Reviews

There are plenty of people who experience sleep paralysis. Real, genuine, terrifying experiences that can leave a person fearful of even trying to sleep.

The individuals they chose to interview for this movie were a mockery of those people. Most of those chosen to give accounts of their "sleep paralysis" history just needed some serious therapy, or were looking for something more from their lives and some heavy nightmares gave them that out. Their retelling hardly even mention the term "paralysis." A few eschew the idea entirely, including a retelling where one man goes to sleep, is awoken by his phone, WALKS AROUND, and then wakes up when a voice over the phone shouts at him. Where, exactly, is the paralysis in this nightmare?

The fact that nobody from the medical community was interviewed to give balanced input also tells you what the filmmakers were hoping to create: a sensationalized, problematic definition of the topic.

Needless to say, I was disappointed in this film which had me so interested given the synopsis.

Everyone in this movie has such a chip on their shoulder. They all desperately need therapy and are so incredibly insipid. Why can't any of them have a conversation without randomly getting angry and defensive? I spent the entire time begging, BEGGING someone to have the maturity talk to someone else without shouting something and running away.

Please don't watch this unless you have divine patience.

I loved the colorful visuals. Everything in the movie felt very Christmas-y and cozy. The costumes were great as well. All the lively ensemble dance numbers were energetic and fun. While not all the songs were memorable, some were made better by having such kinetic accompanying scenes.

On top of that, the vocal performances were great from most of the cast, especially Anika Noni Rose. And the acting was very good from even the younger cast members.

That said, I wished there were more songs. After having several numbers in the first 30 minutes, there were long stretches without anything. While that's not necessarily an issue, outside of the dance numbers, the film lost some of its energy.

I also wasn't particularly fond of the decision to make magic math-based. That kind of takes the magic out of the magic, at least for me.

Overall though, Jingle Jangle is a fun, festive film that I think a lot of people can enjoy.

Aesthetically, this is one of the most artful films I've ever seen. Each shot is gorgeously crafted; the costumes, the set pieces, the battle sequences.

If only the plot hadn't worn away at the positives. One or two ending twists is fine, but they shoved in so many redirections at the end, trying desperately to outmaneuver the audience, that the film devolves into indiscernible ridiculousness. I had high hopes for this one, and it could have lived up to them given the artful qualities, but it unfortunately fell short.

Still worth a watch, but don't expect a storytelling masterpiece.

"Moana" is an exemplary demonstration of what Disney Animation can pull out at their best. The story is rich in culture and symbols. Characters feel true and develop beautifully. Of course, the visual aspects are beyond belief: every color and texture is vibrant and full of detail.

While it does fall into some Disney princess tropes(although we are reminded adamantly that she is not a princess per se but a chief's daughter), there is enough newness to "Moana" that it does not feel like a retread. She is rebellious but dutiful, innocent but strong, and the involvement of her (hilarious) animal sidekick is kept to a minimum. What is surprisingly refreshing is that there is no love interest to distract from the main conflict (not that I have any issue with other Disney characters having romantic side-stories).

My only critique of "Moana" would have to be with it's music. There are some truly wonderful melodies, particularly "We Know the Way," which manages to resonate with all that is wonderful about the music of the pacific. However, I felt some other numbers were not on par with the best of Disney classics. I do not know if Lin-Manuel Miranda was responsible for the lyrics, but whoever was should be told that words do not rhyme with themselves. "Go" does not rhyme with "go," and "island" does not rhyme with "island." Using this sort of rhyming pattern once or maybe a couple times can be bold and memorable, repeatedly just makes it sound like they couldn't come up with better lyrics.

Overall, I greatly enjoyed this film. The visuals were incredible, the plot well paced, and the story beautifully told. I had a great time watching "Moana" and would recommend it to anyone who does not mind being transported to a magical, tropical paradise for a couple hours.

I found "The Witch" to be a generally unnerving film, and one which--though I would not place it in the pantheon of scariest flicks I've ever seen--had some moments that I'll not easily forget.

The atmosphere Eggers creates alone is enough to wrench serious dread from scenes other directors would be otherwise unable to make even remarkable. The score, too, helps cull this dark tone and adds life to a film that can be borderline tedious.

That being said, "The Witch" is not for everyone. It is strange, slow but steady, gruesome at points, and almost un-watchable at others. There are two sides to this film; one which I had hoped the director would stick to concerning the family and their struggle with religion and isolation; and another which plays as an undercurrent to most of the film and then takes charge in the end. Sadly, it is this second side which keeps me from giving the film a better score, and that ultimately hurts the film in the very final scene.

