The movie is not a gimmick, this review is a gimmick. Dana Stevens affects outrage over Abrams' exploiting 9/11 for commercial gain, but she has it backwards in 2 respects: (1)Abrams is not exploiting 9/11, she is; (2) monster movies haven't changed in the wake of 9/11; rather, it is reality that has changed so that now any disaster movie set in New York recalls, necessarily, the events of that day in 2001. (In the alternative, I will argue that if the scene with the dust flowing down the street does directly reference 9/11, then this is not an exploitation but a sort of homage: that image is a part of our national consciousness now, and it is normal, healthy, and good that artists incorporate it into our culture. Either way, Dana misses the point.) The only exploitation going on here is Dana Stevens exploiting 9/11 as a cheap gimmick to get readers to read her awful, uninformed, poorly written review.

What's with all the commenting on the fact that the actors and actresses are attractive? Dana, are you serious? Cloverfield is not quite unique in this way; all actors and actresses are good looking and have their make up done to look better. Why is this an issue? You sound almost bitter about it.

Also, the opening scene takes place in Beth's father's apartment, not Rob's. You repeat your mistake by saying that she (Beth) is in his (Rob's) bed. She is, actually, in her father's bed. This may seem trivial, but if you can't even remember simple stuff like this, how am I to trust your review of the movie? And why isn't anyone fact checking your understanding of the plot? Don't you guys have an intern who can watch the movie with your review in hand, just to make sure you don't misstate simple facts? You did the same thing with I am Legend. Honestly, how do you keep this job?

And what on EARTH does this sentence mean: "Watching it is like going through a car wash: You come out of it thoroughly Cloverfield-ized, but essentially unchanged." Whaa?

Dana, you're just another moron who doesn't quite get it. Accordingly, I let you off the hook. But to the editors of Slate: how do you let this run? Seriously. Your standards seem incredibly high when it comes to the rest of the site, why don't you monitor the film reviews more closely? Have you guys seen the movie yourselves yet, or do you just trust Dana? Don't trust her. Garbage. I predict that this review gets taken down soon.

Then again, I have just returned from the movie, so maybe I have just been " thoroughly Cloverfield-ized" (but essentially unchanged). Seriously, what is that supposed to mean?

"...exploitation but a sort of homage", you say potato, I say...the references were there, you haven't denied that.

Your review is pretty intense! Unless you're the filmmaker. I didn't find Dana's review as negative as you viewed it. The review is also a bit more of a "film theory" essay at the director's choices, not so much the plot. You enjoyed the movie for the plot - good for you. Calling someone a moron over a movie review??

I almost welcome the 9/11 references, I thought it gave a movie that almost lacked an interesting plot (for me) a bit of character among a long drug out mission to save a girl I had no feelings for.

To be honest, I was also wondering why they had picked out such a soap opera looking cast, except that it's obviously a creative choice for the aesthetic of the film. Everyone one of my male friends has mentioned they would go back for her too.

The definition of unchanged that I have come across is: remaining in an original state; "persisting unaltered through time". Maybe that will help in understand what Dana might have meant. I was thinking it meant the held little consequence in the well-crafted, deeper meaning movie genre.

Actually the hand-held camera thing is a gimmick. The fact that they kept the movie a secret up until its release but allowed the internet to pump as much buzz as possible was a marketing gimmick. There are plenty of ways to present a film in a documentary/subjective sort of way. Just look at Cuaron's Children of Men last year. They use long takes, hand held cameras and a blue-cobalt tint to give that same impression. But the use of this was to create more intensity and suspense to drive the story- and you certainly didn't know that before seeing it. No one reasoned to see the movie saying, "Oh, did you see the preview? The fifteen minute long takes seem awesome!"

No, you see the "teaser" trailer (which shows nothing of the monster, nor anything about the plot) and go. "Oh my god, like, I totally want to see that Godzilla movie or something, you know the one that's all like, done from someone's camcorder!"

Gimmick.

I don't really take issue with anything you write until the last paragraph. And I can’t believe someone (you) has a problem with my criticism of that sentence. I think even Stevens would admit that it is at best 90% clever wordplay and 10% actual meaning. But I need to defend my position, I guess, so here it goes.

