And dress in brightly-coloured, highly-flammable polyester tracksuits.

So after my first post, I get accused of ignoring that film is subjective and marginalising other people's opinions, yet when someone states that my opinion is not "worthwhile" and that a film cannot be considered awful by any one if it got better than middling reviews from critics, not a peep?

So after my first post, I get accused of ignoring that film is subjective and marginalising other people's opinions, yet when someone states that my opinion is not "worthwhile" and that a film cannot be considered awful by any one if it got better than middling reviews from critics, not a peep?

So after my first post, I get accused of ignoring that film is subjective and marginalising other people's opinions, yet when someone states that my opinion is not "worthwhile" and that a film cannot be considered awful by any one if it got better than middling reviews from critics, not a peep?

It was worth it.

Cloverfield hadn't even been sold to me as a horror when I saw it - more a survival/disaster film, as other people have said.  The tunnel sequence is legitimately terrifying.  But is there really anything intentionally 'scary' about the rest of the film?  It's more a thriller than a chiller.

Cloverfield hadn't even been sold to me as a horror when I saw it - more a survival/disaster film, as other people have said.  The tunnel sequence is legitimately terrifying.  But is there really anything intentionally 'scary' about the rest of the film?  It's more a thriller than a chiller.

Cloverfield hadn't even been sold to me as a horror when I saw it - more a survival/disaster film, as other people have said.  The tunnel sequence is legitimately terrifying.  But is there really anything intentionally 'scary' about the rest of the film?  It's more a thriller than a chiller.

It's revisionism because it is retroactively reviewing a film that received middling reviews upon release and stating that, actually, they all got it wrong.  Besides, it was Keith Phipps who originally reviewed Cloverfield, and he is not amongst the writers for this article.

It's revisionism because it is retroactively reviewing a film that received middling reviews upon release and stating that, actually, they all got it wrong.  Besides, it was Keith Phipps who originally reviewed Cloverfield, and he is not amongst the writers for this article.

It's revisionism because it is retroactively reviewing a film that received middling reviews upon release and stating that, actually, they all got it wrong.  Besides, it was Keith Phipps who originally reviewed Cloverfield, and he is not amongst the writers for this article.

I like good monster movies and good disaster movies, as indeed I would like any good film in any genre.  But Cloverfield is just American Godzilla with a gimmick thrown in.

I like good monster movies and good disaster movies, as indeed I would like any good film in any genre.  But Cloverfield is just American Godzilla with a gimmick thrown in.

I like good monster movies and good disaster movies, as indeed I would like any good film in any genre.  But Cloverfield is just American Godzilla with a gimmick thrown in.

You got me.  97 minutes, to give time for the credits.

You got me.  97 minutes, to give time for the credits.

Unfortunately, contemporary PG-13 horror is by far the worst, since it usually attempts that same model, only sans the sex and gore.  That remake of Prom Night might be comfortably the worst 'horror' film I have ever seen.

There are five hour root canals that contain more fun than the whole of Cloverfield.

The problem with Drag Me to Hell is that it was a horror-comedy which was neither scary nor funny.  It's literally just 99 minutes of Alison Lohman having increasingly disgusting shit poured all over her.

The problem with Drag Me to Hell is that it was a horror-comedy which was neither scary nor funny.  It's literally just 99 minutes of Alison Lohman having increasingly disgusting shit poured all over her.