Yeah, Bourne supremacy didn't bother me that much though because it mainly the fight scenes where the camera was shaky. The ENTIRE move is like that for this though, I kept waiting for them to switch it over in the first couple of scenes but it never did.

1/22/2008 6:37:34 PM

For those that've seen it, is it a scary movie or more thriller? Thrillers are fine but I'm not a big scary movie fan.

1/22/2008 7:09:01 PM

Thriller, basically nothing scary about this movie.

1/22/2008 7:27:45 PM

if you think "OMG that building just blew up and i didn't expect that" as scary then its scary lol.

1/22/2008 7:30:34 PM

i could see getting scared in like the subway tunnel.... but overall, nothing even close to a horror/scary movie.

and also, i barely even noticed the shaking of the camera...

1/22/2008 7:34:43 PM

haha. When they were turning the night vision on in the tunnel, I knew shit was about to get real.

1/22/2008 8:07:49 PM

I thought the tunnel seen was fucking of the chain nigga

1/22/2008 8:13:38 PM

Quote :

"and also, i barely even noticed the shaking of the camera..."

is that because you are a bobble head?

1/22/2008 10:09:08 PM

^you just have to sit in the back of the theater. then most of the "wobble" becomes unnoticeable, with the exception of some scenes.

1/22/2008 11:02:13 PM

If you sit back the distance of a football field, you won't notice the wobble. Also, you won't notice that this is a mediocre movie.

1/22/2008 11:04:11 PM

Quote :

"Anyone notice all the Nokia advertising? I hate when they do that."

I noticed that the battery he picked up said Nokia and there was a poster in the subway, but other than that I didn't notice any product placements.

1/22/2008 11:46:43 PM

Quote :

"If you sit back the distance of a football field, you won't notice the wobble. Also, you won't notice that this is a mediocre movie."

ouch

1/23/2008 1:03:22 AM

this movie is obv not supposed to be realistic (i.e. alien attacking NY) so to nitpick the battery life and camera durability is silly. The movie obv doesnt need to address those matters b/c they arnt important.

the shakey camera is not a gimmick, its a part of the story, the movie is centered around a single event through the point of view of a small circle of people. Thats the whole point to the movie, the idea that its happening to these people as a documentary style, not a movie. However, if you are prone to motion sickeness or w/e then sucks for you.

if your upset that you just wanted to know where the monster came from or if it died...think about this. How gay would the ending of been if they dropped those bunker busters' on durring the helicopter scene and the smoke cleared revealing the dead monster, everyone gathers around it and then a scene from the news explains the breif backstory to where it came from...to me that may of been more temporarily satisfying, but with more sequels otw, it was perfect imo.

i went into this movie knowing very little, and knowing there was a planned sequel, this is it was one of the best movies ive seen in a very long time

1/23/2008 1:18:18 AM

oh and btw

Quote :

"It doesn't. The camera is turned on and off many times throughout the night (a seven-hour period), which preserves the battery life for a cumulative recording time of about 74 minutes. The entire movie is (within the fictional realm of the story) nothing but raw footage from digital video card(s) recorded on a single video camera (the camera used, a Panasonic HVX200, uses 1 to 2 digital P2 cards for recording). No one has edited the footage we're seeing. The cuts occur when Hud turns off the camera. We see pieces of "old footage" whenever Hud checks the recording, rewinds or fast-forwards it. The battery only needs to last for as long as the movie does without credits--again, 74 minutes. A fully-charged camcorder battery will last longer than that."

1/23/2008 1:34:49 AM

Quote :

"and also, i barely even noticed the shaking of the camera..."

I've heard that it's so bad that even you're average Joe never-touched-a-camera-before could have held it steadier.

1/23/2008 7:24:13 AM

^ It was supposed to be your average joe holding the camera. Also, he was running for his life.

1/23/2008 8:27:04 AM

^^also, watch the movie first... then comment

1/23/2008 8:37:45 AM

^^The point the reviews were making was that an average Joe would have held the camera steadier and framed the people in the shot better. The Ebert & Roeper review complained that even a dimwit would have framed people in the shots at the party better - instead you get a lot of closeups of people's necks, etc. The reviews indicated that they tried a little too hard to make it look amateurish, not considering that an amateur wouldn't have sucked as bad as they filmed it.