I know that you know that I know the definition of "unchanged." So I guess you defined it as a way of saying, "It's obvious -- what don't you get? " But I wonder if you get it. Your explanation of the meaning of Dana's sentence is even more unintelligible than the unintelligible sentence you're attempting to decode: you write, "I was thinking it meant the held little consequence in the well-crafted, deeper meaning movie genre." Even setting the typo aside (I read in the word “film” between “the” and “held”), the second half of the sentence doesn’t mean anything. I know you have a simple and, possibly, good point there. But in its current form it makes no sense. So either you hurried through those final words or you don’t know what Dana’s original sentence means any more than I do (my guess is a little of both). Either way, I’d be interested to learn what you were trying to say.

My problem is -- obviously -- not with the use of the verb "unchanged" but rather with the use of the verb "Cloverfieldized." Define that for me, please, and then explain to me the logic of having been anything-ized and yet not having been changed. (If the distinction hinges on the adverb “essentially” – i.e. if the point is that you can be something-ized but essentially unchanged as opposed to truly unchanged – then disregard the following, but if this is the case then the sentence has even bigger problems than those discussed below.) If you are sanitized, you are made clean, and therefore have been changed. If you are terrorized, you are made afraid, and therefore have been changed. But what does it mean to be "Cloverfieldized" and how is it possible to be "Cloverfieldized" without being changed?

The simile in the sentence -- going through a car wash -- sheds a bit of light, but not too much. All we know is that being "Cloverfieldized" is like going through a car wash; so, I guess, insofar as a car wash does not alter the car in any substantial way (short of cleaning it), we might posit that Cloverfield does not alter us in any substantial way, short of. . .what? This is where that simile loses meaning - car washes clean, Cloverfield. . .does what? Surely Stevens is suggesting that there is some sort of normative answer to this question, i.e. that there is something that this film does, a uniform effect that it has on the abstract viewer. But what does it do? What effect does it have? This is what we want a review to tell us. So here's the point: I know more or less what Stevens is driving at: seeing The Matrix might Matrix-ize us, just like watching Star Wars might Star Wars-ize us, just like watching Cloverfield might Cloverfield-ize us; but without some substantive discussion of how being Martix-ized is different from being Star Wars-zed is different from being Cloverfield-ized, the distinction is limited to the mere fact of the individual having seen one movie or another, and thus the use of these insert-film-here-ized verbs amount to nothing but the stating of mere truisms. I think we should expect more from a professional movie critic. I have no doubt Stevens could write a compelling definition for the verb “Cloverfieldize.” But since she attempts no such thing, the use of that word, though cute and seemingly clever, adds nothing to the review.

All of this is to simply reiterate a point that was made by another poster here in The Fray: Stevens is known for crafting these highly lyrical, highly critical sentences that appear witty, deep, and poignant, but are -- as the few readers willing to pause for a moment and unpack these sentences learn -- ultimately meaningless.

I don't think she's a moron - not really, not in the sense that she is unintelligent. Disliking a bad movie does not make one unintelligent, while liking a good movie does not make one intelligent. But I think we all know what I mean when I say you’re a moron if you didn’t like Daniel Day Lewis’s performance in There Will Be Blood. I’m not saying you are unintelligent. I’m saying you’re a freaking moron. Maybe my use of moron is colloquial and therefore inappropriate for the international audience here in The Fray. I apologize. Wherever I use the word “moron,” please insert this phrase: a sorely mistaken though well intentioned individual. Snugasabug, you are a moron.

Let me choose my battles.

Okay – you’re right, Satori. The movie is gimmicky. But so is the review, which makes the review both gimmicky and hypocritical, which is way worse than merely gimmicky. Besides, it is one thing for a monster movie to be gimmicky and another altogether for a film review on Slate.com to be gimmicky.

The more interesting debate (which you don’t comment on) is whether Dana’s review is gimmicky. Do you see what I am getting at about the irony of her using 9/11 as a provactive angle for a review on a monster movie her criticism of which revolves around the fact that the movie is both gimmicky and exploitive of 9/11?