by Legion » Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:54 pm
Some examples of reader comments from the Jim Hill article I posted earlier.
A positive review (SPOILERS):
"I went to a screening last night and the Paramount suits told us to not tell anyone what the creature looked like.
Well, I'd like to tell you what the creature looked like but it's kind of difficult without something to compare it to. Finally, something so original that it defies description. I can say this much. It looks like it walks on all fours, it has a tail and it moves with a speed and ferocity that you don't get from Godzilla. It is absolutely massive, the smaller creatures are frightening and the movie takes its time in letting you see what the creature looks like. But this is a good thing.
And the movie is short. We are talking about an hour and a half tops. Which is good because the camera work is so raw and amateur looking that it makes you feel like you are part of the experience. But since it is from the point of view of Hud's camera, the movement can potentially give you motion sickness. When you go see the flick, make sure you see it as far back as possible.
I am getting my ticket to go see again this weekend."
And a negative review (MORE SPOILERS):
"Isaw a sneak screening last night and I hated it. A little hand held camera work is great... but a whole movie with the attendant bad lighting, angles etc. made it pretty unwatchable. The first fifteen minutes is all about very rich and beautiful twenty-somethings living the good life in New York; pretty standard Melrose Place stuff except we never learn enough about any of them to like them and care about them when they die. PLOT: Some spoiled rich kids run back into the city and get themslves killed by some sort of monster for no good reason.
Too many unanswered questions make this "Blair Wich Project" retread a waste of time and money.
Unanswered questions: What is the creature? Why is it in New York? Where is it from? Why is the movie called "Cloverfield"? Is the creature ever killed? How is it killed?"