To begin with, after reading the first ever review about "Vesel" I made the mistake of reading the one that followed it chronologically, as well (there's only two of them at present time). I'm calling it a mistake because while the first one was spot-on, the following is at best misleading, considering the quality value of the shortie in question. ...Which by the way is not "tentacles on a plane, at best" - it's rather "meaningless ripoff onboard". The length of it should be no excuse for claims such as "give it a break - had no room for development". 'Cause it had room alright for getting some outlandish creature in the fuselage of an everyday airliner in flight, without spending a measly half of a minute to give at LEAST some hint about its origin. In other words, the gruesome hijacker crosses pathways with the plane, in a fashion that a flock of geese would - that is, something which could be considered of an ordinary nature : no suspense, no elements of surprise, not some kind of an introductory summary (at least in the form of some, say, informative TEXT for goodness' sake, which would attempt to get the viewer in alignment with what is going to follow). What we instead get, is some creature that could be considered to be an offspring of the creature in the "Alien" franchise and "The Thing" feature movie, all wrapped-up in the aura of "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" (...among other films, I might add). And that's EXACTLY why "The Vessel" does NOT work. Because once somebody HAS experienced all the previous, this one only works as a bad joke, when it is instinctively compared to them.
There's always of course the case of using original ideas, to create something unique. Which unfortunately is not the one with "Vessel"... Had it been handled differently, it could have at least served like a collaging short of homage to various flicks of the past decades that made script and filming history with their originality. This one however simply feels to have the worth of some adolescent amateur having a keen interest in films and film-making that somehow tries to glue together various instances of the aforementioned blockbusters in an attempt to show off his skills and experiences (...in a "hey, I can do this too - here, have a look!" manner). The fact that the CGI effects indeed are somewhat decent, or the fact that its cinematography is one that gets much more than simply adequately digested by the viewer, does not compensate -not in the very least- for its poorly executed direction and certainly not for its utterly unworthy script.
Neither was I expecting "too much" of it before viewing, nor am I ax-happy. But I seriously believe that the reviewer that made relevant comments, should better get HIS ax replaced because an instrument that much blunt nullifies its very nature. Being sympathetic to short filming attempts is one thing - being inexplicably forgiving to blatant flaws, is, however, another. Therefore giving it a "1=awful" vote, is all-in-all justified for me, because it's not that it's simply NOT entertaining as claimed, but it actually is disturbing, when being problematic in the degree mentioned before and a definite no-no to the loss of 13 minutes of the life of anyone above, say, 10-15 years of age, who might wish to take chances on watching it.
There's always of course the case of using original ideas, to create something unique. Which unfortunately is not the one with "Vessel"... Had it been handled differently, it could have at least served like a collaging short of homage to various flicks of the past decades that made script and filming history with their originality. This one however simply feels to have the worth of some adolescent amateur having a keen interest in films and film-making that somehow tries to glue together various instances of the aforementioned blockbusters in an attempt to show off his skills and experiences (...in a "hey, I can do this too - here, have a look!" manner). The fact that the CGI effects indeed are somewhat decent, or the fact that its cinematography is one that gets much more than simply adequately digested by the viewer, does not compensate -not in the very least- for its poorly executed direction and certainly not for its utterly unworthy script.
Neither was I expecting "too much" of it before viewing, nor am I ax-happy. But I seriously believe that the reviewer that made relevant comments, should better get HIS ax replaced because an instrument that much blunt nullifies its very nature. Being sympathetic to short filming attempts is one thing - being inexplicably forgiving to blatant flaws, is, however, another. Therefore giving it a "1=awful" vote, is all-in-all justified for me, because it's not that it's simply NOT entertaining as claimed, but it actually is disturbing, when being problematic in the degree mentioned before and a definite no-no to the loss of 13 minutes of the life of anyone above, say, 10-15 years of age, who might wish to take chances on watching it.