What’s J.J. Abrams problem? Why does he favor protagonists who are bland saps with no discernible personality? Could it be that’s what he most closely relates to? Could it be that’s what he is?
Take Jack of Lost. A boring nice guy with a boring hair cut, who looks like he’d be more comfortable on Guiding Light.
Take Tom Cruise in the Abrams helmed Mission Impossible 3. What rhymes with ‘Yay,’ and aptly describes Tom Cruise trying to look tough on film?
Fortunately for Cloverfield, it’s a triumph of marketing. It has a great trailer, and a mysterious concept, which coupled, should ensure a highly profitable opening weekend.
Unfortunately for Cloverfield, it’s an absurd waste of time and money for which if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve seen the movie. There’s nothing more to it. You learn nothing more worthwhile about the creature, the people involved, or even the title. By the time its Beauty and the Beast running time of 84 minutes is up, you’ve learned the following:
“It is worth endangering the lives of everyone you know, as long as it is all in the interest of recovering from a collapsed building, in a destroyed city, a boring chick whom you had a crush on in college and slept with once.”
Still, I can’t hate Abrams. He’s doing his thing, making his money, and entertaining people. Of course what he calls entertainment could just as easily be accomplished with several Barbie dolls voiced by celebrities, but that’s another story.
This movie was almost as big a letdown as There Will Be Blood. Which probably means it’s will be up for Best Picture come Oscar time.
Verdict: WACK!
Posted by Hannibal
Photo Courtesy of Paramount Pictures
No comments:
Post a Comment