TheSamba.com :: View topic

Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:59 am

Did watching it make you puke?
I got a little queasy...

Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:28 am

I just watched the trailer. It looks stupid. I don't think I'll watch the movie. Why would you want to watch a film that is filmed so bad you can't watch it?

Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:37 am

I don't want to pay for a movie that looks like a home movie.... what's the point of that?

Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:40 am

notchback wrote: I just watched the trailer. It looks stupid. I don't think I'll watch the movie. Why would you want to watch a film that is filmed so bad you can't watch it?

It's worse than the "shakey camera" effect some directors use in movies. I saw the trailer for this turd earlier last summer and rolled my eyes. The home movie effect is as bad as some of the gallery submissions. Can no one hold a camera straight these days?

Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:45 am

Icy wrote: notchback wrote: I just watched the trailer. It looks stupid. I don't think I'll watch the movie. Why would you want to watch a film that is filmed so bad you can't watch it?

It's worse than the "shakey camera" effect some directors use in movies. I saw the trailer for this turd earlier last summer and rolled my eyes. The home movie effect is as bad as some of the gallery submissions. Can no one hold a camera straight these days?

no, if it was on the same level as gallery/classified pics, it would have been shot with a camera phone....

Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:48 am

blankmange wrote: Icy wrote: notchback wrote: I just watched the trailer. It looks stupid. I don't think I'll watch the movie. Why would you want to watch a film that is filmed so bad you can't watch it?

It's worse than the "shakey camera" effect some directors use in movies. I saw the trailer for this turd earlier last summer and rolled my eyes. The home movie effect is as bad as some of the gallery submissions. Can no one hold a camera straight these days?

no, if it was on the same level as gallery/classified pics, it would have been shot with a camera phone....

That's a good point.

Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:49 am

I saw it the first nite it came out. Overall not a bad movie. But yes the shakey camera action at some points in the movie almost make your eyes hurt. Filmed in a "Blair Witch" kind of way. It was a bit more "realistic" than a lot of other Sci Fi shit that comes out these days.
Evidently Abbrams (producer) is working on a new Star Trek. They showed a teaser before Cloverfield. Something new for all the Trekkies to beat their bishops to.

Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:20 am

Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Saw it when it came out, it was awesome. The shaky cam and no closure is whats great about the movie, its different and unique. The movie was great the first time and even better every time I think about it.

Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:59 am

Naked wrote:

That's rude...funny...but rude. :)
JiI

Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:30 pm

I loved it
The shaky camera was all part of the experience, and it didn't bother me at all.
It was probably the best take on perspective in a monster movie I've ever seen (me not being a huge fan of monster movies)

Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:44 pm

70fasty wrote: Saw it when it came out, it was awesome. The shaky cam and no closure is whats great about the movie, its different and unique. The movie was great the first time and even better every time I think about it.

i don't care how different or unique a movie is, if it sucks it still sucks. all that shaky camera work couldn't cover up a POS film.
im sorry that first 30 minuets (that seemed like and eternity) at that party made me hate everyone of those people and the only reason i stayed for the rest of the movie was so that i could watch them all be picked off one by one is gruesome ways. forget the film making me queasy the acting was bad enough.

a few things i loved about the film though was how when they all think it was an earth quake they run to the roof :roll:

and when they are being evacuated how the helicopter flys right over the thing, come on you would be heading the opposite way as fast as you could. and then after having the shit bombed out of it, its primary concern was to get this one helicopter it hadn't noticed before

also its weird how this thing was bullet proof, bomb proof, like invincible yet its little attack off spring could just be bludgeoned with any object at hand.

it was like playing a cheezy first person shooter game.

Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:26 pm

I work an extra job an a theater. Here is a "disclaimer" pic I took that they had set out.

Needless to say, the employees cleaned up a bit of puke... :lol:

Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:17 pm

I went to see "Saving Private Ryan" the night it was released. Ww got there a lil late and found to seats in the very front row. I had to leave after about 10 mins. I got so nauseous from the shakey cam of the open scene of storming the beach.

Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:44 pm

I was fine watching the movie but when the credits starting showing I was definitely disappointed. Esp. after only 90 minutes.

Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:44 am

I just saw it tonight (my 12 year old bugged me to see it) It was alright, I didn't care too much for the bobbling camera either. But a couple of people I talked to didn't notice right near the end of the movie, where the alien monster landed in the water when they were on the ferris wheel.

Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:05 am

Rad-Ride wrote: I just saw it tonight (my 12 year old bugged me to see it) It was alright, I didn't care too much for the bobbling camera either. But a couple of people I talked to didn't notice right near the end of the movie, where the alien monster landed in the water when they were on the ferris wheel.

Great movie
An all new take on "Monster Eats NYC" Movie.
The camera work added to the excitement, and a lot of folks went in & out of the place.
I completely missed the "alien landing".
This is a "Theater Movie" if you see it on DVD it will suck, because it will not translate at all to the small screen.
90 minutes is perfect for a Monster Movie,
and yes 15 minutes more of monster bashing NYC, and 15 minutes less of apartment talk would have been great.
I loved the rip the head off the statue of liberty gag, and I wish they had dropped the Chrysler building too.

Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:01 pm

movie fucking sucked. The ending mise well of ended at the begining of the movie.

Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:57 am

Naked wrote:

Right after you laugh at that, do this...
https://donate.michaeljfox.org/NETCOMMUNITY/SSLPage.aspx?&pid=202&srcid=202

Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:13 pm

runslikeapenguin wrote:
also its weird how this thing was bullet proof, bomb proof, like invincible yet its little attack off spring could just be bludgeoned with any object at hand.

it was like playing a cheezy first person shooter game.

The little things coming off of it where not supposed to be its offspring. The main monster and the smaller ones have a symbiotic relationship, where they just cling to the main one, perceivably for protection, transportation, or nourishment. I thought it was a clever addition. A giant skyscraper toppling monster isn't bad enough, there was also smaller beings that could cause havoc on a personal level as well.

The concept of a single camera telling the story was brilliant, and was a welcome change from most over the top cheesy monster movies.

I do agree with the first person shooter comparison, but I loved that. I was repeatedly reminded of the original Half Life. The first person perspective made me feel much more attached to what was occurring on screen, and heightened the suspense.

I loved the movie, and in spite of it's flaws would rate it as one of my favorites. I strongly hope for a sequel, possibly in the style of Half Life, where the same events are told through many sub stories to flesh out the story and broaden the viewers knowledge of the events.

Finally, for everyone who complains that it feels like it didn't have an ending, I disagree. The plot of the movie was a love story, and that most certainly did have a conclusion. It just happened to be a love story taking place during a monster attack.

"Wait, you know who superman is?"