Good... but not THAT good.

Rating: Null/10 (20 January 2008)

After seeing Cloverfield, I have to wonder if this movie is popular because it is a really that good of a movie or because it's been a while since Hollywood has been able to produce a movie this creative and unique. I believe it is more the latter than the former. Besides the hand-held camera effect, I think the real appeal of this movie lies in it's ability to lull you into a state of vulnerability... meaning that there are these intense action sequences then nothing.. and the nothing goes on to the point where you know something is going to happen but are worn down so much by the time it finally does happen that you are genuinely startled. It's a neat trick and I think a lot of people like that sort of thing but as for me, I find it a bit irritating at times.
The acting was actually very good and the special effects were also very well done... pretty much what we expect from Hollywood these days. The story is very basic and ultimately in my opinion is pointless. I left the theater fairly entertained but had I not gone, I don't feel I would have really missed anything. I know there have been many comparisons to this and Blair Witch, many people saying this is a better movie and it probably is... today, however after all the Blair Witch hype was over you ended up with a so-so movie that tips the IMDb meter at a mere 6.1 today but when it came out, it was THE movie to see.. kinda like Cloverfield.
In the end, it's a good movie but for me it's a case of style over substance and a movie I will probably forget about by tomorrow morning.