- Too many uses of Oh my god, and oh god. It got repetitive.

Cloverfield is somehow at once one of the most frustrating, one of the dumbest, one of the smartest, and one of the most thought-provoking films I've seen in a while, leaving my mind in a constant state of thought both positive and very negative that would lead to thoughts of why these thoughts are so negative. To put it as simply as possible, it is about as good a way to kick off the movie year for me as possible.

Now, first I want to get to the biggest flaw of the film, which would be, quite simply, its style. I have never seen The Blair Witch Project, so I have no movie to really compare it with, but by downgrading to the simplest of filmmaking techniques, the film leaves itself at a disadvantage in a genre known for logic problems. What I'm saying is, by trying to put itself at the simplest point of view (An amateur video diary), one should expect slightly more...sporadic filming techniques. Now, I will admit at times it gets almost sickening to watch it, but the film gives itself too much mise en scène to fully let go of the idea that what we're watching was totally on the fly as the unprofessional cameraman tries fighting for his life with his friends. In perhaps a more picky area of opinion, it also gets distracting how clean the lapses in time are, how nearly 12 hours of activity were condensed so easily into just little over an hour of tape, appearing to turn the camera off and on just seconds before the next big event. Again, it's picky, but these are the problems filmmakers must consider when they choose such a POV, no?

Another problem that arises from this filmmaking technique is the thematic issues of the film, which are brought more alive by the camcorder perspective, yet in doing so reveal the flaws more so than if the film took a more traditional route. The main arc of the film is nothing new (Off the top of my head I know at least The Day After Tomorrow used the "loved ones of trapped individual go on quest to save them" plotline...I'm sure there are more), but again, there's a certain air of "whywhywhy?" to scenes like the one where the group climbs 50 flights of stairs to jump from one building to the collapsed one right next to it.

And yet, in spite of all of these leaps of logic, I found myself enthralled and contemplative of this world, one that is essentially meant to be 9/11 times thousand, except there is no hope to be found at the end. perhaps the best way to come to terms with the little -isms of the technical aspects is in how similar leaps in logic must almost always be applied to types of literature that go for a similar perspective, such as a diary, with its perfectly paced entries making for good storytelling.

As for the thematic areas of storytelling, for me even the moments where these characters go and make slightly crazed decisions are balanced out by the very large story that surrounds them, and how, in the great scheme of it all, the only thing that sets their story of doomed escape from other stories is that their's has been taped. The concept of putting a disaster story on a personal scale is still almost always dwarfed by the larger story at hand, one that the filmmakers seem to easily prefer. Here, the personal story is both very much at the forefront of the film, yet in the end, how much will their story matter? Who will care to watch their story of a futile rescue, outside of whoever gets the job of viewing evidence from Incident Site U.S. 447? Now, that's not to say these guys really deserve to be remembered. The fact that I only remember the name of the camera guy (Hud?) speaks volumes about how these characters work on a personal level, but most of these these feelings about the film arise not from the characters themselves, but what surrounds them and what it means to the millions of likely dead in Manhattan. If one is willing to contemplate it, the film gives service both to the dreams of heroism during a great tragedy, and the nightmare of being forgotten among the many.

Cloverfield is not without flaws. But it does have certain things going for it, if you're willing to look for them. It is unfortunate that the hype earlier this year has buried it under an avalanche of bad reactions, and that it'll be a while before it can recover. However, as it stands right now, Cloverfield is that rare find from this early in a film year, a film that intrigues the cinematic mind technically and thematically, and I will be pleasantly surprised if it doesn't stay near the top of my favorite films for the year for the next few months.

I think it's idiotic to criticize the way people act in a disaster movie... when nobody really has ever been in these disasters themselves.

That critic is an idiot.

Umm...no. Manohla Dargis is easily one of the smartest and most well-regarded film critics in the country.

I don't care. Their opinion on Cloverfield is as idiotic as they come.

As is your grammar.

That woman's arrogance insults me. Yes, I liked the film (a lot) and that makes me biased. And she makes a couple of decent points. But how could that review ever assist a normal person decide whether or not to see a movie? She hated this movie from the get-go, and I don't see one sign in this article that at any point during this movie she gave it a chance and tried to look at it for what it truly was: an innovative monster movie; nothing more, nothing less. But no, this crackpot is looking for a film with the complexity of Citizen Kane (which wasn't without plot holes or implausible situations itself).

It's reviewers like Ms. Dargis that add to the argument that movie critics are irrelevant in today's society.

Ah, I see, all movies with bad multipliers are brushed off as stupid, the frontloading has nothing to do with this, eh?

Just because you can accept and like that a movie is nothing more than stupid doesn't mean she has to. She isn't demanding Citizen Kane, she's demanding a competent film.

And she doesn't seem too out of touch with society: this movie was widely brushed off as "too stupid" following its release, resulting in not even a 2.0 multiplier.

Right. That explains why the reviews that are better than Godzilla...