Empty Bookshelf Reviews

Update 1/1/2009: All better. The thing "fixed" itself. I was this close to composing a strongly worded letter written under only natural light.

In the time between beginning this post and finishing it, it looks like Microsoft formally announced a solution to the issue, the always exciting "it'll fix itself tomorrow." Of course, that doesn't change the fact that I want to listen to my party mix now. Anyway, um, enjoy the increasingly less relevant post below.

I've stood by my MP3 player for more than one-and-a-half years. The 30GB Zune isn't the prettiest, thinnest, or most useful MP3 player, but I like what it does and how it does it. I spent a lot of time getting the video compression settings "just right," and I didn't need to purchase wrist weights to "maximize" my runs. I've gotten used to people confusing it with a dumbbell but I have never had the "I think someone stole my mp3 player," panic because I know my husky baby isn't going anywhere, if only because it would be a real burden for a potential thief if he or she needed to scale a fence.

My previous MP3 player, the geek approved Rio Karma served me just fine (though a few minor repairs) from 2003-2007, at which point it started turning into "computer junk," component by component, necessitating a new player. Microsoft's been good about updating the original, 30GB, player even though it's now one-and-a-half generations old. I can't argue with that, and the free Zune Software/Music Player is actually a program I'd whole-heartedly recommend to anyone, whether he owns a Zune or not. Everything was going swimmingly - the only real issues I had were occasional freezes (which disappeared with the latest 3.1 firmware) and a totally buff right bicep. This morning, I saw that one of the "tech news" websites I visit was reporting "Hundreds of 30GB Zune Players Fail Across the Country." I have one of those. Uh-oh.


Probably not the sort of top 10 list for which they hoped.

Skimming the article, I saw that the problems started around midnight PST last night, and most users experienced the freeze as their greeting as they turned on the device this morning. Of course, I still hadn't turned it on, but I was watching The Matrix last night, and needless to say, perhaps the computer gods were not happy at the ending (with Neo's bring the physical virtual and verbal smackdown to computer program) and were taking their vengeance. Being that guy, I decided I wanted to see the crash myself so I could poke around at it. Well, I succeeded in seeing it crash/freeze, but that was about all she wrote. Apparently, one can disassemble the player, change the computer calendar to any date but 12/31/08, unplug and replug the battery, then reassemble and use it just fine with no issues, but I decided I was done losing tiny screws when I decided the Rio Karma wasn't worth fixing.

For a device considered not very popular, the news certainly got around. CNN posted a front page link (below "the fold," though) to a brief writeup. (Now, to the doubters' credit, the time between Christmas and New Years is ridiculously slow for the news.)

In terms of why it crashed, December 31, 2008 is the 366th day of the year. Odds are it has something to do with something in the software planning on each year being 365 days. Not the most exciting bug, but an easy one to forget to check for. Of course it could be an ugly coincidence, but Occam's Razor, people.

I was going to write here about how it could be a challenging bug to fix because the devices didn't even get to the point where the firmware updates can be initiated and it could be a support disaster, but being that the darn thing will apparently fix itself, I'll spare the words. (Note to Microsoft employees: I have no idea if that little spiel back there about "doesn't even get to the point where the firmware updates can be initiated" is even remotely accurate. I'm just counting on all 7 of the readers of this site nodding their heads and saying, "that Dan. He knows about computers.")

Star Rating is pending the results of tomorrow's self-update, but let's not jump to any conclusions.



Two stars - nice it sort of fixed itself, not so nice that I actually had to say, "well, I have that song on my MP3 player, but unfortunately, it's not going to work until noon tomorrow."

BUT, I have seen some pretty good overly dramatic names for the "situation": Z2K, Z2K9, ZUNEPOCOLYPSE. I guess give credit for the "social" for making enough noise the problem to be seen in more places than just some isolated support forums.

Of course, none of the postings made any mention of Judgment Day or this being Skynet's first move, so I'm not completely impressed. That said, in terms of a future where our ground up brains might be used to fuel sentient killing machines, the fact that computers are still baffled by the Gregorian Calendar does help me sleep better at night.

Is it possible to make a movie that is at once pretentious, derivative, completely incomprehensible, insanely long, outrageous just for the sake of it, tonally off-balance, with tons of distractingly recognizeable actors, and somehow surprisingly engrossing? Honestly, Southland Tales lives up to its negative hype. It is a car wreck of epic proportions. You sit there completely sucked in, but with your jaw hanging open wondering how a movie this completely off-the-wall bad can take itself so seriously, or even how it got funding in the first place.

The movie, Richard Kelly's follow-up epic mess to cult hit Donnie Darko leaps from place to place like a kid on a playground after too much candy and juice, and usually leaves you wondering who these characters are and why are they doing whatever it is they're doing, that is, if you can figure out what they are doing.

Full disclosure: I like Donnie Darko. I'm a little bit bitter towards it, but I like it. I think it's a fantastic collection of scenes and ideas that fit together tonally, but don't really make a coherent story. And I've tried to figure out the story. I was on the Donnie Darko bandwagon before the movie had even come out. I found the website, which at the time was something to behold, via a small article in EW magazine. Watched a bootleg copy of it while it was still in theatres. Had no idea what I just saw. I watched it over and over again, showing new people every time. I couldn't figure out the master plan of what was going on. Things were so disjointed, and there was never any exposition to give any clue as to what happened at the end. I bought the DVD, and when I listened to the commentary track, I was surprised to find out that the director also seemed not to know. There was no explanation. He was just putting stuff in that he thought would be weird. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me again... uhh.... you don't get fooled again.

I really can't imagine that there was any plan going into this movie. Something about an extremist future, with big-brother republicans selling out for some kind of perpetual motion machine, and "neo-Marxists" (his word, not mine) bent on destroying everything for some reason. The media is a hyper-conglomerate of entertainment, commercials (most notably a car commercial, featuring two Hummers [the car] having sex with each other), propaganda, and news. And for some reason, every show is taped on a beach. The guy who created this energy machine (which looks exactly like the gyroscope in Contact) is somehow trying to take over the world by cutting off people's hands or something. Some people are trying to blackmail The Rock, whose father-in-law is running for Vice President (i think?). Drugs are involved, needless to say. Whatever satire Kelly's attempting, it's either already been done, or it's too broad to be saying anything, really.

Justin Timberlake is a "Revelations"-reciting narrator who sits on a machine-gun pedestal on the beach, looking to shoot God knows what, and really serving no purpose other than lip-synching to a song by "The Killers" in some sort of arcade, about halfway through. Sarah Michelle Gellar is a porn-star/talk show host who is either trying to blackmail The Rock or wants to be with him. I couldn't tell. I don't think she could. Sean William Scott plays twins. Cheri Oteri and Nora Dunn are crazy "neo Marxists", as well as Amy Poehler. And if three SNL alumni aren't enough, Jon Lovitz plays a racist cop. And if "SNL" isn't the only Saturday late night sketch comedy show on your radar, "Mad TV"'s Will Sasso is also there. Thow in the motley crew of John Larroquette (who's actually pretty good), Mandy Moore, an unrecognizable Kevin Smith, the Highlander as an ice-cream-truck-driving arms rocket launcher salesman, Wallace Shawn in a dress and makeup, Bai Ling, and Janeane Garofalo in two seconds of screen time that amount to her being an extra (granted i think her part was entirely cut out), and you've got a cast that is seriously going to distract, even if you had the most engrossing material.



Not that the material couldn't be interesting. It's got all the elements that could make it completely engaging: blackmail, WW3, cutting off people's fingers, perpetual motion machines, The Rock, fake murder plots, a giant blimp, memory loss, drugs, public beach mounted gun stations, and, yes, time travel. The problem is that there's way too much of it, and a lot of it for no reason. That someone saw this script and said "let's fund that" is remarkable. I really can't understand how someone didn't tell this guy to pare the story down to something that had actual character motivations you could follow. You know when you start a movie and the first title says "Part 4" (the first three parts were released as comics and one wonders how much more coherent they were), that things are going to be confusing. Even more remarkable is the amount of on-camera talent in it. How any of the actors could play these scenes is baffling to me, because I was constantly asking "Who's that? Why is he doing that? What's his purpose in this movie? For what reason is he so important that he's the narrator?", and if I was while I was watching, I guarantee that the actors were asking ten times as many questions. I'd like to have heard Kelly's explanation as to why The Rock always put his fingertips together melodramatically when he was confused. EVERY TIME! And I wonder if The Rock could tell me that. Yes, there's something to be said of making the audience think and figure something out, but like I said before, "I'm not getting fooled again".