Overall, I enjoyed "The Witch" and its originality. Eggers has achieved a film that, for all its low-budget and independent film background, feels richer and better made than many horror entries of late. Should you decide to see it, a word of caution: do not expect a fast-paced movie full of jump scares and creepy crawlies emerging left and right. As the opening credits remind the audience, this is a folktale. One that does not shy away from exploring the real dark places.

For the second time this week, I find myself at a loss and disappointed yet again by a horror movie lauded by critics. The first was "The Babadook" and the second being this little fright flick.

I understand the director's insatiable need to please critics and horror movie buffs with reference after reference to classic films. I can understand the attempt to create a "timeless" setting in which time periods clash inconsequentially in a repeatably jarring way. And I can even jive with the "artistic" cinematography with its long, lingering shots and odd angles for the sake of, well, art! What I can't forgive is the unmitigated sense that this entire thing was built off of an idea rather than a story. "Hey, let's have a throwback referencing every great horror movie and director under the sun, which hearkens on the sexual exploitation of horror slashers!" What's it about? "Well, just some thing that follows you around after you have sex with the wrong person." What's the plot? "Well, they're going to run from it. Stop someplace until it comes. Run from it again. Stop someplace else. And well, kind of do that for an hour and a half." There is no motive. There is no character development (in fact there is barely any character at all). There are no developing story arcs. And at the end, surprise, there is no resolution! Suffice to say, once again, I'm begrudgingly unimpressed by something that was slapped with a positive rating simply because it wasn't released by mainstream Hollywood. I know, it's hip to dig anything indie, but I guess that's something I haven't quite been able to follow.

Hype is a dangerous thing, especially in this day and age where your access to hype is as far reaching as you choose to make it. It also doesn't help when you get blind adoration from critiques seeking artistic integrity by lauding anything art-house or indie.

I don't mean to completely dismiss "Babadook." Rare is the contemporary horror movie that seeks to do more than make a few things go bump in the night, and this film is rife with symbolism and metaphor. Amelia is a struggling single mother coping with a difficult 6-year-old (Sam) and the postpartum depression that has plagued her ever since her husband died while driving her to the hospital to birth their son. Her struggle is tragic and heartrending. And during the first act, the movie does well with getting us to feel the immense stress that comes with her every day life.

But a good idea does not a good film make. The editing is incredibly poor, cutting out unnecessary bits of conversations and jumping clumsily through scenes that require a different pacing all together to be effective. The director is a huge fan of having a dramatic scene cut abruptly (music and all) right when it's becoming emotionally involving for the audience, and shifting tone completely. "It's just mimicking her fragile broken state" you may cry, to which I would answer yes, maybe, but you can only use that effect so many times before it's just shoddy film-making.

And finally, "Babadook" is completely devoid of scares. Any scene that might be on the verge of making your hairs stand on end is painfully corrupted by the monster's laughable noises or cheesy special effects. In fact, on more than one occasion, the film even fell victim to one of horror's most terrifying enemies: the unintentional laugh.

Don't get me wrong. I love horror. Even bad, campy horror. But the pedestal this movie was put on really set me up for a dour disappointment. I guess I'm not someone who's easily impressed by something just because it didn't come out of Hollywood.

Let me get one thing out first: this was not a great movie. It could be a good movie, but right now I'm such in shock that I don't know how I feel. I don't understand the reviews saying this movie is boring or slow. I felt like it had a very nice pace that kept the story rolling and my interest high.

What I will say is that the biggest detriment to this movie is that it was willing to have its characters make stupid choices in order for the creepy, intense scenes to happen. People often don't turn on lights when they are readily available (or should be, maybe there were unspoken reasons why the lights weren't working?). When Deborah becomes violent and injures people, she is not kept under lock and key until they can figure out how to treat her, rather she is allowed to go home time and again so she can do the same things. And of course, people go into places alone when they shouldn't, and don't call for back up when they should.

That being said, I have to hand it to the filmmakers for creating some of the most intense and effective scaring that I've seen in years. Not even just the finale (I'll get to that later) but intermittently. Not everything works, and not every scare is fresh or original, but quite a few of them hit the mark and had me at the edge of my seat.

