The setup is that it's footage found in a video camera picked up in what used to be Central Park in NYC. That alone tells you pretty much how and where the movie ends.
Ah, but getting there.
Without going into every detail, we start out at a going away party for some guy who's on his way to Japan for a job. Some monster starts attacking, first in New York Harbor, then in midtown. Everyone runs outside just in time to see the head of the Statue of Liberty hit the street. Way cool. Some looting takes place, at which point our hero decides he needs a battery for his cell phone. While he's looking for the battery, the guy filming everything stops and looks at the news footage of what's going on, which helps give some other views.
I won't say much more except that our main characters decide for fairly stupid reasons to head TOWARD the carnage to rescue some damsel in distress.
The monster is like nothing you've ever seen. The Blair-Witch-type footage is either distracting or the best way to tell the story, the subway tunnel scene is one of the scariest I've ever sat through, Peter Jackson films more efficient endings, and you'll either love it or hate it. I loved it, but with full recognition that it's a stupid monster movie.
If you saw Godzilla (the 1999 movie) and thought you could have done a better job with a camcorder, this is your movie.
I just read an article telling of people leaving in the middle of the film with queasy stomaches, from the non stop movement of the hand held camera. I don't think I'd have that problem, but I can imagine a constantly jittery film on theater screen size could get to be a bit much.
I'm planning on seeing it as I've heard good things about it. It's certainly interesting as a concept. Part of me thinks it may be better served waiting for the dvd and watching it on a small screen like most homemade films.
My opinion: this is the kind of film you want to see on the big screen with a big crowd. Second time's better for the small screen (where you watch for subtleties you might have missed the first time around).
My opinion: this is the kind of film you want to see on the big screen with a big crowd. Second time's better for the small screen (where you watch for subtleties you might have missed the first time around).
Took my son to see this last night - very effective, clever movie.
Caused a few "flashbacks" to 9-11.
Look forward to the dvd to catch those subtleties missed in the first viewing.
I really enjoyed it, but the first 20 minutes is some young adults partying and seems like a re run of Sex in the City, I was tearing my hair out, until....oops Ill let you you see it and not give away the plot
Recommended Posts
Tom Strange
tell us the plot so we don't have to...
doesn't this movie have the Lindsey Lohamster in it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Pretty much as advertised:
The setup is that it's footage found in a video camera picked up in what used to be Central Park in NYC. That alone tells you pretty much how and where the movie ends.
Ah, but getting there.
Without going into every detail, we start out at a going away party for some guy who's on his way to Japan for a job. Some monster starts attacking, first in New York Harbor, then in midtown. Everyone runs outside just in time to see the head of the Statue of Liberty hit the street. Way cool. Some looting takes place, at which point our hero decides he needs a battery for his cell phone. While he's looking for the battery, the guy filming everything stops and looks at the news footage of what's going on, which helps give some other views.
I won't say much more except that our main characters decide for fairly stupid reasons to head TOWARD the carnage to rescue some damsel in distress.
The monster is like nothing you've ever seen. The Blair-Witch-type footage is either distracting or the best way to tell the story, the subway tunnel scene is one of the scariest I've ever sat through, Peter Jackson films more efficient endings, and you'll either love it or hate it. I loved it, but with full recognition that it's a stupid monster movie.
If you saw Godzilla (the 1999 movie) and thought you could have done a better job with a camcorder, this is your movie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Did no one else see this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
not me, not yet, but I'm leaning that way...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
My daughter saw it. She liked it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
I just read an article telling of people leaving in the middle of the film with queasy stomaches, from the non stop movement of the hand held camera. I don't think I'd have that problem, but I can imagine a constantly jittery film on theater screen size could get to be a bit much.
I'm planning on seeing it as I've heard good things about it. It's certainly interesting as a concept. Part of me thinks it may be better served waiting for the dvd and watching it on a small screen like most homemade films.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My opinion: this is the kind of film you want to see on the big screen with a big crowd. Second time's better for the small screen (where you watch for subtleties you might have missed the first time around).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's on my "To-do" list.
As soon as I can figure out when to see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Took my son to see this last night - very effective, clever movie.
Caused a few "flashbacks" to 9-11.
Look forward to the dvd to catch those subtleties missed in the first viewing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steveo
I really enjoyed it, but the first 20 minutes is some young adults partying and seems like a re run of Sex in the City, I was tearing my hair out, until....oops Ill let you you see it and not give away the plot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.