Entertainment Weekly - B+; Liked the action, hated the first 20 minutes, found the characters dull.
Austin Chronicle - 4 stars; enjoyed "Reeves' direction...sylistically invisible screenplay that dispenses entirely with any and all genre rules."
NY Times - 3/5 rating; "this new monster is nothing more than a blunt instrument designed to smash and grab without Freudian complexity or political critique...film is too dumb to offend anything except your intelligence, and the monster does cut a satisfying swath through the cast, so your only complaint may be, What took it so long?"
NY Post - "...combines unpleasantness and stupidity to a degree that would be difficult to match unless you were stuck in bed with a case of the shingles"
Washington Post - "Dialogue that consists largely of OH MY GOD!!? The anti-cinematic aesthetic that is coming to govern our visual lives? All of the above, plus another slimy monster, engaged in an extreme makeover of Manhattan."
LA Weekly - "cheap and opportunistic", "Cloverfield's first-person ?videography has little sense of purpose" and "screenplay that seems to be out on strike"
Film Threat - 3.5 stars; Overall good review, didn't like the bland characters, and found it "clever enough."
Premiere Magazine - 3 stars; One of the few reviewers that like the "convincing chemistry" of the cast. Noted don't see the monster much but didn't mind.
AICN Capone Review - "CLOVERFIELD, at its core, is a lightning-strike awesome monster movie."
From Reelzchannel, fans comment after seeing the film (but its semi-advertisement so...).
As of this point (6:40EST) Rotten Tomatoes is showing that 78% of the critics where favorable with average rating of 6.9/10 while site users where with 53% favorable, 5.1/10 average rating. Of note though is while the critics hovered in the 3-4 range for their reviewing, the fans basically either loved it or hated it.
No comments:
Post a Comment