I think it's an original idea by J.J. Abrams, largely inspired by Godzilla. I think he's been quoted as saying he wanted to "create an American Godzilla."

__________________
"Do I need to post these links thousands of times?" --bloosum

I saw the film today, and it was just as I predicted. There was no story, and no real attempt at one.

There was lots of unlikely behavior on the part of the characters and a good deal of screaming. The camera shock like crazy, but that was part of the threadbare story.

At the very best the film was an existential metaphor. The monster was death which can't be stopped, and the camera was our memory. The monster attack was filming over the video of the main character's wonderful date with a great girl, who he ignored for a good job. The film was telling us to revel in today's "great date" because tomorrow could bring death and the destruction of all your plans.

That message is in hundreds of films and books.

The film had some positives in good visuals, a cute cast (yuck), and some plausibility that a person would film such an event. I was interested to see what would happen next, but I would suggest that you run out to see it.

In fact, I wouldn't see it at all. It will only encourage Hollywood to make more sensational, storyless, crap.

These type of movies, let's call them disaster movies, have found a reinvigorated audience since 9-11. It seems that between the fall of the USSR and 9-11 we didn’t need movies like this. But now we need the movies just like people needed them in the 1950's & early 60's. (I have to admit I have a soft spot for crappy sci-fi movies but I don’t usually pay to see them.) Of course something would be wrong if someone wasn’t making these movies now.

Adlerian, have you seen a movie from 1989 called “Miracle Mile”:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097889/

You might find some interested characters in there.

__________________
If he ever had to eat his own words he'd die of malnutrition.
Colin P. Varga 1991

Colin, I'm not recalling that film. It was worth watching for the character development, correct?

I enjoyed the film, but then again, unlike The Adlerian, I don't expect self actualization and philosophy from monster movies. The movie had a physical impact on me similar to "Mission: Space" (with spin!) in Disney World- this really made the movie fun, because it was a very physical, tense, experience.

Alas though, maybe I should be disappointed because I didn't come away with a better understanding of the human condition, love, or even Slusho! for that matter...

So, it wasn't a film, or even a video game in depth, but more like a simulation of a ride, at an amusement park.

I'll have to agree with that.

Well said. It's a monster movie, not Sophie's Choice. Go into it expecting that and nothing else. Still, even on those terms, I was a little disappointed. For one, they showed the creature too early and too often. The lesson from Jaws (and The Blair Witch Project, which obviously this is indebted to) is to let viewers use their imaginations. Whatever we can conjure up ourselves is more potent than anything the FX department can deliver. I also thought the sequence in the half-collapsed skyscraper went too smoothly. That was the perfect set-up for a little Poseidon Adventure-style sequence, but they zipped in and out like James Bond. Finally, the characters were too boneheaded to take advantage of their surroundings: they encounter the military but don't bother to take any supplies, food or first aid, and the one girl was wearing high heels the whole time even though they walked through a department store and even made it to the other girl's apartment. Wouldn't a normal person have asked to borrow a pair of sneakers?

__________________
"You can live to be a hundred if you give up all the things that make you want to live to be a hundred." — Woody Allen

(Avatar stolen from this nifty project.)

I agree with your comments about the characters, which was an example of the ultra-poor writing. There was no other story to worry about, so the few simple things they did ought to have been paid attention to.

A film doesn't have to be nonsense just because it has a monster in it. A scifi story has to make sense according to the rules of the universe it's in. In this universe a giant monster can exist, ok so what happens then, is the question.

I saw nothing wrong with the monster itself or the little creatures. However, it made no sense that the people could easily fight the little things, but if they got a bite, they exploded, and only one person does. Knowing this it then makes zero sense to go running around the streets unarmed.

In so many badly made scfi and action films the characters simply move from one fantastic event to the next having learned nothing from the previous one. My favorite one is not picking up guns and using them.

What You Guys Missed:

The only substance in the film was the existential message I mentioned. I don't think either of you caught it.

It's a disaster movie where different people react differently: panic, acceptance, etc. It's not that great of a movie, but has interesting points like how much chance plays a role in life. The movie really focuses on the characters rather than the disaster itself. Maybe you would like it.

When I heard the review I thought the whole thing took place in a diner, which is where it starts, and I kind of envisioned "My Dinner with Andre" while people were waiting for the end. Hmmm, maybe I'll have to make that movie myself.

__________________
If he ever had to eat his own words he'd die of malnutrition.
Colin P. Varga 1991

That's what Hitchcock called the "MacGuffin". While the movie needs the monster, actually seeing the monster isn't important to the plot. If this thing actually happened in NYC most people wouldn't actually witness much but most probably would react to other people's panic.

__________________
If he ever had to eat his own words he'd die of malnutrition.
Colin P. Varga 1991