Inverarity (inverarity) wrote,

Giant Monsters and Superheroes Still Need to Make Sense

I love fantasy and science fiction, but I overthink things. I nitpick everything for plot holes and believability. I can read comic books and appreciate good stories that conform to the rules of the genre, but get annoyed when they break my suspension of disbelief even within that framework.

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.)
Tags: movies, reviews

  • Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened