Motley reviews for Cloverfield, but it still sets records!

I've been rather excited lately... anxious to see a new film that reuses the old plot device of a monster terrorizing Manhattan. The makers of Cloverfield have put out some rather intense previews, none of which shows the viewer what exactly is doing the damage that we see on screen. When Lady Liberty's head comes rolling down the street, demolishing buildings and automobiles on its way, we come to realize only that whatever it is, it is big, and apparently rather angry.

So, being that I have not gone and seen the film myself, I have instead gone online to read the reviews of those reviewers who got the media sneak peek at the film. Many of these reviews give away spoilers about the movie, so instead of reading them yourself (unless you WANT to know), I have read them for you and will tell you the gist what the critics thought about it... hopefully without spoiling the movie for you.

If you've seen the previews at all, you get the idea. Something has been let loose in Manhattan and is very frightening indeed. We've all probably seen movies just like this before, including the many Godzilla movies of the past 50+ years, but this one has its differences in that it is shot as if it were a documentary, but actually is purported to be an accidental "caught-on-film" experience. While friends are recording their goodbye wishes to the main character Rob, all Hell apparently breaks lose and somebody is obviously not scared enough to drop the camera, which some normal people might think would slow down their attempted escape.

Time Magazine reviewer Richard Corliss contends that, while exciting, many of the actions of the "cool, attractive, upmarket young professionals" are simply too absurd to imagine. Whereas most people would try to find a safe place to hide, the majority of the city acts in panic and reverts to trying to outrun the beast. Corliss continues to describe many scenes in the movie that reflect this sudden loss of intellect on the part of the majority of Manhattan Island and goes on to decide that the predictability is a bit much.

Peter Hartlaub, Pop Culture Critic for the San Francisco Chronicle, makes many statements that would agree with Corliss, but he does state his opinion of the movie overall in (nearly) plain English, "even though "Cloverfield" isn't the Godzilla-for-the-YouTube-generation picture that everyone may have been hoping for, it's still a terrific movie, filled with spectacle and a surprising amount of humor, which makes up for its lack of terror or emotional impact."

Chicago Daily Herald writer Dann Gire begins his review with an equally open, if not mildly confusing, opinion: "The heavily hyped science-fiction horror movie 'Cloverfield' is a scary, unabashedly cheesy, in-your-face thriller that cheerily picks the scab off our still-fresh memories of 9/11 to remarkably realistic effect."

While we won't go into why more than one source has said this movie might be insulting to the history of 9/11, we will say that we have read reviews that say, as Gire did, that the way the film handles 9/11 is actually not so bad, and perhaps in good taste.

Moving right along, About.com reviewer Rebecca Murray warns that if you feel like walking out after the first few minutes, that the anticipation is worth the wait. She commends the CGI monster effects and admits that, while the shaky hand camera might bother some, its really worth it. "It’s not that bad. Honest. You actually get used to it and, more importantly, it’s absolutely the right way to tell this tale."

Murray also commends the use of largely unknown actors in the lead roles and gives the film a B+.

In stark contrast, though, New York Sun reviewer Grady Hendrix paints the movie as predictable (again), unimpressive, and tiring. Hendrix pins the acting/directing style on the directing staff's television background, claiming that, "feature films demand a level of engagement that television doesn't, and what passes muster on the small screen looks ridiculous on the big one." Hendrix passes the film off as a made-for-TV film that should have stayed that way, and delivers a very irritated review

Finally, Hollywood Reporter writer Michael Rechtshaffen argues that, "the people they are playing aren't particularly interesting or developed, but who has time to exhibit intriguing character traits when you're trying to outrun a monster?" Rechtshaffen also resounds Rebecca Murray's opinion that the shaky hand-cam really helps to make this movie more intense.

All in all the reviews are exactly how I like them - starkly opposed. In my experience, a movie isn't worth seeing (inasmuch as its only possible to see so many movies in one's lifetime) unless it carries the weight of both strongly negative and positive reviews. In those cases, we tend to find the best of cult-classics, and that is what I hope for in this movie. I expect to find myself and my brother stumped by the question, "Why don't we own this movie?!" only to find it setting on the DVD shelf shortly thereafter, where I'm still confident it should be.

UPDATE - January 20, 5:19pm

Well it seems that despite a few negative reviews, and hopefully because of the glowingly positive reviews, Cloverfield has set a few records this MLK weekend. Not only did it beat the Along Came Polly MLK opening weekend box office draw with $41 million (with a day still to go) over ACP's $32.5 million, it also beat the all-time January box office opening record from the rerelease of Star Wars in 1997. Star Wars had held the record at $35.9 million. Read the article on Entertainment Weekly's website, EW.com (click here).

