Positive Experience/Entertaining? Gah! No! What a mess–this movie was just marginally more interesting than Signs, which in itself was an invasion story following the most boring people around. At lease Cloverfield took place in New York City.
Technically any good? Hard to say. If you call Godzilla shot by an unfunny idiot who also happens to be the worst videographer in the world a good move, it’s technically great. But I don’t. What’s even more annoying is that the shaky-as-hell camera work doesn’t allow for any of the actors to really do anything beyond making vaguely interesting choices when reacting to other characters dying. There is no character development and the premise of following around rich white kids while a disaster surrounds them is as trite and boring as it is in Pearl Harbor. MANHATTAN IS BEING DESTROYED AND WE’RE FOLLOWING THESE STUPID, WHITE 20-SOMETHINGS!! WHY!?!? AT LEAST give us cut aways to other footage like the news or other morons with cameras.
So, weak story, no chance for decent acting and at this point, who cares about the FX (which weren’t used enough to be all that impressive).
How did it leave me feeling? Convinced JJ Abrams and his brood should not be allowed to make movies or TV shows any more. What happens when you take a Godzilla movie and remove all of the interesting bits? You get Cloverfield. What happens when you take a giant monster movie and only show the monster sparingly? You get a monster movie that isn’t a monster movie. You get Cloverfield.
Final Rating? DNS - Do Not See - If you’re looking for cheesy, bad movie fun, there are more than twenty Godzilla films on DVD that will meet your needs more effectively than this movie does.
For more of my opinion on Cloverfield go here: by ThePete 12:00 pm 2008-01-28 Now Playing, PocketReviews.Net $