I can understand if there are shaky parts during the "run for your lives moments."

^Meh. I don't really see a problem with commenting on something I have seen, a review, and then bouncing it off of people that have seen the movie to see how accurate that review was.

1/23/2008 8:45:59 AM

^ I thought the camera work was fine. What do they expect anyway? The guy is running for his life in most of the shots, and he really only has the camera on so people can know what happened, not so people can enjoy a well shot amateur film. I'm pretty sure that throughout the movie framing people perfectly in the viewfinder is the least of his concerns.

[Edited on January 23, 2008 at 9:27 AM. Reason : .]

1/23/2008 9:26:11 AM

until you really have a giant monster and bug creatures chasing after you, you have no idea how steady you will hold that camera.

1/23/2008 12:31:56 PM

I just can't see if it was to be portrayed amateurish then how does the guy holding the camera tape the girl he is interested in, get taken away by a bunch of soldiers and also tape her exploding or whatever.

There comes a time when you ummm put down the camera and do what you have to do. I think it would have looked better if at times he set down the camera with it still taping and then come back to the camera. Granted not during the running and escaping scenes but some of the time I would want use of my 2 hands.

1/23/2008 12:44:09 PM

Quote :

"^^The point the reviews were making was that an average Joe would have held the camera steadier and framed the people in the shot better. The Ebert & Roeper review complained that even a dimwit would have framed people in the shots at the party better - instead you get a lot of closeups of people's necks, etc. The reviews indicated that they tried a little too hard to make it look amateurish, not considering that an amateur wouldn't have sucked as bad as they filmed it."

it was part of the character... he didn't give a shit about framing anybody because he was just told to do the job even though he didn't really want to.

1/23/2008 1:18:51 PM

He was also checking out the chick the whole time

1/23/2008 1:24:09 PM

not to mention he wasn't even looking at what he was filming he was too busy ^ as indicated, checking out the chick and spitting some really bad game. So even the king of all camera men would have a shitty shot if he wasn't looking at where the camera was pointed.

[Edited on January 23, 2008 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2008 1:32:13 PM

He did a lot of zooming which I thought was hilarious. A bunch of "amateur filmmakers" love to utilize the zoom feature on the camera, thinking it looks good. I think that this was intentional in the film.

1/23/2008 2:20:45 PM

Quote :

"I noticed that the battery he picked up said Nokia and there was a poster in the subway, but other than that I didn't notice any product placements."

I recall Rob leaning against a wall featuring a very prominent Sephora logo

1/23/2008 2:59:58 PM

its fucking new york. You can't look, lean, or spit anywhere that isn't an Ad.

1/23/2008 3:45:49 PM

haha. people are wanting their money back because it made them sick.

1/23/2008 11:25:40 PM

Quote :

"its fucking new york. You can't look, lean, or spit anywhere that isn't an Ad."

1/24/2008 12:41:46 AM

^^ exactly. like i said i noticed a couple things, but it's new york. the city is full of conspicuous advertising anyway, so seeing some in the movie here and there didn't detract from it at all in my opinion. i definitely dont remember any times where they zoomed in and paused on a logo for five minutes straight like they did in every other shot in i, robot.

1/24/2008 12:42:13 AM

they could have had a new years eve shot showing the ball drop and people would bitch "omg they had to put a Toshiba ad directly below the ball drop and ruin the whole movie wah wah wah"

1/24/2008 12:50:06 AM

people probably would if they weren't too busy bitching about the motion sickness camera

1/24/2008 12:52:15 AM

I hated the yellow cab ad placement too! Could they have added yet another yellow cab flying across the screen?

and another ad i hated....did he really need to use his cell phone every 5 minutes? come on now..thats so unrealistic...it was just there to show off Nokia

[Edited on January 24, 2008 at 12:58 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2008 12:58:04 AM

as far as i can tell, to do a movie with this style (from handheld) they did a very good job keeping it realistic while still watchable. like stated above the guy (you would think) would put the camera down at times to do certain tasks, to me this would seem more beleivable but at the same time, less enjoyable to watch. I think they did an extremely good job of mixing realistic documentary style camera work with actual action driven shots that showed the full scene. To jbtilley, you get a camera dumped off on you at your best friends going away party while drinkinng and see if you think about properly framing the shot...wtf does that matter anyways?