A glimpse at the news for Thursday, January 17, 2008 from the New York Times

I was reading today's online edition of the New York Times and figured I'd give a general overview of some interesting articles I found.

The New York Times reported today that Netflix is hitting a different market than iTunes will be with their new movie rentals. Apple announced earlier this week (at the annual MacWorld conference) that iTunes users will soon be able to rent directly through iTunes. After this news was released, NetFlix immediately changed their digital download service to offer unlimited downloads, but only of older movies that usually aren't still available on Pay-Per-View, at video rentals, on cable or on broadcast. iTunes, on the other hand, will be offering mainly new releases, and at a higher price.

The first suit against corporate executives who had illegally backdated stock options to gain massive profits has found its first convict. As the New York Times reports, the "first backdating conviction brings prison term and $15 million fine." With all the other executives of various companies awaiting their own trials or sentencing, this deceitful tactic, which takes money from the pockets of legitimate shareholders, and the company itself, should soon be a thing of the past.

A few years back, Google announced it would keep "1 percent of its profit and equity" as money to be used for philanthropic purposes. This week, Google has announced its plans:

"[Google]DotOrg officials said they had decided to spend the money on five initiatives: disease and disaster prevention; improving the flow of information to hold governments accountable in community services; helping small and medium-size enterprises; developing renewable energy sources that are cheaper than coal; and investing in the commercialization of plug-in vehicles." (New York Times)

And finally, the New York Times has reported that Time Warner will stop charging flat fees for high-speed Internet connections. They plan to test out a billing system by which customers will be charged for how much data they actually use in a month. This will benefit those customers who rarely use the internet so that they won't have to continue to pay a month's rate for a few hours usage, but gamers and high-volume Internet users might see their bills soar.

Please feel free to leave your comments below on any of these articles and let us know what you'd like to see more of on the My Useless Opinion blog. Thanks for reading!

Apple releases the Macbook Air at Macworld today

As of yesterday, the world of Mac users (and would-be Mac users and possibly a few PC users) was suddenly caught in a adrenaline-pumping guessing game trying to figure out what was to be expected of the supposed Macbook Air. The name had been leaked out of the Apple headquarters along with a mysterious, ambiguous product photo which showed next to nothing of the new design.

Its no surprise that Apple is at it again. 2007 easily became the year of Apple, with the company at the end of everybody's tongue, and not just because of the over-hyped iPhone, which has reportedly sold 4 million to date.

So what is this new Macbook Air all about? I read a few speculations myself by various bloggers across the web, some of which included the possibility of a completely wireless laptop, including wireless battery charging. Well, it happens that this is not the case, but that doesn't make us any less interested.

ZDNet is one of the hundreds of sites to release the stats on this machine, which gets its name not from its supposed high wireless capabilities, but its ultra-light, ultra-thin, eco-friendly design. Read on: ZDNet article.

Among other things, Apple announced a new movie rental service available through their popular iTunes platform. News of this has already sent Blockbuster and NetFlix stock dropping. Steve Jobs also announced an available software upgrade ($20) to current iPod owners that would allow for email, maps, and more.

UPDATE: A recession by any other name...

As an update to our Thursday article "A recession by any other name...", we note that FoxNews.com has reported that economists have recently "raised the odds" on the chances of a recession in 2008. (Full FoxNews.com Article)

Chew sugar-free gum, lose weight and learn the joys of abdominal pain and chronic diarrhea

Reuters reported on January 12th that British researchers have linked some cases of chronic diarrhea and abdominal pain to an artificial sweetener frequently found in sugar-free gums. The report, issued in the British Medical Journal, found that Sorbitol, which is actually a known laxative can cause frequent chewers to experience severe weight loss. The two patients in question were found to be chewing 15 to 20 sticks per day.

Now, I am a frequent opponent to artificial sweeteners such as Aspartame, NutraSweet, Saccharin and Sorbitol. They're just not natural and none of them has gotten a 100% bill of approval from the medical community.

I believe that unless you are diabetic and cannot live without your chewing gum, you really don't even need it. The quantity of sugar in a stick of regular chewing gum will not be enough to hurt you nor make you gain any weight. And if a person thinks that drinking a diet soda will reduce their chances of getting health problems, they might not have done much research on the negatives of soda in general.

My advice? Drink more water, eat smaller portions, and excercise at least once a week. But I'll let you know if I am ever able to follow this advice myself.