One of the best movies of the year, though it had one major flaw: despite the brilliance of the first two-thirds of the movie, in the last third all the depth of subtlety of the movie was sacrificed and it ended up as little more than a monster movie. I suspect, though I can’t know, that Boyle felt something similar. At least, that’s my theory for the distorted views of the “monster:” I feel like Boyle was disappointed that he couldn’t come up with a better way to tie things up, so to show his reluctance to commit fully to the monster-movie ending, he only showed the monster through distortions. In denial of the monster’s mundane cliche-ness, in other words, he tried to lend it some abstractness; to make it seem less prosaic. I could be wrong, of course, but that’s my speculation.