There is also something to be said for style over substance, but while it looks good (especially the blu-ray-quality version), and has some strangely unique things to it, most of it just felt like a rip-off of something else. There were multiple David Lynch moments, including a random group of recurring background little people; a strange old asian lady talking some kind of prophetic nonsense; and a recontextualized version of a highly-recognizable song, sung in a foreign language by a woman on a stage. The extremely ensemble and spread-out nature was taken right from P.T. Anderson's Magnolia (as, it seemed, was the strange pacing of a lot of it), which in turn (at least i hear) was supposed to be a Robert Altman homage. Lastly, and most importantly of all, he's completely ripped off of himself. Incomprehensible time travel/ Dimensional rifts; someone getting shot in the left eye; large aircraft falling out of the air; the end of the world; wormholes (the effects work even looks the same). It's all there. It's not that the style is bad; it's just incredibly unique while at the same time, paradoxically all been seen before. (figure that one out).

The theatrical cut is two and a half hours, one half-hour less than the widely-derided Cannes cut of the film, which you can see in parts, in low-quality video on the YouTubes, if you're a masochist. I'd like to think that the missing half-hour explained some of the things I didn't get, but judging from those reviews, I'd be wrong. (Though, from the few seconds of these clips I've seen, at least the narration is different and makes more sense). The movie cost between fifteen and sixteen million dollars to make, and was released in only 67 theatres (even limited releases usually get about 300), for a whopping $270,000 domestic gross. Yes, that's "thousand". After seeing it, one can easily see why. Not that I wouldn't watch it again, mind you, but only with people who have no reservations and are willing to sit through the whole thing. I'd like to see the confusion and anger on their faces, and at the same time their desire to keep going because it can't get any more outrageous. Oh yes. It can. Just for the sake of being outrageous.


Southland Tales takes all the faults of Donnie Darko and magnifies them tenfold. It's not a failure of style, as the film's got that in spades, but it is a complete failure of storytelling. Characters completely do major things for no reason, the order the scenes are in leaves you even more confused, and finally when a strange cabal of characters sits The Rock down to explain the whole story (for no other reason than to explain it to the audience), it makes no logical sense whatsoever. I guess there's at least an attempted explanation.

One star for allowing my friends and I to complain about how none of the story worked, and half a star for the cool scene where Sean William Scott was messing around with a mirror that took about half a second to mimic his action.

So back in 1998, I had an English oral presentation to do in which I'd be selling a made-up product. After racking my brain for hours, my thought process went as follows: "What do teenage girls want? Answer: Guys. Then what do teenage guys want? Answer: Meat. So the way for a girl to get a guy would be by smelling like meat." The presentation went fantasticly. I had charts and prototypes (sort of... bottles of cologne and body-wash with crudely designed logos). For the women who didn't want to have to smell the Bar-B-Fume, I invented the "Scent Remover 5000", which was just a clothespin to put on your nose. I demonstrated how to use the body wash (which for my purposes was just barbecue sauce in a soap dispenser) by smearing it all over my face. And I finished with the tagline, "Ladies, truly the way to a man's heart is now through his stomach."

Two years later, the product was revived as an info-mercial for a TV studio production class I was taking, but this time with way better logo design and a killer intro. I can't attest to the quality of the rest of it. I haven't watched it in years. You see, I can't find the tape with that semester's projects on it. To make matters worse, I can't even find the tape that has the original speech on it. I have most other semesters' projects, and I have the other speech we had to give that year in high school, but as it stands, right now the only tangible evidence of Bar-B-Fume existing is the logo I saved.

What makes this important is that Burger King just started marketing a meat-scented fragrance called "Flame". Here's the website. Granted, it smells like the Whopper and not like barbecue sauce, but it's still enough to have me shouting "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO". I guess I just need to follow through more.



I'm pretty angry.

Going back and finding posts I never finished, I saw that this one was completed, but never posted... maybe I just didn't have a picture to go with it.



Allow me to list the numerous things that made this game completely awesome for me to have seen in person.

1. Shane Victorino Hula Figurine- As part of the larger "Hula Day", celebrating Shane Victorino, for fans under 14 they were giving out Dashboard Hula Figurinesof the Hawaiian outfielder. We put a baseball hat on my 21-year-old sister, she passed as 14 I guess, because the old guy at the gate totally gave her one. Later, when I commented on the fact that she passed for 14, she punched me in the stomach.

2. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia's Rob McElhenney and Danny DeVito threw out the first and second pitch, to a hula-skirt-wearing Phanatic. DeVito's only made it halfway.

3. Bizarrely terrible plays. Ironically, it was anything but sunny as there was a constant rain, which caused Pat Burrell to throw a ball about 15 feet, and Mike Zagurski to throw a ball directly into the ground. It didn't, however cause Freddy Garcia to not run out a ground ball to second, with deserved "Boo"s from the crowd.

4. Five-run comeback, punctuated by Ryan Howard's three-run homerun, with two outs, to give them the lead, which was eventually relinquished when the Giants tied the game.

5. Watching Danny DeVito Hula Dance during the 7th inning stretch.

6. Booing Barry. Barry Bonds came up with a chance to give his team the lead. He was greated by bigger BOOs than Freddy Garcia, and grounded into a double play.

7. Walk-Off. After letting the Giants tie the game in the 9th, the day's focus, Shane Victorino becomes the hero with a walk-off home run in the 10th. Though the stands in that video are empty, I don't think that many people left. It had been raining constantly for about an hour and most people were hiding wherever they could find cover.



This game just goes to show why you never leave a baseball game until it's over, even if it's raining.

Reference Part 1

From Google's Picasa 3 picture management program...

Me: All talk, no walk.

Yet another Ben Folds-related review. I'm probably not going to write anything about his new album that's coming out this fall, and since this is much more interesting, I'd rather substitute it anyway.

I found this article on RollingStone.com that discusses how this fake album came about, with bits about each song. Basically, he and his bassist and drummer got some studio time in Dublin and wrote six fake tracks, added three songs that are going to be on the album, and gave it to some guys to leak.

Obviously the songs aren't all going to be great, but for a free download that's basically been sanctioned it's not a half bad idea. There's the free media attention that you get from the music magazine, and the rest of the internet music community (google search for "fake album leaks" and you'll almost exclusively get pages about this specific one), which is always good for someone who could possibly be deemed irrelevant and past his prime.

It gets his fan base excited and talking, though that could be a good thing or a bad thing. Not coming out immediately and saying that it's fake leads to discussion about the new sound (judging from the Rolling Stone samples, he's got yet another new sound he's going for. Kudos for changing it up, but like the last time, it's going to take some getting used to). The risk here is that while it does drum up interest in the new album, the fanbase is most unanimously going to be buying the new album anyway, and by putting out sub-par songs you can only hurt your chances that some of these people will be willing to pay for the album when they can just download it (of course, thereby missing the meaning of releasing a fake pirated version in the first place).

This isn't to say that this fake album is all that bad, it's just a little bit below full-album standards. It's about on-par with the EPs that he put out between "Rockin the Suburbs" and "Songs for Silverman". A few of these songs (Brainwascht, Dr. Yang) actually sound like they could be on that first Ben Folds Five album from way back when, which is probably the first time in ages that you could say something like that (whether it's a good thing or a bad thing depends on the person I think).


"Bitch Went Nuts" will probably be a concert staple in the future.



"Cologne" is great, though it's going to be on the album in a modified version.


"Way to Normal" is just strange, not that the bulk of it isn't a perfectly normal song, but it's three distinctly different sections. I especially love the "Flash Gordon"-inspired opening. The other ones besides "Hiroshima" are pretty much forgettable, but it was free so I'm not complaining.

Putting (at least similar versions of) three of the actual songs that are going to be on the album is a smart move as well, tempering the cries of "I downloaded this for nothing", and serving as an actual preview of what's coming. It's basically the same as releasing a free three-song single.... with six bonus tracks.


Releasing a fake version of your album on the internet (with actual fake songs) gets four stars, as it can get you free media attention, the fan base, and maybe even some others, talking about the upcoming album, and serve as a preview of what the album is actually going to be like. The only negative is that since he didn't come out right away and say it was fake, there may have been some negative early reviews. Providing full-disclosure, which he eventually did, mitigates this a bit though. In the end, I think that no matter how mediocre, fans appreciate what is basically a free EP.

Check out these two videos of "The Miz" interviewing the cast and director of "The Dark Knight." I realized that the hype machine for the movie was pretty crazy (even crazier now that it's obvious that the movie could have sold itself on its own merits), but I had no idea they were so desperate to allow a WWE "representative" to interview the stars.

