I have been specifically instructed by Paramount NOT to post a review of Cloverfield even though I am now getting Breaking News alerts from Variety that their review is up. I saw the movie last night and can tell you I enjoyed it and had a lot of fun watching the 73 minute monster feature. I am telling you that off the record as if you are sitting next to me, and I will have a full review tomorrow night.

However, the latest review by Todd McCarthy finally proves this guy is so out of touch and useless that he may as well go the way of Pete Hammond (who apparently is now writing for the LA Times' Envelope) and get the hell out of the critiquing biz.

His review of Cloverfield is so off the mark that it hardly warrants reading. He compares the film to The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms as if that isn't what the filmmakers were going for. He leads off the review with this quote:

Despite its indie-flavored shooting style, first-rate visual effects, reasonable intensity factor, nihilistic attitude and post-9/11 anxiety overlay, this punchy sci-fier is, in the end, not much different from all the marauding creature features that have come before it. But the Paramount release will be lapped up by thrill-seeking young auds everywhere for monstrous initial biz, spurred by an Internet-driven campaign that's been stoking fan interest for months.

As for "nihilistic attitude and post-9/11 anxiety" I really think anyone that lays claim to this is really reaching considering this film appears, on the surface, to be nothing more than an old fashioned monster movie told very differently than the norm. He then goes on to say "the characters here have no more substance than they ever do in films constructed around a group of disposable nonentities meant to be methodically reduced in number by a bloodthirsty behemoth."

Uh, did I miss something? When did anyone ever think this was going to be a developed drama? McCarthy obviously doesn't pay any attention to the "Internet-driven campaign" he references earlier in his review.

He ends the review saying:

If "Cloverfield" proves massively successful, there's nothing preventing this beast from invading as many other cities as the public wants to see destroyed.

Here's to say, "I am all for it." Once you see Cloverfield you will realize there are many more ways they can tell the story and make it effective. I also think it would be great if it went entirely campy using the latest technology. Wouldn't that be great?

Imagine, Cloverfield 2 introduces some different kind of monster wrecking havoc on Seattle, using the Space Needle to shish-ka-bob unwilling victims. While Cloverfield 3 has Shish-ka-bob taking on NYC Monster as they lay ruin to Los Angeles, or even an unimaginable dust up in Austin, Texas with Harry Knowles being the third monster! I mean, let's get geeky for a second and find enjoyment in a film for what it's worth.

Everything said, you didn't hear any of my opinion, that isn't allowed until Thursday night. Peazeace izzout beotches!

Oh, and if you want to read an overdeveloped review in which McCarthy drones on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on… go here. Otherwise, avoid most reviews, don't spoil anything, and just go see the movie. It won't even take 90 minutes of your day and you should have a good time.

Ahhh, one last thing. Someone tell Variety to give up on their ridiculous slanguage. Good God is that annoying.

Related post categories: Editorials, Features : Cloverfield

Permalink   |   RSS Feed | No comments yet