The Monster movie,from the margins

Rating: 6/10 (25 May 2008)

Having read through a sampling of some of the other comments on this site,I gotta say that I'm very struck by the fact that this film doesn't inspire much "in-betwens": a fair share of either 8s,9s or 10s or else 2s or 1s on the star rating,and more than a couple of angry,sardonic dismissals paired in with a few positive "I get it" type reviews.
I suppose,having to chose between the negative and positive reviews,I'd be counted on the latter,though barely.
At this point,I don't think I'm telling any secrets or revealing anything that isn't already known about this film:producer J.J. Abrams,director Matt Reeves and writer Drew Goddard have constructed a spare,seemingly low-budget concept movie. That this is a creature movie--and what a creature it is,replete with nearly impregnable skin and spouting offspring that's much smaller but nasty and plentiful--seems to be somewhat of a subject experiment. In other words,this is a monster movie,but the monster seems to be of less direct interest than the viewpoint and survival of some of the New Yorkers who are enduring it,in this instance the five-some of friends/family who are coming from a going away party for one of them in mid-town Manhattan. While the five actors Michael David-Stahl,Jessica Lucas,Lizzy Caplan,T.J. Miller and Mike Vogel(searching for a sixth,played by Odette Yustman)seem to show some sparks of interest,humor or emotional depth,their characters have almost no depth and hence,no real reason to care about them. It isn't until the more intimate,scary and tangential moments of the later film does it seem that there's much reason to have any interest into their fates,and by then,it feels like too little and too late.
The best part of this film is by far the concept and,in a grudging sense,the execution of it. The hand-held effect of filming a movie,particularly in a horror/sci-fi sense,is something of an work in audience endurance. Since there is a premium on audience fear,confusion and apprehension in any scary film,the objective of the filmmaker is to make that fear roundly and emotionally real. If one can stomach(Literally and figuratively)the bouncy,disjointed and shaky filming process--which seems fairly credible given the circumstances--then the movie's creators have done a fantastic that said viewer will be impressed. Promotion of this film,as mentioned by others,also is the grand mark or opus of this creation,being able to achieve a sense of audience interest and curiosity WELL before its release,an accomplishment that puts it up there with such cult films(which became equally famous for the public interest burnout that followed the initial swell of turnout)as "Blair Witch Project" and "Snakes on a PLane".
Overall,I'd say this movie is certainly worth a look,though I wouldn't give any grand superlatives for how brilliant or great it is. It's effective,"BOO!"-type sci-fi/action/horror,that revels more in the concept and image than the volume of the product. NO more,no less.