The image of a ridiculous wrestler (title belt draped over his body) interviewing Maggie Gyllenhall is really one for the ages as is her confusion when he insists on playing with the action figures. Likewise his mustache discussion with Gary Oldman of all people hits "awkward" right on the head. (I guess Oldman insisted that he not be interviewed by someone wearing a championship belt from a fixed "sport.")

Also of note is Christian Bale's look over to his assistant as he has no idea how to react to "The Miz." You'd think they could've had an interesting comparison of the injuries accumulated in filming a fight scene (Bale seems intense enough to acquire injuries during filming - it looks like he has marks on his arms from filming Terminator 4 around the time of the interview) to the injuries in wrestling or stories about "working through pain in the name of entertainment" - who knows.

Anyway, enjoy the awkwardness.

Superstar To Superstar: Miz interviews the stars of "The Dark Knight" - Part I.

Superstar To Superstar: Miz interviews the stars of "The Dark Knight" - Part II.



There's a reason that professional wrestling will never be considered a "mainstream" form of entertainment. This is it.

Quick TV Review...

If you don't watch "The Big Bang Theory," give it a chance. CBS Mondays at 8:00 and online. Sure, the premise is ridiculous (two super-nerds move next door to the proverbial sitcom "hot babe" and hilarious antics ensue -- See, they don't know how to relate! She likes shopping, they like Star Trek! Haha.) Well then, the show gets decent ratings (in the 8 million viewers range, compared to the Office's ~6 million), but it gets no respect. TV Squad doesn't provide weekly recaps (though they do write-up each episode of Big Brother). The stereotypical fan of The Office is too cool for "three camera sitcoms," and this one thrives on the "mismatched neighbors" and "nerd" constructs.



All that said, it's actually really funny, and one of the "support" geeks (meaning there are two physicist roommates and two equally geeky friends providing plot "support") is made fun of for being an engineer. I can't remember the joke exactly, but it involved something about calling engineers "the oompa-loompas of science." I haven't felt that way in a while, but in academic circles, I'll give them points for accuracy.

I have noticed that the show has actually moved away from the relationship the "babe" has with her neighbors. She has had little development - she basically sits there and makes simple jokes about her neighbors' lack of social skills or just how far over head their discussion is. I guess at some point the sort-of "head" geek needs to act on his crush he first showed in the pilot (but the show has left it sort of unaddressed since then), but I think that's the lazy way out for the writers. Family Matters did it years ago. I would guess that the writers felt like they needed a girl to be their "normal" foil for the four scientists, but as the show has gone on, they've realized the "geeks" personalities and competitiveness have been able to carry the show.

Now, the show takes an odd line between "same as every other sitcom" and "something new." If they ever fall back on "dorky nice guy chases after girl completely out of his league," we'll know that the writers have given up. The writers have stumbled onto four entertaining, dynamic characters who are unlike their TV geek forebears; they're the center of the show, not just one-note jokes on the periphery of a normal sitcom cast.



CBS has a good thing going. Unlike The Office, there's more potential upside for this show. The Office won't get significantly higher ratings - there's simply a finite number of people into sarcastic, dry humor (not that there's anything wrong with that). I've elaborated on The Office previously, and everything that was true then is still true now, the viewership numbers aren't improved, but they are more vocal (oddly enough, crossing into standard "geek" territory like having a convention). The Big Bang Theory is more straight-forward and, yes, "easier," but those aren't bad things. Tune In.

Quick (hopefully) post about last night's ben folds concert at lafayette college in easton, PA. I've been to six Ben Folds concerts now (since 2001 and most of them were relatively close to where i was at the time, but yes, it's still a lot), and I'd probably rank this as the second best of them all, with last year's Muhlenberg show taking the top spot. Reasoning for this is that the drumer and bassist add so much more to the sound, both instrumentally and vocally, and both of these past two shows didn't require me to sit through rufus wainwright sucking the energy out of the crowd.

Granted, we had to sit through an equally ill-picked opening act (the same as muhlenberg), a solo guitar player/"singer" whose songs consisted of mostly playing the same chord over and over again arhythmically, droning on and on about there being "evil in the world" until the words had no meaning, all while basically looking like Sam Rockwell doing his best Crispin Glover impression. He also seemed to be drunk?

Mr. Folds (as the New York Times would say), put on his normal, energetic show for about an hour and forty five minutes, adding new bits to established songs, and going back to the beginning of the catalogue, including seven Ben Folds Five songs, and playing four new songs. Apparently, they just finished recording the new album; didn't say anything about release dates. Overall, just a fast-paced, awesome show. Also of note, t-shirts being sold read "I [Heart]ed Ben Folds... before he sucked".

