jesus christ how did you people not see the clear 9/11 shit everywhere.
look when a movie has no point to the disaster other than SHOW...THE HUMAN CONDITION... and you set it in New York, and said disaster involves a lot of shit blowing up and rubble flying, and it's all filmed via shaky cam, and everyone is acting confused and running around, do you really think the director didn't think he was appealing to people's memories of 9/11?
did you see the POSITIVE reviews that mentioned the 9/11 thing?
christ it's not a 9/11 movie because shit fell apart, it's because apart from the fact it's a monster, it's exactly like footage of 9/11 over and over and over and over. whether you think the creator used the sense of 9/11 tragedy well or not is different, but if you can't at least acknowledge the point of view that it exists, then you're a damn fool.
I wish I could think of another movie that just kind of coopted the country's prevailing feeling on a certain disaster/type of event but I can't. it's just pretty clear to me he is deliberately appealing to the 9/11 tragedy (and the many many reviews that mention this (the fact that you apparently have no sense of context does not excuse the fact that the context still exists; I may not know about Afghanistan but I can still watch the Kite Runner and understand the cultural difference and appeal) elaborate on this) and I don't see how you don't get it.
Is "Cloverfield" trying to be a "fun" monster movie, or is it trying to say something about the way, post-9/11, we experience horrific events? I simply have no idea. There are many people who walk around thinking, "9/11 is the most dramatic, most significant event in our lives," just as there are others who think, "Big deal. It was only a matter of time until we were attacked on our own soil." If 1950s horror films were really about the communist threat, as we're constantly and needlessly reminded by film scholars, then why can't modern horror films mirror our own fears about real-life terrorism? There's no reason that they can't. But there's also no reason we have to accept the cheapening of real-life tragedy as a means of entertainment. "Cloverfield" harnesses the horror of 9/11 -- specifically as it was felt in New York -- and repackages it as an amusement-park ride. We see familiar buildings exploding and crumpling before our eyes, and plumes of smoke rolling up the narrow corridors formed by lower-Manhattan streets, images that were once the province of news footage and have now been reduced to special effects. Kewl!
I'm not saying those images should never be used dramatically in any way. But like all potent images, they deserve some care and respect, and some discretion. Why use them just for kicks, as a means to get a rise out of the audience as it recognizes something familiar and terrifying? "Cloverfield" takes the trauma of 9/11 and turns it into just another random spectacle at which to point and shoot. The picture's overconfident sense of immediacy is precisely what makes it so remote. Maybe we now live in a world where we record the moment first and feel it later. If that's the case, "Cloverfield" leaves us waiting to feel.
ps if you did think OH ITS NOT TRYING TO TELL US ANYTHING IT'S JUST A FUN MONSTER MOVIE christ you have low fucking standards for fun.
it's an okay movie but to plug your ears and say "whoa it never tried to say ANYTHING its great because it does nothing for anyone......" is kind of dumb and no one cares about what you have to say.