i swear more people nitpick this film then any other recent ones ive read about

1/24/2008 1:04:17 AM

http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/ProductsByBrand.htm?BR=863&ID=21030

1/24/2008 2:40:53 AM

Quote :

" if your upset that you just wanted to know where the monster came from or if it died...think about this. How gay would the ending of been if they dropped those bunker busters' on durring the helicopter scene and the smoke cleared revealing the dead monster, everyone gathers around it and then a scene from the news explains the breif backstory to where it came from...to me that may of been more temporarily satisfying, but with more sequels otw, it was perfect imo."

Obviously that wouldn't make sense from the way the film was presented- as part of a US military file. A brief summation (video or text) following the "archived footage" would have fit much better. I understand them not wanting to do it, but explanation of what happened would not require a change in the plot let alone a stupid one like that.

1/24/2008 5:29:22 AM

I definitely didn't notice any advertisements in the movie. That's because in real life I mostly ignore them, and this movie was trying to be realistic (as realistic as a monster movie can be)

1/24/2008 10:07:50 AM

Quote :

"if your upset that you just wanted to know where the monster came from or if it died...think about this. How gay would the ending of been if they dropped those bunker busters' on durring the helicopter scene and the smoke cleared revealing the dead monster, everyone gathers around it and then a scene from the news explains the breif backstory to where it came from...to me that may of been more temporarily satisfying, but with more sequels otw, it was perfect imo."

The worst ending they could've given it would be the ending that King Kong has.

I wonder how they'll handle sequels. They could do it from someone else's point of view (soldier and/or random person) of the same event or a different event, a omniscient point of view, or just a Godzilla-esque sequel (oh no, monster's back!).

1/24/2008 10:52:25 AM

they should do a news reporter's point of view.

1/24/2008 10:57:17 AM

LOL. I know what the last big explosion was now. It's what always happens to the monster after Voltron bisects it with the Blazing Sword. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket.

1/24/2008 1:56:21 PM

how many people do y'all think died during the events of cloverfield?

1/24/2008 2:44:51 PM

Quote :

"if your upset that you just wanted to know where the monster came from or if it died...think about this. How gay would the ending of been if they dropped those bunker busters' on durring the helicopter scene and the smoke cleared revealing the dead monster, everyone gathers around it and then a scene from the news explains the breif backstory to where it came from...to me that may of been more temporarily satisfying, but with more sequels otw, it was perfect imo."

i liked the ending for what it was, but if they are planning on sequels they wont be getting my money. i cant see the interest in seeing the same thing from a different point of view or a movie on the backstory. a good rental but not theater material.

1/24/2008 3:29:54 PM

i also can't imagine a sequel doing well. i like the movie, but i can't imagine sitting through "another person's version" of it.

then again, hollywood just LOVES beating successes to death.

1/24/2008 3:31:28 PM

If there is a sequel I hope the bastards invest in an image stabilizing camera. Its fricking 2008 for chrissake.

-- Dave

1/24/2008 4:29:29 PM

If I hear one more thing about how they needed to stabilize the camera I'm going to shit, is it that hard to understand the concept of true first-person perspective?

1/24/2008 4:42:53 PM

^ Spot on.

Brilliant flick.

1/24/2008 4:53:47 PM

i dono that id call it brilliant... might be a bit of overkill

[Edited on January 24, 2008 at 5:48 PM. Reason : ]

1/24/2008 5:48:36 PM

Quote :

"The worst ending they could've given it would be the ending that King Kong has."

Twas Beauty killed the giant amphibious beast!

1/24/2008 6:04:12 PM

Quote :

"i cant see the interest in seeing the same thing from a different point of view or a movie on the backstory. a good rental but not theater material."

I'd go to the $1.50 if they did that. This is one of those movies that isn't going to translate well to home video.

1/24/2008 6:09:48 PM

so i was listening to 92.3 this morning and those fucktards were trying to describe the "monster" or whatever. i havent' seen it yet so it pissed me off. i don't want to know!

1/24/2008 6:55:04 PM