Blair Witch, but most of them sucked because they were cheap pieces of crap. Now they seem to be coming back, hoping the Blair Witch lightning will strike twice, which is really frickin' stupid. Part of the reason Blair Witch did so well is that people believed it was real for a while and those people are now once bitten, twice shy about such "found" video footage movies, even when it doesn't bother to blur the line between fact and fiction like that.

So in the end, you are comparing apples and long division. Unless you think the American Godzilla movie was better than Cloverfield. In which case, you are just an idiot.

 

[dustychiq]

Mmhmm. Incomparable. Cloverfield is an homage to Godzilla. The creature is a metaphor for the fear that was product of 9/11. Americans beat themselves into submission with their own fear, so on. Not to get political--that's just very apparently what it's about. Although you probably missed it, there is character development and back-story. The main character has been in love with the girl since college and finally slept with her, increasing the emotion involved exponentially. He's a business associate and is being transferred to Japan, has a brother with whom he has X relationship, which provides clues to the viewer as to what their upbringing was like. He receives a call from his mother, cries when his brother dies, cares endlessly for his lover, et-cetera. Ignoring alluded character-development when it's not forced down your throat is... silly, especially in an experiential film of this sort.

That said, Cloverfield could have been great. It wasn't. Awful scaling issues, apparent naivety to how the human body works, and digression from the in-hand DVR film method completely ruined the immersion of the experience for me, and honestly... the filmmaker fucked himself with the extended ending.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

I did find Hud funny as hell but I also lost any suspension of disbelief with simply how stubborn he was to hold onto a camera. It just made me weep for the human race to see everybody and their dog trying to get footage on their fucking phones.

As for the characters, they annoyed me. The story was a cliche' of a cliche'. He has an arbitrary tragedy and plucky sidekicks and goes to save his girl. Now I want it understood that I liked the movie.

Reason: The monster was awesome, simply put. It was creative as a creature and design but something was lost when they tried to use EVERY single giant monster cliche' possible. It had little spawn and those little spawn carried bodily explosion diseases in their bites. I mean COME ON...

The ending didn't impress me as it honestly used the "I am so scared" line directly out of Blair Witch. I know you could make the argument about What Else would you say in a situation like that? I would tell you, perhaps do something more creative with the scene.

I have said this before and thus will repeat myself in this thread. It is worth a matinee price. Go see it. However, don't pay evening admission. If you are a fan of monster movies, get it on DVD and then use your pause button extensively so you can ACTUALLY see the hard work put into the monster design.

The plot is something that most of us could come up with in our sleep. For those that say That is the Point for it to be vague, that doesn't change the point from being Stupid. A movie should Never be a homework assignment.

 

[Eudaemonian]

I am comparing Cloverfield to the first Resident Evil movie, although all three are undoubtedly better pieces of cinema than Cloverfield.

If you think Resident Evil is a "Piece of Cinema" then I'm sorry to say your opinion is officially meaningless.

I believe "piece of cinema" was meant to be tongue in cheek. If you read the whole thing, he clearly doesn't regard Resident Evil is an artistic work, but at least as watchable entertainment, which it is.


I cannot stand it when people jump on a single phrase followed up by a sub-par ad hominem attack.


In any event, this seems like a fair analysis to me. I'd agree with all the responses to the "you don't get it" comment.

Yes, he in fact acknowledges in the review several times that he "gets" the gimmick that it's supposed to be told in a certain way. If I write a novel that's supposed to be written by a mental incompetent with no understanding of anything, it may accomplish its goal of looking like it was written by said person. That will not make it good entertainment. Establishing sub-par goals is not a defense against mainstream judgment.

EDIT: Typos

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

I am comparing Cloverfield to the first Resident Evil movie, although all three are undoubtedly better pieces of cinema than Cloverfield.

If you think Resident Evil is a "Piece of Cinema" then I'm sorry to say your opinion is officially meaningless.