And finally the ending. I had read in other reviews that this was quite the doozy, and I have to admit I was in no way, shape, or form prepared. I don't want to over-hype it (although I can't imagine how), but that was something I could not have seen coming, and for the first time in my horror-loving life, I actually had to look away from the screen. The image is still burned in my mind.

I can say that the ending almost made the whole thing worth it, but just for setting up the scary bits I can't rationalize all the stupidity the characters show. As a whole, I don't regret watching "Taking" but it definitely had its flaws.

That ending though...

I really wanted to like this movie, I really did. I'm a huge science fiction fan, and if Nolan had kept the "realism" and tone that the first hour or so promised, I would've been more than happy with this film.

Nolan's imagination is impressive, an expansive force that drives many of his movies. However, it is also his downfall in "Interstellar," a film in which he doesn't have the satisfying answers to reconcile the realistic fiction he wants to portray. The plot is littered with points that exist because, well...science. For instance, the characters refer frequently to an equation Michael Cain's character is investigating to solve a "gravity" problem. But not much explanation is put for into how this would solve anything about bringing a colony of people into space.

Finally, this opinion will probably cause many people to ignore me: I feel Nolan is still a very good filmmaker, but this movie glimpses him falling into the same "black hole" (see what I did there?) which ensnared M. Night Shyamalan. Because "Inception" and his Dark Knight trilogy were such a massive, profound success, he feels the need to make every ounce of dialogue ooze from the actors' mouths as if it's the most important, mind-altering thing you've ever heard. The movie becomes bogged down with long, dragging sequences of people staring as if in wonder, coming to realizations that are meant to inspire awe in us. However, these do little more than bloat an already over-long running time that felt like 7 years, but amounted to one Earth hour. The end serves up a slew of maddeningly predictable "twists" that were pretty obvious an hour before the big reveal.

I will say the acting is done incredibly well by the cast, even if their script is not always on par with their talents. As always, Nolan is exceptional with visuals, and most of the tremendously dramatic middle portion was effective, albeit borderline overdone with sap. I could've managed without as many repetitions of Dylan Thomas' "Do not go gentle into that good night." A beautiful poem that is awkwardly spouted throughout the film. A couple times was effective, five times was pretentious.

This will not deter me from seeing future Nolan feature presentations, however, it in no way deserves the IMDb "9" rating that it has simply because it is Nolan. I can see why people would be impressed enough by the visuals to forgo the convoluted, flawed story, but not enough to land the film in any top 250. If this exact film were released under any other filmmaker's name (besides perhaps Spielberg or the like), I can guarantee you it would be far less lauded by audiences.

Maybe there's something that I'm just completely missing, or maybe it's just me, but I really do not see what is so great about these movies. And I'm talking about the (mainly) Judd Apatow batch of films that just seem to be all about dropping the f-bomb every other word, doing drugs, excessive drinking, and constant sex. I just don't find them funny, and yes, you are going to crucify me, but I'm talking about 'The Hangover,' 'Pineapple Express,' and all those sorts of films. I don't find people getting wasted, or stoned funny. Needless to say, I did not like 'Get Him To Greek.' It was just another blur of cussing, sex, drugs, and drinking, with a half-hearted and vague moral thrown in there just to save face. Something about monogamy and sobriety tucked into the last couple minutes that I could tell the producers didn't believe but just inserted so they wouldn't be criticized for their promotion of these reckless behaviors.

But I seem to be the only one on this boat. People were in hysterics in the theater while I sat there in disgust, so if you like this sort of profane movie it's probably genius. You should go see it. But if you're anyone who doesn't promote the lifestyle of a junkie, constantly-hammered half-wit then stay away.

Oh, and half of the scenes in the commercials seemed to be cut out of the movie. Just to let you know.

If you're just dying to see how the Saw saga ends, then go ahead. See Saw VI, I can't say that you won't be satisfied, but in my opinion, Saw III would have definitely been where I'd have ended the series.

While SAW VI does it's best to tie up the entire thing, it's severely lacking in some areas that are key to making a Saw movie more than just some random torture-porn. One is characters we care about. Sure, it's all nice to see these people running about, but especially in this movie and in the past couple, the characters are all new and are so wrapped up in all the other story arcs that they get no development, they have no feelings, and therefore we just don't care. THe reason Saw I-III worked was that we actually had characters that meant something to us. If you're going to wrap up something as huge as Saw, then by the sixth installment we want some familiarity, at least character-wise, so that it actually means something to us.

