|
|
Crispy
|
Posted: April 16, 2009 at 12:43am
I think all of you people crying foul on the realism were expecting too much. When it comes to these giant monster movies, a very healthy suspension of disbelief is a must. And yes, that includes character logic. And as for Beth and her lack of acting skills, I'm willing to forgive her there because she's hot as hell. As per usual with \"you are there\" flicks, I hated the approach (BWP is the only time I've appreciated it), but the \"flashback\" gimmick to the day at Coney Island was a pretty cool idea. I didn't like the creature itself though; I thought it was too spindly and the inverted front legs made it look really awkward. All in all, the movie was mildly entertaining. It exceeded my expectations, which were extremely low. I'd probably go about 5.5 or a 6.
|
Greg Follender
|
Posted: April 16, 2009 at 8:59pm
Lotsa problems with those flashbacks even still being within the film proper if it was filmed the way the story purports it to be...
It's not so much that folks expect \"realism\", so to speak... it's just that utter stupidity and bad storytelling tends to bog down the narrative.
If the film didn't try so hard to project a sense of \"you are there realism\"... then it's complete failure to achieve this wouldn't be so glaringly noticeable;)
Still, your rating matches mine... we're on the same page.
|
Lucid Dreams
|
Posted: July 11, 2010 at 2:52am
It was ok, but the acting was awful, and the monster looked stupid. However, I would have loved to see Lizzy Caplan naked on here. 4/10
|
|