I believe "piece of cinema" was meant to be tongue in cheek. If you read the whole thing, he clearly doesn't regard Resident Evil is an artistic work, but at least as watchable entertainment, which it is.


I cannot stand it when people jump on a single phrase followed up by a sub-per ad hominem attack.


In any event, this seems like a fair analysis to me. I'd agree with all the responses to the "you don't get it" comment.

Yes, he in fact acknowledges in the review several times that he "gets" the gimmick that it's supposed to be told in a certain way. If I write a novel that's supposed to be written by a mental incompetent with no understanding of anything, it may accomplish its goal of looking like it was written by said person. That will not make it good entertainment. Establishing sub-par goals is not a defense against mainstream judgment.

I would like to thank you for making me happy with this post. I agree.

Being the winner of a three-legged retard race stills makes you a retard.

 

[goestoeleven]

Just like Abrams threw the back story of his characters out the window, he likewise ditched any explanation behind his monsters origins.

and for some unexplained reason, gives Milla super powers.

---

A movie with this much potential was relegated to looking so amateur. Again, I know that was his point but his point was totally off.

So because I don't share your opinion, I missed the point. Nice

Go figure.

 

[end_boss]

Well, there are aspects to both sides of the argument that I agree with, and overall, I came away from the movie satisfied, though not to the extent that I was when I saw Blair Witch. It's not one of my favourites of the year, and I haven't seen that many, but I still had an enjoyable time. My main problem with the movie was that it didn't know when to end, and featured about 3 or 4 viable endings, and after about the second one, I was begging for the credits.

That all said, I do feel the need to address one point, which is namely the debate about the characters. Pitching in my two cents, I agree that there were some characters I enjoyed watching, and some that I didn't. Well, let me make it even clearer; we didn't get to know many characters before they died, and so the only five characters we even have a chance to invest in are the main male lead, his best friend, his love interest, the cameraman, and Marlena, the cameraman's interest, and somehow the only character whose name I can recall off the top of my head. And I'm almost positive that the reason I remember her name is because, for as small a role as she had, she was my favourite character. The main guy, I did care for. I cared for him because I felt that I could understand him and he behaved in a way that I would like to think I might act under those circumstances.

His best friend annoyed the hell out of me. For the most part, I don't really know why, but it's probably because she spent the entire movie trying to talk him out of doing things we know he couldn't be talked out of doing, for fear of ending the movie prematurely. Her character was also a bit flattened by existing solely to be "the voice of reason." All she ever does is provide a flimsy and contrived sense of conflict. Yes, I understand that the inclusion of her character was to show somebody who should be admired for the fact that against all logic and instinct, she decided to stand by her friend in his hour of need. But that sort of character in this situation doesn't come across as compelling, it comes across as obligatory.

The cameraman had his funny moments, but I found him to be overall unlikeable. Yes, he acted like a jerk so that the movie could explain why the camera was rolling, conveniently providing us with required information of a candid nature. That's all fine and good, except that they couldn't do so in a way that didn't make him a jerk, and so he was unable to garner sympathy from me.

The love interest was... just kinda there. She was hot.

So, we get to Marlena, whom I had described earlier as my favourite character. For a character who received the least amount of explanation, her contradictory nature felt natural, as if we just didn't understand her, rather than that she was poorly written. When we first see her, she is self-interested. But she ends up risking her life by instictively (without hesitation or second thought) attacking a dangerous creature in order to help out somebody that she doesn't even like. She may not have had a backstory, she didn't get much focus, and her actions were inconsistent, but it was pulled off in a way that seemed natural, as though she's just a normal person, and the fact that we don't know more about her is just because we don't get a chance to.

Okay, so that's two characters I like out of the primary five. So why do I still enjoy the movie? Because the movie isn't about the characters any more than The Blair Witch is about the characters. In Blair Witch, the characters spent almost a solid hour just yelling at each other. But I still consider BWP to be one of the best horror efforts of the 90's, because the movie isn't about liking the characters, it's about fearing the situation. And yes, BWP pulled it off better than Cloverfield. But just because BWP was better, doesn't mean Cloverfield is necessarily bad. Might not be your thing, and you're entitled to that opinion, but the goal of the movie was about capturing candid moments in a horrible situation.

