Console best movie i've ever seen.

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Neil Welch If I say "Cloverfield in Tokyo, only with no monster, boring characters, and highly unconvincing and far too frequent video effects employed to signify tape breaks," then I have just given you a complete review of this film, which leaves me struggling to find the minimum content for a review.So let me add that the two main girls are pretty but anodyne, there is a lot of night vision green tinted footage, and, um...Did I mention that it's boring? I must say that anyone with any experience of cheap knock-offs (of whatever type) knows that the cheap knock-off, by and large, isn't worth bothering with - designer shirts, high-end perfume, wrist watches...Movies are no exception. This is a cheap knock-off of Cloverfield, and isn't worth bothering with.

NiccoStarr The title of this movie was the scariest thing about it. Not only was the acting HORRIBLY atrocious; the script, effects, and everything made me want to kill myself! Never mind the fact that the script was both insulting to the Japanese culture, but also made Americans look like absolute brainless wonders of nature. Thank God there was a reasonably attractive heroin in the story (if you can call it that) - but even she killed it the first time her and her sister had to "pretend" to be in a Monster attacked Tokyo; simply awful. Maybe they should try singing for American Idol instead. Intensive acting school is indeed of great need for these would be starlets - as well as many-many lessons in captivating screen writing. (5 burned-out stars, is how I would rate this "monstrous" failure.)

MBunge This very low-budget rip off of Cloverfield is surprisingly well done, yet it is ultimately undone by a near total lack of plot and a complete absence of an ending. It's actually a lot smarter than the many other rip off films like this which litter video store shelves and frequently show up on the Sy Fy channel but while the effort may be admirable, the result is not that entertaining.Erin and Sarah (Erin Evans and Sarah Lynch) are a couple of American sisters who go to Tokyo to shoot their own documentary on global warming with a single video camera and some girlish gumption. While they're there, the city starts to shake. It's not an earthquake, though. What's shaking things up is a giant tentacled beast that rampages through Tokyo. Filming all the way, Erin and Sarah try to stay alive and, with the help of some Japanese folks, make it to the U.S. embassy.I wouldn't recommend this movie for too many people because it gets fairly dull after a while. I would encourage all other low-budget filmmakers to give Monster a look. That's because this film is very effectively styled. It's a much more realistic and, in some way, more imaginative take on the concept than the big budget flick it's shamelessly imitating. The quality of the video breaks up and freezes at times; the whole idea that they're going to keep filming everything is a much more contentious issue between the sisters; adding the language barrier nicely (and cheaply) complicates their situation; there's a pretty clever intimation that this isn't the only giant monster attack Tokyo has had to deal with; and there's a neat and perhaps unintentional subtext through the story about how the person in front of the camera is more freaked out while the person behind the camera is more in control, as though looking at the crisis through the lens provides a certain intellectual and emotional distance.Sadly, all of that gets crushed into a fine powder by the weight of the really sucky special effects and the fact that Erin and Sarah never manage to do or say anything at all interesting. The CGI in Monster is quite fake looking and overused. I lost count of the number of CGI aircraft seen soaring overhead, the damage to the city is represented by superimposing smoke onto unharmed buildings and the creature itself is nothing more 3 or 4 undulating tentacles that could be trying to destroy a city or simply trying to hail a monster-sized taxi. And after the initial discoveries about what's going on, the sisters might just as well be self-directed Segways that wheel from one bizarrely empty spot to another in the supposedly besieged metropolis.The end result of Monster is below average, but I give these filmmakers some credit for attempting to make something that's more than just another low-budget rip off. Writer David Michael Latt and director Erik Esterberg tried to make a legitimate movie. They failed..but at least they tried, which is more than you can say for most of the people involved in these sorts of ersatz productions.

ricburger 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.