Wizard Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 That was the whole point of the movie dude. It's america's monster. Not some import.
NeuronMaster Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 It's not a rip-off of another monster. It's a movie that reinvents an old genre by showing it--and showing it well--from a different perspective.It's the best movie I've seen in theaters in a long time; I thoroughly loved it both times I saw it.People go in expecting to be explained about the monster, how it came, where it came from, all that stuff, and they're upset at the end when it's not explained. It's not meant to be explained. It's about a small group of humans caught up in this fantastic (in the most terrifying sense of the word) situation. At the core of the movie, it is a love story. The monster is just a backdrop. I loved it. I would not have it end any other way. Yes, I was surprised they didn't explain the monster at the end; but then again, that wouldn't be true to how the movie was made. Form matches function, and by seeing this unbelievable event through the eyes of a spectator, it becomes plausible and serves to suspend your feeling of disbelief.
Smilee Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 I just saw it and I was pleasantly surprised. Captures the sense of terror and loss of hope pretty well.
solidius23 Posted January 22, 2008 Author Posted January 22, 2008 the movie really makes u think wat would u do if that really happened. like neuron master said its a love story at heart. a deep you have to be crazy and thats the best cooch u ever had love story.
Wizard Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 I loved it. I would not have it end any other way. Yes, I was surprised they didn't explain the monster at the end; but then again, that wouldn't be true to how the movie was made. Form matches function, and by seeing this unbelievable event through the eyes of a spectator, it becomes plausible and serves to suspend your feeling of disbelief.It does show the monster's origin (or as close to). According to the production notes (which is simply google-able, which is the thingy sent out to those scoopers and stuff) is that the monster has been on earth for centuries and that a satellite owned by Shulosh's (or whatever teh drink is called) parent company crashed to earth and woke it up. But it still doesn't show Clovie's true origin (what's it doing here/wtf are those spider things). Also the after credits, "It's still alive." Yeah, sequel coming alright.
Skythe Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 No one had a problem with Romero's sh!tty zombie flicks not telling the audience how or why the zombie infestation came to be yet everyone wants to PMS over this sh!tty film. God I hate people.
Wizard Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 He gave a bunch of hints to what started the outbreaks, but all the meanings to his zombo films was social commentary on topics at the time. With this, there's uh, a monster that attacks NYC and it sorta looks like 9/11? I guess.
Skythe Posted January 23, 2008 Posted January 23, 2008 Of the Dead never gave hints. The zombies just showed up over night. Romero sucks ass. Diary of the Dead = Gay sex. Clover's director has said the inspiration for his film was when he took his kid to a store in Japan and saw the 0293749837249 million Godzilla toys and decided to do his own big ass monster flick. My brother has told me about the morons whining about the psuedo 9/11 with this film and the people who are bashing it for that. Then other's are calling it an Aliens rip-off cuz of the chick's body imploding claiming it's a wannabe chest burster scene. I said it once and I'll say it again...I hate people.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now