Great Film overall

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I am angry that a portion of my life that is now gone was spent watching this abortion. I have to ask the actress/writer/whatever what she was thinking? I could understand this as an 8th grade project, MAYBE, but this is terrible and an affront to thinking humans everywhere. I know I lost IQ points watching this. First of all, why do these college-age people have to push their global-warming BS? Second, IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A MONSTER ATTACK A CITY - MAKE IT "NOT-TOKYO!!!!" Come on, this city has had enough monsters.But the main problem is that these young ladies actually tried to make a serious movie that only a 12-year old could have dreamed up. Nothing makes sense. Beyond that, women everywhere should be bitch-slapping these women for putting women back into the pre-1980's "we are scared of everything" mindset.Redeeming qualities. The chest and butt of the lead character was the only thing good about the movie. Definitely nice to see an "actress" (stretching the title here) who does not sport silicon body parts. Maybe, just maybe, had they descended into a lesbian-incestuous scene, I might have forgotten that I pay Netflix every month to keep crap like this online.

This movie is Bad. I mean really Bad, as much as I hate movies like Meet the Spartans and the Hurt Locker, I at least know that the people making those films are trying to make something good. This is a shameless rip-off, that they made, solely to make money after the success of Cloverfield.The plot is very similar to Cloverfield. Except instead of 6 teenagers in New York, we have 2 American sister reporters in Tokyo. They are interviewing a Japenese man when a horrible CGI tenticle comes up and begins destroying the city. So we follow the two through their adventures while trying to survive. I'm going to be honest, I haven't watched the ending yet, so I don't know what the monster looks like, but believe me, I don't care.And if you thought the camera in the Hurt Locker was bad, this movie is literally 45% static. Most of the movie I can't see anything, just a cheap way to get out of showing special effects.So is there anything I liked? Well, the two main actresses were actually pretty good. Not outstanding, but I do hope they have promising careers ahead of them.

I don't know if this piece of drek was entirely coincidental to "Cloverfield" or not, but it doesn't feel that way. I understand when disaster happens, video equipment will get damaged and there needs to be some realism. But at least in "Cloverfield" you could follow the story. The camera malfunctions came so often that it was like watching a badly put together nickelodeon. The malfunctions themselves seemed to be unrealistic at times. I will admit the brief shots of the tentacled monster were not bad, but if it's impossible to follow the story, then nothing else matters. Oh, one more thing. On a movie this bad, I really don't want to see a behind the scenes documentary. That's like pouring acid on a wound.

Perhaps one of you, eloquent commentators, could explain how "Monster" (on the market since January 18, 2008) can be a knockoff of "Cloverfield" (on the screen since January 16, 2008)? A great show of clairvoyance or a masterpiece of film-making and marketing? There are quite a few flaws in the movie (like why the recording on the first cassettes was OK and the distorted picture/sound effects appear at the same time the monster does - if the cassettes were found later together, damaged), but they are their own flaws. Oh, and stop wondering how one camera battery could hold for so long - the girls had a few batteries, as they indicate themselves at one point.