"I don't get all the Cloverfield hate"
I guess it's a question of taste, but I thought it was frankly crap, between whatsername blowing up for no reason, the fact that the monster itself was never even *slightly* explained -- I mean, okay, something goes unexpectedly smashing through New York -- no great loss there, by the way -- then I suppose I can see how, at least for a couple hours, things would be totally confused and everybody would basically just be running for their lives and not stopping to figure out anything. I can see that being realistic but that isn't the same as saying it'd make a movie I want to watch -- I mean, okay, verite and that, but let's try to explain *something* so I can feel like I haven't wasted my time on a bunch of painfully disjointed action sequences that not only don't make sense, but will *never* make sense, because the director didn't bother to provide enough information about anything to even *begin* to be useful.
And why is it necessary for every single movie that comes out of Hollywood any more to be peopled with these inhumanly perfect physical specimens? I mean, when was the last time you saw a movie where somebody had a mole, or, or a pimple -- *any* kind of facial eruption or asymmetry at all -- that *didn't* have an entire subplot revolving around it? Cloverfield loses points there too -- you don't go through a frantic escape, refugee pickup, friend-exploding bit, followed by more incomprehensible nonsense, and *still* have perfect hair. Unless, of course, you're in a completely crap movie.
Now, I don't want to sound like I'm just entirely out to run the movie down. True, I can demonstrate that Abrams has never in his miserable, misbegotten life ever even *worked on* anything that was better than "marginally watchable", with half a point's grace awarded in the case of "Regarding Henry", which frankly has to have been a fluke and was a long time ago besides. But I have to say that there are some good things about "Cloverfield", to wit: for one thing, it's a lot quicker to watch than "Lost", and the payoff seems to be about the same; they both seem to be about equally incomprehensible, and neither seems to have any characters at all who're even vaguely approaching the neighborhood of 'sympathetic', but at least it takes a lot less time to get through a feature-length movie than through four increasingly self-indulgent, reentrant, and frankly appalling seasons of what even those Wachowski assholes might recognize as a masturbatorily piss-poor attempt to take a brain-dead pile of limp story-spaghetti and tart it up with the cheap marinara sauce of a hard-core pothead's excuse for philosophy -- it's, like, totally deep, man, you just don't understand, you know?
There was probably another good thing I was going to say about Cloverfield, but I can't remember what it was.
Oh yeah! He somehow managed to leave out most all the stoner philosophy in that one -- no mystic mandalas or Yin-Yang symbols or trigrams or what-have-you, just good old...well, incomprehensible garbage, I guess. But at least it didn't drag into itself a bunch of innocently bystanding symbols which might actually at one time have *had* some kind of real significance, before being sucked dry by our modern reality with its rapacious appetite for anything and everything which might for one ephemeral instant afford it the illusion of meaning. And, of course, one of the chief leaders and standard bearers of this vampiric hologram in which we live is Hollywood, here effigied in the person of JJ Abrams, who has finally, after a long and effortful career working his way up to the top of Hollywood, managed to shit all over something that people other than Abrams and his drooling-moron fans care about -- the trailer linked into the article is sufficient evidence, I think, of that.
And that's why I don't like Cloverfield.