The second piece missing was a good twist. Sure, there was a little bit of a eye-widener at the end, but the intended shocker was something that was way too foreshadowed and way too predictable. It's like the makers of the Saw movies have decided that audiences are too stupid and so they lay out the pieces of the puzzle plainly and even then they enter flashbacks from previous movies or memories that seem unnecessary. I longed for an ending reminiscent of the first two (the only real shockers) or even close to the third (which was alright, but still wasn't as great as the first), but there was none. It was just something they put there hoping to satisfy audiences.

Lastly, and what was perhaps most missed and the biggest flaw of the second trilogy of the saga, was that Jigsaw is not present. Hoffman has never garnered any interest of mine, I have never cared for him. Even Amanda was interesting, but Hoffman, he's whatever. And that right there is why it doesn't work.

Overall, the gore and the traps were pleasing eye-candy (although i still long for the more creative methods of the first two where there were no giant machines that, when they had to have been brought into place, probably would have caused some suspicion). If anything, that's what saved this movie from a horrible downfall. I found Saw VI to be the ending I expected from the direction the movies were headed, and I'm glad to see Jigsaw finally, and truly at rest. Hopefully, he stays that way.

I've never seen anything more than the first, maybe 10-minutes of Borat. So it's not really possible for me to compare Cohen's two mockumentary comedies based off characters of his "Ali-G" show. However, I don't really feel the need to juxtapose the two movies. From what I've heard about Borat, as well as the countless horrible imitations I've witnessed, the former of Cohen's films was a beautifully crass comedy.

My expectations have fallen since seeing Bruno. Don't get me wrong, his delightfully hilarious commentary on America's societal views of homosexuality, celebrity status, as well as a slew of other issues is as genius as the invention of the self-flushing toilet. However, just like the self-flushing toilet, at times the film seems unnecessary.

Cohen knows how to make the audience laugh nervously and squirm awkwardly with moments of crude, balls-out comedic moments (and i mean that in the most literal sense possible). He can satirize with a humor that brings out our immature 13-year-old selves but leave us thinking. However, many times during the movie i felt he was being detrimental to his own supposed cause, heading in a homophobic direction rather away from it. I realize he was exemplifying the stereotypical homosexual man to the extreme to emphasize his point, but there's a moment when it crosses the line and just becomes rude.

That moment is perhaps the superfluous scenes with Bruno and his "2nd true love" demonstrating the love toys/methods they share; perhaps its when he fills the screen with his flapping genitalia in trashy attempt at a laugh. I couldn't even watch the screen at that point. There's a plethora of other moments that seemed unnecessary and Bruno would have done well without.

Overall, Bruno was well worth the $6 I paid for it. I'll be glad if Cohen doesn't attempt to create another "Borat"-style mockumentary. There aren't enough people left to make fun of and i wouldn't want to see another one either way.

I thought this movie might be something, but even from the beginning not only was it bad, it had so many plot holes! I don't think this will spoil anything for anyone because it wouldn't make any sense anyways so there's no way to guess any of it. in the first scene, when the "amusement" guy is sneaking up on the "bad" man talking in the house, why would the truck driver (the one on the phone) be inside the house because for one thing, it's not his. And two, later on we find out it's the "amusement" guys house (i'm sorry if i'm not making sense with the "amusement"/"bad" guy titles but the movie wasn't significant enough for me to remember their names. Also wrong with this scene is, because it relies on the crazy girl throwing herself out of the truck, how would anybody have known that she was going to do that? There is no logical reason the "amusement" guy could have known she was going to throw herself out. Later on, there's a therapist who's interviewing the blonde girl, and in the middle of the interview she discovers (the therapist) that shes in the trap of one of her old patients (the "amusement" guy) she tries to escape but is killed, but how could she not know that she wasn't in an FBI station when there's a maze of pathways to get out, some of which lead to dangerous situations. She would have to be a complete dolt not to recognize it as a trap. I've tried to give her the benefit of the doubt. I tried to say she thought it was a crime scene, but then why would they give the blonde girl trauma therapy on site? Why was the "amusement" guy so stupid? Why does he leave his weapons lying around where his "subjects" can easily get them? It was stupid, boring, confused, and a complete waste of time. I'm glad I only rented it. I could keep going about plot holes, but I won't because i'd be here all day.

The first hour of this movie was okay. Nothing great, but not bad. It was watchable. Some of the moments were funny. And Amanda Seyfried (sorry if I spelled that wrong) was surprisingly good at playing the lead roll.

