MattCreamer.com

I’m a fiend for horror movies and a fan of just about any plot with apocalyptic tones and I’ll bite hard on good marketing that takes some time to build out a story. So I was seriously anticipating the arrival of the JJ Abrams-produced “Cloverfield.” A few friends and I went on Friday, opening night, and we were completely disappointed. Put simply, the movie sucks and it sucks for some pretty big reasons. For one thing, it seems the filmmakers spent more time on the rather innovative marketing that’s been building buzz for the release for months than they did on the script that had me bored in seconds.

I’ll save you a longwinded explanation of the plot, which boils down to a bunch of 20-something partygoers trying to escape a New York that’s being torn apart by some sort of monster that appears to have been created by the government. That old saw. The story is told entirely through footage from a videocamera found after the action takes place. So you only see what the character holding the video-camera sees. It’s a neat trick that’s done very well. That unusual framing device happens to be wholly responsible for what little suspense Cloverfield is successful in creating. Like a first-person shooter, the limited worldview allows for some surprises, but they’re still few and far between. In the absence of a plot and character and the failure of all the attempts at special-effects dazzling, the perspective tricks are all that’s left and it’s not enough.

As is evident from minute one, the main problem is that the characters are complete douchebags: Self-involved, too entitled, too upwardly mobile, possessive of unrealistic real estate, and diverse only in a Benetton sort of way. Somehow the monster is preferable to the Quarterlife Crisis set despite the fact that he’s treating the city in which I live like a Chinese buffet. That’s how bad these characters are. (This is a good time to note that “Cloverfield”’s director, Matt Reeves, was partially responsible for the atrocious college-age drama series “Felicity.” Dude needs to leave his 20s behind. ) The good thing is that most of these utterly trite people find their problems with life and love to be sorted out rather abruptly by a (SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!)  series of gruesome deaths, the first of which caused the audience I was part of to cheer loudly. Failures in character this thorough are rare, even in effects-driven films, and they were especially surprising given Abrams’ involvement. After all, “Lost,” for all the attention to plot, is expert at creating deep, sympathetic, engaging characters whose plights keep you paying attention through the the long and winding arcs, many of which are quite dumb.

Speaking of dumb, the other problem with “Cloverfield” is the lack of any social commentary whatsoever. You heard what I said. Social commentary. If you bring me something that aspires to be an important horror or sci-fi or fantasy film, I’m demanding allegory, some intellectual activity that cuts through the plot’s spectacle and ties me to reality. Easy example: “Dawn of the Dead” as a tale of mall-ification of 1970s America. What insight does “Cloverfield” give us? A smidgen of commentary on video-happy culture where everyone’s filming everything all the time Good start, but it’s not nearly enough and it doesn’t go anywhere. There are also a few 9/11 references: a huge cloud of dust, for instance, and legions trying to escape disaster by streaming over a bridge en masse. These tableaux are neither disturbing nor offending; they’re just proof of a lack of imagination.

So, yeah, “Cloverfield” doesn’t have anything to say, doesn’t scare, doesn’t surprise, doesn’t jolt. Outside the perspective trick, which is, as I said before, neat, there’s nothing to recommend it, besides, of course, as a depiction of the evisceration of a klatch of d-bags who have it coming to them. I don’t know. Maybe, in these times we live in, that’s worth something.