In other words, I am a great big annoying nerd.
I recently saw Watchmen (finally) on DVD, and while I think for the most part it was a surprisingly good adaptation of Alan Moore's graphic novel, it annoyed me that they “powered up” the non-powered characters, having them effortlessly beat up hordes of goons and get thrown through walls and stuff. In the comic book, most of them were not super-fast or super-tough; they were just a bunch of crazy people in tights.
I was thinking about this as I watched Cloverfield on my laptop during an airplane trip the other day. (I hate seeing movies in theaters, so I'm usually catching up a couple years later with Netflix.)
Cinematography-wise, Cloverfield was pretty good (if you can handle all the bouncing camera shots). Story-wise, there wasn't much to it: giant monster trashes New York; people run.
Watching with my author's eye, though, what bugged me about it was the details that would make me throw it against a wall if I were reading it as a story. So, yes, I'm going to nitpick the “realism” of a monster movie.
( Cut for Cloverfield spoilersCollapse )
So, I give Cloverfield 3.5 out of 5 stars. For what it was (giant monster movie), it was pretty cool, but it was all visuals. Probably would have been worth seeing on a big screen. (Although watching an aerial view of a giant monster wrecking Manhattan and knocking helicopters out of the sky, while you're on an airplane going through turbulence, was also a unique viewing experience.)