Setlist (I felt like a nerd writing the song titles down, and I probably was right in feeling that way) below.

New Song- Didn't hear the title or any of the words really. Possibly "Brainwashed"
Gone
Hiroshima- New song about falling off a stage in Japan and doing the show with a concussion.
Bastard- That vocal part in the middle (adjusted from the album to suit three people, still sounding like more) is ridiculous
Still Fighting It
Free Coffee- New song. Played with a cake pan inside the piano, and a distortion pedal on some of the keys. Really interesting sound.
You to Thank- Went to the 70s sounding keyboard to the side of the piano for part of the solo, and was actually playing tough parts on both at the same time, angled ninety degrees apart, for a bit.
Landed- Cameo by some tambourine player got major cheerage.
Annie Waits
B*tches aint Sh*t
Lullabye (rest of the band stepped down for this and luckiest)
Luckiest
Narcolepsy- Maybe the best version of this I've heard. Especially effective after the quiet sap-fest "Luckiest" (not that it's bad, it's just quiet and sappy). Narcolepsy was long, loud, and with a good bit of jamming in the middle.
Army- Didn't teach the audience the horn parts, but just kinda pointed, expecting them.
Kate
Rockin' The Suburbs- Claimed it was originally going to be about Bob Seger beating someone up with tire chains for robbing an old lady.
Underground
Zak and Sara
One Angry Dwarf- These last two are the normal, fast paced closers, amping up the energy until he throws the stool at the piano.

Encore
Effington- New Song. Nice three-part a cappella opening. Something about "If there's a god, he's laughing at us and our football team". Kinda sounded like a school fight song. Tambourine player reappeared to applause.
Philosophy- with the normal stuff added at the end.
Not the Same- w/ audience vocals.


Four and a half stars. Minus half for the draining opening act, the smallest crowd, and possibly least interested (though that's not to say they didn't bring the applause, maybe just didn't feel like singing) I've seen for a show, and opening his set with a new song that nobody knew.

Before I get started, be sure to check out Nate's review of Cloverfield. Make a point to check out the comments - they get to the crux of the argument and Ken Matthews (yes, that Ken Matthews) even weighs in. No, we don't take celebrity lightly here at The Bookshelf.

Nate, Nate, Nate. So many words. The movie didn't "work" because of the medium on which it was delivered. It worked (and worked quite well) because of typical disaster movie conventions (and I don't mean that in a bad way). The "found footage" created a new way to present those conventions; it didn't make them "new," but it serves to create a "wall" in the viewer's mind when he sees the "character presented as initially important dies abruptly and shockingly" so he doesn't say, "wow, this is like every other disaster movie ever." Likewise, the whole "cast in the darkness struggles to find a flashlight, then once they find it, they immediately illuminate something that jumps up and wants to kill/maim/eat them" is perfectly fine - it's been done before. "Found footage" doesn't change the presentation of that event - it's always a point-of-view shot and someone either dies immediately or is injured to the degree of eventually becoming a nuisance (or worse) to the group. I didn't feel any closer to the characters on the screen than with any other well made action/disaster movie. Was it better than "The Day after Tomorrow?" - absolutely, but the difference isn't in the "medium," it's in the competence of the director and the writer to make it compelling. "Found footage" isn't a smokescreen which obfuscates the director's lack of talent or the scenarist's lack of imagination - he's either a good director or not, the script is either good or it isn't.

Why Cloverfield worked was because of the little decisions made in the screenplay and the directing. There's not "cheese" in the story or the presentation. The "lovey-dovey" story is restrained and as realistic as it could be in a movie about a gigantic lizard making a buffet out of New York. The love story (effectively the pulse of the movie), has as satisfying conclusion as one could hope for, maintaining a reasonable suspension of disbelief inherent is going to the movies. And, no, the "found footage" doesn't assist in building up the suspension of disbelief. Know what? I sat in a movie theater at the beginning of Cloverfield, and I left that same movie theater. I wasn't transported (to a dream world of magic). During the movie, I was still in that same theater. I didn't forget that. I could get "lost" in the movie, but it's happened in plenty of other movies which were not "found footage"-based.

