in transit, mark danielsonJournal
homejournalalbumresume

MovieLog: Cloverfield

bookmark

I wouldn’t call it a waste of time, but Cloverfield proved to be rather disappointing. Since I’ve been in a bullet-point mood lately, let’s break it down thusly:

  • Acting: Okay.
  • Big monster: Eh. (Spoiler.) Shoot out his fucking breathing sacks and get it over with already.
  • Small monsters: Kinda scary at first, but cease to be as soon as you think “oh, they kind of look like crabs.” Mmmm, crabs.
  • NYC hipster body count: High. (Spoiler.) It would have been nice of them to kill off Hud a bit earlier, though. Like at the beginning of the fucking movie.
  • Gratuitous references to 9/11: Too many to count.
  • Incidences of military personnel saying really cliché things: Numerous.
  • Likeliness of monster taking a Godzilla-like place in American culture: Almost none, thank god. And if it does, I’m going to have to bust some fucking heads.
  • J.J. Abrams: In serious need of a tire iron to the side of the skull before he tries to top himself. Who knows, if he suffers some in the process, maybe his art will get a bit better.

After watching Cloverfield, I find myself concerned that he’s going to screw up the new Star Trek movie, and I don’t even care about that franchise. Still, I’d have to rate Cloverfield a 5 out of 10, as it was moderately entertaining upon first viewing.

But what about a second viewing? I don’t even want to go there.

Posted in MovieLog at 10:33 pm

1 Comment

  1. Hud was the only person in that movie that gave it some life. Otherwise it was pretty much Felicity + Monster = Crap.

    Comment by L — 20080528 - Wednesday @ 6:57 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

in transit—a lame attempt at a homepage since 1996—is a service of Mark Danielson and nonlocality.com.
© 1996-2006 by Mark Danielson. All rights reserved unless specifically noted.