Here we go again. Predictably, Dana has no real point in her review. We can't tell if she likes the movie or not. She praises it left and right while saying it didn't stick with her, then goes off on a New York tangent (I'm guessing Dana lives in...oh... New York?). As other posters have pointed out, NY has been destroyed in films looong before Sept. 11th. In fact, when doing a monster/disaster film, why wouldn't you set it in our country's most famous city? So, the real question is: as a MONSTER movie, how does Cloverfield stack up? Oh wait, Dana didn't (probably couldn't) answer that. Thanks for nothing.

"So, how well does this cheap gimmick work? Impressively enough, if clammy palms and a constant, low-level anxiety can sustain you through 84 minutes of efficiently paced action. Despite a first reel entirely devoted to establishing characters, Cloverfield is basically a line-'em-up, pick-'em-off horror movie that's effective without being either viscerally frightening or emotionally moving. Watching it is like going through a car wash: You come out of it thoroughly Cloverfield-ized, but essentially unchanged."

Are you an idiot or did you not read the above? Or did you want several more pages of b.s. about a mere 'monster' movie?

I have no doubt that if the review had been filled with complete b.s. praise about the movie, I wouldn't be reading this post. Because the lion's share of these anti-dana posts come about when she doesn't show complete enthusiasm for some lame sci-fi/superhero/nerd-wank franchise.

jasamcarl:

Because the lion's share of these anti-dana posts come about when she doesn't show complete enthusiasm for some lame sci-fi/superhero/nerd-wank franchise.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think of myself as a fanboy for these types of movies, but I can't stand Dana's reviews. And it is largely because of what the original post said, they're muddled - both stylistically and logically.

It's technically a marginally positive review, but I had to read it 2 and a half times to figure that out with all the backhanded compliments. She seems to fault the movie for featuring good-looking people; what the hell did she expect?

The other issue with her reviews for me is that she frequently goes on ill-conceived tangents. She basically says that the filmmakers are exploiting 9/11 to makes loads of cash. It's a pretty nasty accusation with not a lot to back it up. It reminds me of her take on 300 where she said the film was a piece of anti-Arab propaganda (hmm... weren't the Persians in 300 the big bad superpower in that movie? Hmm... kind of like the US today?)

I just feel that Dana tries too hard to be deep, and fails miserably. Instead of capturing some hidden insight or tapping into some cultural zeitgeist, her reviews often appear to me like the rantings of a lone crackpot.

1) That's strange, I was able to get the mildly positive vibe after one read. Reading comprehension helps.

2) Actually, given that every review I've read has cited the 9/11 connection, she is not alone. Have you seen the movie? Do you know what you are talking about? A lot are more negative than this one.

3) There was very little in the 300 about the persians being a superpower. Rather, to the degree the movie wasn't simply overstylized crap, it was about differences in political culture and ideology, not about political realism and the cultural hegomony. It's easy to see the talk about 'freedom' versus 'slavery' and 'rationality' versus 'superstition'. Not to mention that this movie came in a context of centuries of equating the Persian wars specifically as a battle between the 'west' and the (middle) 'eas'.

" ... but I can't stand Dana's reviews."

" ...I had to read it 2 and a half times to figure that out with all the backhanded compliments."

" ... her reviews often appear to me like the rantings of a lone crackpot."

This is too funny -- person complains about somebody, describes them as a "ranting ... crackpot," and then re-reads a review a couple of times (plus!), in order to ...

???

Speaking of lone crackpots ... ;-) ...

Hey Jamscari. Being insulting doesn't help get your point across, it just makes you come across as a bitch. I'm guessing your a woman, btw, from your "fanboy" comments. For the record, use your little, little mind to try to grasp this: I don't give a shit about Coverfield, I'm not a fan of J.J. Abrams, I'm just a fan of coherent reviewing. If you LIKE Dana, that's your opinion. How about counterpointing why you like her style instead of being a snotty little internet thug? xo

PS Jamscari: Can YOU tell me what "being Cloverfied-ized" means as a value judgement? NO, you can't. That's because it's a bullshit writerly sentence that looks good but means...nothing. Which is the type of thing I don't like Dana for. Not because she doesn't like "nerd" movies, whatever the hell that means.

I apologize to the op for the 'idiot' remark.

Clarknova: I think you are correct on all counts.

Jasamcari: What's wrong with you?

I just created my own thread, so I won't post my opinion here, short of saying that Stevens must be on her way out. This review betrays such ignorance, there is no way the editors won't see right through it.

The line obviously meant that the effect of the movie was shallow and skin deep, much like a carwash only effects the very surface of the car. Was that so hard?

Okay, good. Thanks for translating (while still managing to be completely condescending, of course). Now, what does "Shallow and skin deep" mean? That the, um, giant 80 minute monster movie didn't stick with Dana? Shocker! Or did she think it would end up being the next 400 Blows? Should all movies be judged by the same criteria when some are obviously trying to be art, and some are simply craft? WHY did Cloverfield leave her feeling that way? etc... these sorts of things are what good reviewers (previously sited above) do, in my opinion. Jamscari, you STILL haven't managed to define WHY you like Dana's reviews. Just because you are the minority on this thread doesn't mean you couldn't let us know and possibly give some insight. Or maybe you'd rather be snotty again?

Whoops! The "previously cited" reviewers I mentioned were David Thomson and Roger Ebert. It was on a different thread though.

Not quite sure why you're getting so worked up about this. If (as would seem to be the case) you've come to realize that you don't like movie reviews written by Dana Stevens, then why even read them in the first place? Go and find yourself a movie reviewer whose worldview is more in keeping with your own - this is what the internet excels at.

@ braddo22- I'm not getting worked up by anything other than being condescended to. If you don't like me posting here about why I don't like Dana, I suggest you take your own advice- don't read my posts. I read Slate daily and I miss David Edelstein. Dana, so far, has not impressed me. I'm using the Fray to express my displeasure (along with others) in the hope that either a) Dana sharpens up and stops writing so lazily, or b) Slate forces her to or fires her. Sorry if you don't agree, you're also free to tell me why YOU like Dana. I'd love to hear that instead of someone insulting me or telling me to go somewhere else. What am I missing with her?

I'm not insulting you, I mean it - unlike the days when, say, one's local paper was the main or only source of movie reviews and you had to put up with this, even if you thought the reviewer was a fool or a press-release-rewriting hack, you can nowadays go anywhere online to access the kinds of reviewers whose views and tastes match your own (or near enough). Conversely (as in the local newspaper example), you're no longer obliged to keep in touch with the viewpoint of reviewers and critics who you can't stand. In other words, that's why I read Dana Stevens, but keep well away from, say, Ed Gonzalez, who's a complete tool as far as I'm concerned, and whose reviews just piss me off (sound familiar?). And to continue with this theme: if you miss David Edelstein, well, his reviews are just a few keystrokes away at the online version of New York Magazine, yes?