But past that, things start to go down hill. Particularly during and after the wedding scene where it seems like everything is just flying out of the blue. It doesn't make sense! Where did these feelings come from? What is going on? And then the movie keeps going...and going, and going. It's like they tried to fit as many songs into the last 20 minutes as they possibly could, and it wasn't the good songs either. The movie goes flat and so did my patience with it.

I can't imagine seeing this on stage. But if they didn't change anything about the end result then I don't see myself enjoying the stage play either. Sorry, it was just a little too over-the-top.

This film was good, I'm not going to deny it. Maybe one of the best Superhero movies ever made. It had wonderful acting, mainly on the part of Heath Ledger who's brilliant Joker sent chills up and down my spine. But people we must not overlook the fact that there were downfalls to this movies.

It was much too long for it's own good. It's not the longest film of all time, but it felt much longer than it's 2 and a half hour length. I couldn't believe by the end that they'd fit all of that into one movie. It easily went beyond it's own storyline.

The other annoying bit was Batman's voice. Sure, I know he wants to disguise his voice so nobody recognizes him, but it was borderline cheesy and tiring at times.

Still, I must say I was impressed with this movie and it was exciting, but not at all perfect. I give it a 9/10

There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that Asia has had an extreme impact on American horror. Within the past couple of months, the theaters have seen more than their fair share of remade Asian-horror flicks (e.g. The Eye, featuring Jessica Alba, and One Missed Call). Yet, what made Masayuki Ochiai's Shutter (based on the Thai movie of the same name) stand out above the rest was its style, psychological impact, and visuals.

Let's face it. One Missed Call was nothing special, a far cry from The Grudge or The Ring in all respects. The Eye was interesting and had its moments, but all in all it had no real lasting effect. Shutter is closer to the old-fashioned ghost story. It doesn't waste most of its time with cheap scares, but takes the time to set up tense scenes that leave images in your mind. Rachel Taylor plays the role of Jane Shaw, the newlywed to Benjamin Shaw (Joshua Jackson) who moves with him to Tokyo where he has just received a job as a photographer. It is here that they begin to notice that in his pictures, and all other pictures of themselves, there are imperfections; what Ben figures is a "trick of the lighting" but which they soon find out is much more. These photographs are indeed evidence of "spirit photography" in which images of the dead are caught on film. It is clues hidden within these images that lead Jane to figure out who this person haunting them is and what she wants.

However much better Shutter is from movies like The Eye and One Missed Call, it is not perfect and falls short in a few places. One was its editing. The movie ran only 85 minutes long, and I can't quite imagine why, but the editors for the movie felt the need to cut out many of the key plot points from the original movie. In watching the American version, I was saddened to see some of the scenes missing that really should have been in there and, if they had, would have made the movie make more sense. There were two key scenes in particular that they disposed of, and for this I highly recommend anyone to rent the original Shutter to see them. Where Shutter also fell short was its inability to keep up its originality. We've all seen the creepy girl with long black hair who walks funny before, and there was so much they could have done with the ghost's appearance; much that was done in the original, but tamed down for Western audiences.

Overall, Shutter was well worth watching and a refreshing breath above many of the cheap movies being released all the time. I recommend seeing it in the theaters, but recommend even more so that you find a copy of the original Thai movie, sit down, and watch it first before seeing the American remake.

When I first heard that a movie version of the old English epic poem Beowulf was being made, and that its screenplay was going to be by the same author of Stardust, I immediately knew that I wanted to see it. In research I found that the movie was going to be made using a progressing style of filming called motion capture (used previously in the family Christmas movie The Polar Express) in which movements of actors are digitally recorded and then animated over, it seemed like it might be a good idea, and the fact that the movie was being put through all sorts of editing to keep it PG-13 made me believe that perhaps this wouldn't be just another "fit-as-much-blood-into-this-as-possible" type of action film.

Although I have to admit that the movie was entertaining and the special effects beyond belief, overall the film was disappointing. Improved as the motion capture effect was, the humans' movements were floppy and almost comical, I was reminded forcefully of the Shrek movies where the humans have overly-thick sausage fingers and sharp, unnatural movements. The only relief from these human images was close-ups of the characters faces where the detail was so rich it was almost impossible to tell if the image was real or computer generated. Real human actors would have done much better.