A movie like Resident Evil, as well as about 99% of movies, are examples of art imitating life. And considering how many of the best movies ever made fall into this category, that's not at all a bad thing. But BWP, Cloverfield, and a mere handful of other movies belong to a small niche genre of film in which art attempts to EMULATE life. We aren't going to find out that the characters have a rich backstory. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. The point of this movie is to try and show how real people, real humans, might behave in a fantastical premise.

I also noticed an argument that just because the writer and/or director achieved their goal, it doesn't justify the goal. This is a valid argument, but one that I do not find applicable in how it has been used so far. Take, for example, Clerks, which was also mentioned at some point above. I did not enjoy Clerks very much for a multitude of reasons, but of particular relevance are certain isolated jokes that accomplish nothing other than to get me to dislike the characters further. For what they were, the jokes were well written and clever, but just because the writer/director accomplished what was intended, does not mean that his intentions are justified. The same goes for a scene in Road Trip, where a chef graphically tampers with food for a gross-out scene. The intention was to gross us out, and in that, the scene was successful. But what did that scene achieve? Why did the audience have to be grossed out?

Watching Cloverfield is, as far as I'm concerned, not akin to liking or hating scenes from Clerks or Road Trip. Instead, watching Cloverfield in hopes of character depth and backstory is like watching Pulp Fiction in hopes of an action movie. If you want action, Pulp Fiction will bore you to tears, but the inclusion of action scenes in Pulp Fiction would ruin its purpose. The characters in Cloverfield aren't anything special, and you don't have to like them. There are more characters I dislike than those that I like. But as I said before, Cloverfield is situational, not character-based, and a goal of the movie, as far as I can tell, is to peel away the literary qualities of the characters in order to keep them as normal as the people you see on the street.

Don't get me wrong; if you hate ALL of the characters, then you're probably not going to enjoy the movie very much, and for good reason. We're trapped for 90 minutes with these people, so that kind of exposure to people you dislike is surely not going to be very fun. But the purpose of the movie is pretty clear, and is a worthwhile cause; it could have been done better, that's for sure, but some people aren't going to like it because they simply don't like what it is. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad movie. There are movies I admit were good, but I didn't like them (Lost in Translation), and there are bad movies that reach near the top of my favourites (Dune). But there's a difference between objectivity and opinion; the line is thin and very often blurry, but there is one if you know how to look for it.

And for the record, I actually did intend to keep this to about a paragraph in length when I started it. Sorry, I got carried away.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

end_boss: That was awesome, thank you for contributing. I have nothing but agreement with your points. I can't say I would be different than the male lead either. Marlena was definitely the most natural character. I liked her line about saving the guy because it is the right thing to do. She even seemed a bit hurt that Hud thought she might have abandoned him. It was rather sweet, like she needed a hug and to be told she was a good person.

 

[Terramax]

I regard Resident Evil Movie as the worst film of the last 10 years, so in comparison this Cloverfield my be seriously bad.

 

[i_am_undead]

Wow. It seems as though you missed the entire point of the movie. The reason you had no backstory on the characters was because you were not meant to have one.

The writing for this movie (courtesy JJ Abrams) was brilliant. And, for what little was actually spoken, I still came a away from the movie with a more complete picture of the characters' backgrounds and personal conflicts than most other movies with indecisive dialogue (like all of the resident evil movies as a great example of this, actually! But I love Milla! Heyooh!).

Resident Evil 1 was an instant classic, I knew it would be before it came out. Cloverfield will have a cult following at best. But the live-action cut scenes in RE1 will always be the greatest live action ANYTHING ever filmed. YES!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw5sQn5Cviw&feature=related

Now THATS classic scary. OH!