|
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: March 19, 2008 at 10:23am
But, what better response than the most logical -- it was NOT an amazing movie. Done to death. Nothing utterly original. Mediocre acting. You need more? I think that is quite enough.
|
billie
|
Posted: April 1, 2008 at 12:29am
you can't have amazing acting in something that is suppose to be all real and shit
|
BuryMeAlive
|
Posted: April 1, 2008 at 6:24am
Cloverfield was real? It really happened? I had no idea...
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: April 1, 2008 at 10:12am
you can't have amazing acting in something that is suppose to be all real and shit
That is such a ridiculous comment. "The Blair Witch Project" was supposed to be real and the acting was phenomenal. All of Christopher Guest's films are -- technically -- 'supposed to be real', even though they're not -- and his actors are always amazing. You can't say it's OK for the actors to be bad just because they're supposed to be real. That is absurd.
|
Chad
|
Posted: April 9, 2008 at 10:38am
I skipped reading the reviews and comments on this site until just now, as I wanted to be totally surprised during my first viewing. Wow, I'm shocked at some of the comments on this page, as I thought this was an excellent movie. It was extremely realistic (except for that helicopter scene, as mentioned above), the monster looked great, and the way the story was told was perfect (read: we see what the characters see and we didn't get the obligatory "scientist pops up out of nowhere to explain everything" scene). With the exception of the lady who played Beth, I had no problems with the acting; they may not have been award-winners, but they acted realistically and kept me in the mood.
Oh, and about the audio / video thing bluemeanie mentioned in his review - yeah, that might have been stretching things a bit, but it wouldn't have been a very exciting film if the battery had died or if the camera broke thirty minutes into the movie, and it would have sucked if we couldn't hear a damned thing the characters were saying. A bit unrealistic, yes, but that was mandatory in my humble opinion.
Not quite a perfect film, but I loved it. 9/10.
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: April 9, 2008 at 1:56pm
It was unoriginal. Everything is tried has been done before in a plethora of other films. I can't enjoy a film with zero originality and a film that goes along as if the audience has no common sense whatsoever. Much better films about monsters attacking cities.
|
Chad
|
Posted: April 9, 2008 at 4:18pm
Everything has been done before to some degree - you name any recent horror movie (that I've seen), and I could name off a handful of movies that it borrowed from. I'll concede that this borrowed liberally from other "big monster" movies (Godzilla and The Host, mostly), and of course, there's the whole Blair Witch camera thing... but is that really a bad thing if the movie works? Also, I enjoyed The Host more than this one, but aside from that, this has to be my favorite of the "monster versus city" releases.
Difference of opinion, I suppose, but I'll definitely be purchasing this.
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: April 10, 2008 at 10:09am
Yes, difference of opinion. But this whole "Everything has been done before" attitude from people is so old. Everything has NOT been done before to some extent. You can take an idea that has been done before and do something original with it. And you can come up with completely new ideas and concepts to. The well has not been tapped out yet, but this film sure makes it seem like it has.
|
Chad
|
Posted: April 10, 2008 at 10:54am
In that case, how many monster movies have you seen that feature the "you are there" style of storytelling besides this one? None that I've seen.
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: April 10, 2008 at 12:06pm
How many? I would consider both "The Blair Witch Project", but especially "The Last Broadcast" to be 'monster movies', most notably the latter. All this movie is is "The Blair Witch Project" meets "Godzilla". It's really just an American remake of "Godzilla", minus Matthew Broderick, and the creature is lame. It looks like a damned three toed sloth. Ain't nothing scarier than that.
|
Tristan
|
Posted: April 10, 2008 at 2:17pm
It doesn't look like a three-toed sloth, and what are you really hoping for? If you have some amazing monster all drawn up in your head, I'm sure we'd be glad to hear about it. It's 2008, all the monster ideas have already been done to death. They needed a monster to look as though it came from the sea, and that's exactly what it looks like. I kind of regret only giving this a 7/10 now, because aside from the helicopter scene and a bit of bad acting, it was very entertaining. I think the "no mad scientist with a plan" angle was a fresh change, and as far as being from the point of view of the people living in NY at the time, I'd say they did a damn fine job. After re-watching it, and giving it some hard though, I'm going with an 8/10.
|
Chad
|
Posted: April 10, 2008 at 3:20pm
The creature looked great, but I can see where you're / he's coming from with the sloth thing, can't deny that one.