Another setback which utterly destroyed what would have otherwise been a successfully entertaining first half was the fact that the monster Grendel, which was the main reason for Beowulf's heroics, was laughable. Given a human voice (and a whiny one at that), Grendel pitifully screams his way through the first fight in which he demolished half the population of the village he's attacking. Rather than grimacing at the fact that he tears a person in half at one point, the audience laughed at how bad his presence was. Even I found him annoying.

And the rating? The most shocking part of the film was the fact that it was rated PG-13. So full of violence was this movie that a family in the theater with me left before the end of the film. As I said before, a person is ripped in half right before our eyes, twenty-something people are hung from the ceiling with their skin torn off and blood dripping down their bodies. What were they thinking when they gave the rating? I don't suggest this movie for younger brothers or sisters.

Disappointing though it was, the movie, directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Angelina Jolie, and Crispin Glover, wasn't a total loss and was actually pretty decent when you got past all its flaws…and bad first half. The only justification for going to see it in theaters is to fully appreciate the beauty with which the backgrounds and other scenery were made.

Once upon a time there was an author by the name of Neil Gaiman who decided to dazzle us all by presenting us to a magical world unlike any other we'd ever seen. In this world there was magic and fairies, witches and pirates. There was everything you could ever want in a fantasy. He named it Stardust.

Eight years later, Paramount Pictures Movies Production Company hired director Matthew Vaughn to bring to life this fairytale for the big screen. A tremendous job since the book was so beautifully written and eloquently told. With a limited budget he was to create a movie with outrageous special effects, spells at every turn, and action on a large scale. All while making it believable and entertaining.

Could he pull it off? The answer is yes.

Very seldom am I able to use the sentence: The movie was better than the book. Seldom, but here it fits the case. The movie Stardust was filled with mind-blowing action sequences, witty humor, clever lines, and a gripping plot line that slightly differed from that of the novel but was completely for the better. There is something for every viewer: action, romance, comedy, fantasy, horror; all brought together in a near-perfect way.

A modern fairytale, Stardust begins in a different place, the fictional country of wall just outside Great Britain. The city is named Wall because of the stone barrier surrounding it. Nobody is allowed to cross the barrier, neither citizens of wall, or those outside wall. Yet young Dunstan Thorn is mischievous and tricks the guard and escapes to the outside world where he meets the lovely Una at the fairy market. They fall in love and she gives birth to their son, Tristan Thorn, who is the main focus of the movie. When he is grown, he is just like his father: wanting to be outside the enclosure in which he has grown up. To win the heart of the icy Victoria, of whom he is love, he promises her that he will bring her the fallen star they see as they picnic on a grassy starlit hill.

From there the movie only gets better, drawing to a close with a satisfying climax and the perfect ending.

Even though it is two-plus hours, the movie didn't feel a minute too long as most movies of the same length do. Charlie Cox (Tristan) and Claire Danes (Yvainne) delight throughout the entire movie, taking us along a ride that includes Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Sienna Miller among others. If there was any flaw in this movie it was that it was severely under-promoted and could have done much better had it been advertised more.

I already wrote a review the night I saw this movie, but I need to change what I wrote because I just went through and read a whole bunch of reviews that were complete sh*t. Let me start by saying I have never seen such a huge bunch of weak stomachs in my life. Some of you said a lot of people ran out of the theater sick. Where do you live? Lameville? I sat through this entire movie, as did the rest of the people in the theater I was in, and not a single person left feeling sick at all. If you are running away from a giant monster you are not going to have a steady-cam, so what did you expect? Next, this movie didn't have all the answers because it was shown just as it was supposedly "recovered" from the scene of the attack. People experiencing the attack are going to be less bothered about finding answers than they are about getting the hell away from the giant, 300-foot tall monster attacking them. If you want an answer to where it came from, watch the very last scene closely and look behind the characters at the background of the frame, that gives you mondo clue to where the thing came from, so don't say they didn't give you anything. As for no character development? I don't know what movie you were watching, but Cloverfield has ten times more character development than 80% of the movies Hollywood turns out nowadays. What do you think the entire beginning 15 minutes was all about? Oh, and the "Why are those 15 minutes even there?" this is supposed to be a real videotape meaning that the characters in the movie didn't go out expecting to videotape a monster attack, they were expecting to videotape a going-away party. Someone else said there was no plot. I'm going to try not to spoil anything, but the plot was that there's a giant monster attacking Manhattan island and 5 people are trying to survive the attack while documenting it. Also, they discover that someone the main character cares about is in trouble, so they go to help her! How is that not a plot? Write a comment when you actually know what you're talking about.