The success of Cloverfield is due to the director and writer not taking any easy ways out (other than the camera battery, walking distances, and other shortcuts necessary for the mechanics of the story - not the story itself, mind you). A less engaging version of this movie would have the disaster "following" the characters instead of the characters more-or-less being in the middle of it. They try to take direction, but in the end, they're at the mercy of the situation, not the screenwriter's goal of killing of some number of characters in 10 minute intervals. It's not an Indiana Jones movie where there is literally nothing that the hero can do without it backfiring. The characters never got guns, but you know that the writer wouldn't have stooped to one of them getting killed because his or her gun got jammed. The writer realized that the story was larger than that. The audience doesn't need manufactured drama in a world in which it has been established that a 60 story, seemingly bulletproof monster with a taste for mammal blood, much less human brains is on the loose. There's plenty there already without resorting to cheese. In fact, it's not until the lead-in to the climax of the movie (it involves a helicopter) that the "bad guy" seemingly singles out the heroes. Previously, Smashy McWrecksALot sort of did his own thing, getting mad at the military for shooting at him and causing people to make allusions to September 11, 2001. Suddenly, something very bad and very focused towards the main characters happens. It takes two-thirds of the movie to finally cave in to the demand that the bad guy single out the heroes. And, all things considered, it's fine by me. The story went that far without something disgustingly coincidental happening, and given the unexpected nature of the actual event, I'm all for it. And, there were B-2 bombers in the sequence, so that's practically a get out of jail card for the writer as far as I'm concerned (though, it wasn't even needed in this case). And none of that required first person "found footage" to work.

"Found footage" adds nothing to the final presentation other than "it was a good movie and the video camera part was cool." I know, that goes against paragraphs and paragraphs of Nate's review, but in the end, it's no different than a movie shot in one take, a movie presented as four simultaneous one-take shots, or a movie presented as a documentary which is definitely not a true documentary. Any adds a touch of "clever" to a movie, but the "traditionals" - directing, writing, acting - are what make it watchable. The Blair Witch Project made it so people were ok with a movie being presented as if footage were found after some event, but it lacked the "traditionals", and ended up being all schtick and no substance. Cloverfield should've been the first "found footage" movie, if only for it to get thought of more highly than The Blair Witch Project for the academic accomplishment of making the concept work.



Nate's Review of Cloverfield gets two stars. Basically, the message is the message. The "medium" may add something to it, but in the end, people are attracted to story and emotion, not technique and the ephemera of film production. In fact, I've always interpreted "the medium is the message" as the medium says more about "where we are" than the message itself. For example, the fact that someone can be in the supermarket, see someone trip over a cracked egg and knock over a ceiling-tall paper towel display, open his telephone, video record the event, then instantly send it to any number of other people to view on their phones, computers, TV's, etc. says more about "our situation" than the fact that a movie was made about a monster using New York City for tackle drills and it was presented as if someone found a video camera. Of course, I've not taken any media theory classes, much less read that guy's book, but that's what I take from his famous quote. And no, when the first mainstream movie presented as if it were "found" cell phone video footage comes out, that's not saying any more about our current state than the fact that Cloverfield just gave the "disaster movie" genre a big F-U middle finger and said "beat that." Cloverfield just realized that the key to connecting to audiences is by turning a huge event (monsters attacking a city) on its ear by focusing on a tiny group who aren't in a position to fix the problem and showing how they handle it and each other. It's always been assumed that a "bigger picture" perspective with a secondary focus on a small group of charismatic characters was needed for a disaster movie, but Cloverfield is proof otherwise, focusing on that small group and barely even addressing the "bigger picture."



Cloverfield itself gets four-and-a-half big stars. As I was walking out of the theater I thought to myself that the story and its presentation completely precluded a sequel (wondering about a sequel is a good sign that the movie was well received) - then re-reading Nate's review, he pointed out that there is plenty of material to be mined from other groups of characters - specifically, not yuppies - affected by the event. As I said above, the movie worked so well by taking a huge event and focusing on a tiny slice of it. This contrasts with Juno, which left me slightly disappointed as it delivered a relatively small event and focused on a small group of characters. (At the risk of digressing, Juno was very good, not great. Witty dialog that writers in their 20's put on the page because they like to think they were that sharp in high school [they weren't] aside, it just seemed like a small story presented on a small scale. The big "drama" event wasn't quite "big" enough. Granted, it wasn't overwrought, but it seemed to play it slightly too safe.)