Anywho, those two movies did the "you're there" thing before this one (remember how I said everything has been done before?), but it's never been done with a monster movie (and by monster movie, I mean a huge monster that can attack a city) - that's the point I was trying to make. And to take a quote from you: "You can take an idea that has been done before and do something original with it."
|
Mr. Mistoffelees
|
Posted: April 10, 2008 at 4:00pm
This is quite the controversial movie. I still think it was a great movie, it had a a few flaws and things that one can squabble about, but overall I felt that the monster movie genre was somewhat refreshed with this outing. I know I'll probably get flak, but that's just my opinion. I've seen the old third-party perfect camera angles before where everything feels so set up and focused all the time, this one made me feel like I was either watching a real attack on tape or there myself. It was both fun and frightening, especially the subway scene.
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: April 10, 2008 at 4:04pm
The key word there is 'original'.
|
billie
|
Posted: April 17, 2008 at 11:01pm
that's totally not what i meant. i just mean it was suppose to look real. if angelina jolie was in it, it totally wouldn't be the same
|
C L
|
Posted: May 25, 2008 at 3:07am
This was better than I had been led to believe, and I actually hadn't read any of the reviews here until after I just watched it. If I hadn't just seen [REC] last night I would almost certainly have given this a higher rating, but still , I enjoyed it, I felt like the actions the characters took were realistic, the helicopter crash notwithstanding, and it was just a good monster movie, not as good as \"The Host\", but still : 7/10.
|
Greg Follender
|
Posted: May 25, 2008 at 2:52pm
This was basically a piece of poop painted in dazzlingly bright colors...
I can't even begin to note all the unrealistic moments in this film because the word limit in these comment boxes won't allow it (running sequences with a woman whom just moments earlier had her lung pierced by a piece of rebar and laid bleeding unchecked for far over the few minutes it would have taken to die from hydrostatic shock)...), but suffice it to say, that even aside from the ridiculous hand-held camera accuracy we as an audience are supposed to swallow... this film had plenty other of problems to contend with!
I live in New York City folks... and the way that critter moved was beyond implausible... downtown,uptown, crosstown... then instantly downtown again... it just didn't make any sense. I understand that they were wary of repeating locations used in prior films released at the time, but better care could have been taken.
The acting was practically nonsensical at points... sure, I MIGHT have the temporary insanity to try and rescue an EX while fleeing for my life from an unknown monster bent on killing everyone around me... but I seriously doubt that anyone else (especially a few folks that had just seen their friends/boyfriend/loved ones brutally slain in front of them) would follow me into a half-wrecked building that was on the precipice of falling into ruin to risk their lives to assist me in locating a past fling who was probably a crimson smear among the carnage that was once her apartment building!!! Please people... just because it looks gritty and cool, doesn't mean that it makes any sense!
With even a modicum of insight (and perhaps a better script) this could have been something quite special... maybe. Why did we have to see it all from one group's perspective? Why couldn't the \"file contain multiple views or observation experiences from varied sources to imply a wider sense of panic?
PS: The monster is a rip-off of Orga, the critter from \"Godzilla 2000\".
|
Greg Follender
|
Posted: May 25, 2008 at 2:59pm
Sorry about the rant... but as a champion of the \"monster attacks city\" genre, I felt that I needed to speak my piece.
This is easily the slickest representation of the theme, that's for sure... but that's about it.
The whole thing screams \"TV Director\" to me... but again, this is all my humble opinion.
I'm glad a lot of you folks liked it though... it's box-office earnings will serve as example to the good folks at Toho that the giant monster (kaiju) film is still viable these days! I want to wash \"Final Wars\" from my palate as soon as possible...
I give it a 6 out of 10... and only that for the convincingly obscured special effects.
|
Optimus Prime
|
Posted: January 20, 2009 at 3:57pm
One of my favorites of 2008. 10/10
|
|
