I’ve been sitting on Cloverfield for a while now, promising to write a standard movie review on it.  Cloverfield is the story of a small group of people viewed from their perspective as a city is being attacked by a large Godzilla style monster.  I had watched it when it first came out in the movies, but that had been so long ago that I had only vague recollections of it being really stupid.  So I finally got a chance to watch it and to my great surprise I was completely wrong.  Well I shouldn’t say completely wrong, but I was wrong in thinking that it would be a good choice for moviestupidity. So I’ve decided to use it as an example of why I write.

Poor Miss Liberty, you're always picked on by Hollywood. Know that for me, your loves lifting me higher.

I’ve gotten a few comments on my reviews in the past that look like this.

“This whole thing seems stupid, why waste your time upsetting the writer and the fans of the story, when different people have different opinions. The way this is written makes it look like you haven’t really paid much attention to it. Sorry I just don’t understand. I didn’t particularly want to watch it at first, and now I have- I am completely obsessed with it. I recommend it.”

beth

Why must you be an insufferable prick? Just enjoy the fucking movie and stop complaining about the plot holes. Better yet, write your own movie and see if you can make it without a single moment where somebody thinks it’s stupid or sees a flaw. If you’re so good at finding flaws, then you’d be perfect to write a book which lacks them. Seeing as how your a fucking genius.

Might I add the fact that there is magic in the first place is a huge fucking plot whole because magic isn’t even real. So, there. The article is much less shorter and a lot less whiny.

Lauren

These movies are science fiction designed for entertainment purposes. Why are you comparing what was intentionally designed to be fantasy to that of reality?

Lamby

These comments strike at the very heart of why it’s difficult for me to write these articles.  While I still feel that my opinion of Cloverfield is that it’s a shitty story I can’t exactly say that it was stupid.  My opinion of it may have been that it was stupid, or that while attempting to make something original they screwed it up by forgetting important things like character development, or plot development.  I could say that its use of Shaky-Cam ruined what could potentially have been a cinematically wonderful movie, or that the acting was wooden and at times unintentionally comical.

But I couldn’t say it was stupid, just my opinion of it.

After the monster starts his attack a group of people start moving deeper into danger, trying to reach the main characters not-girlfriend.  While his actions are stupid, they can be realistic given the movie.  While it may be stupid to charge toward a huge raging monster that has destroyed half the city for a girl that you last heard screaming in agony, it is something I could see a person doing.   Love is stupid.  It causes you to do stupid things.

I can’t say that the group following him loved the girl as much as he does.  So one might consider charging into danger for a person you hardly have feeling towards stupid, but once again, it can be realistic.  At times people will choose what is familiar yet dangerous, over being alone with an increased chance of safety.  This group, while not bound by any great love for each other, is the only people recognizable in a world that has (to them) stopped making sense.  I can easily see a person following along just because the fear of being detached from a recognizable face is crippling.

This isn't a screen grab. This was the actresses reaction to her own movie at the premiere.

Finally one would say that in the act of fleeing for your life, through harsh environments filled with debris, looters, a large monster and several but amazingly vicious monsters scurrying around all over the place, why would people continue to concern themselves with documenting everything on camera.  Especially when your hands could be better used towards navigating such hostile environments, or predisposed with survival, why would someone focus on …well camera focus.  I can agree that this movie took exception possibly to the edge if not beyond what is reasonable, but is it unreasonable?  This is the story of one group amongst countless thousands of survivors.  While it would be a bit uncharacteristic for the single group to; have the statue of liberty’s head land right in front of them, be present when the bridge was collapsed by a huge tentacle, have a member singled out and eaten by that large monster, end up in the military epicenter, and fly off on one of the few available army choppers, it is not outside the realm of possibilities. In a city of millions, of which hundreds of thousands of small groups of people trying to escape, of which thousands are actually filming the events that take place, it is possible that a single group is able to record the entire series of events, and that the same group could experience as much as they have, given the scale of the attack.

There were a few points of stupidity here and there, but to point them out would be nitpicking minutia.  The bottom line is that given the situation, I can’t say I would have acted any differently.  That is how I draw the line in the articles I review.  For the sake of storytelling I will accept a world in which a large monster from the ocean has ravaged most of New York City.  If in that same movie they tried to kill the monster by drowning it, that’s when I have to write an article.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment