they are all american?!?!

I don't see how reviewers for American magazines wouldn't have the same bias any other american would about 9/11?

I am Canadian, and I don't see any kind of 9/11 crap in that movie, its just shit blowing up, woo hoo.

they are all american?!?!

I don't see how reviewers for American magazines wouldn't have the same bias any other american would about 9/11?

I am Canadian, and I don't see any kind of 9/11 crap in that movie, its just shit blowing up, woo hoo.

it was also an american made movie so maybe the movie makers have that same bias???

it was also an american made movie so maybe the movie makers have that same bias???

well yeah but what if they werent aiming for 9/11???? did he say it was that?!?!


im jus sayin, everyone explodes about exploding new york

or not retarded? just looking at wikipedia:

LOOK AT ALL THESE NOOBS WHO COULDN'T FIGURE SHIT OUT...

edit: man I love this Salon.com review.

also yeah me and another one of my friends (out of the 4 that went) thought of 9/11.

hell, that scene at the beginning with buildings crashing and they had the giant smoke/debris storm sweeping down the street as people dived into the stores....that was EXACTLY what people did in 9/11. i'm pretty sure there was like a video of something during 9/11 of people doing that, though not too sure.

also yeah me and another one of my friends (out of the 4 that went) thought of 9/11.

hell, that scene at the beginning with buildings crashing and they had the giant smoke/debris storm sweeping down the street as people dived into the stores....that was EXACTLY what people did in 9/11. i'm pretty sure there was like a video of something during 9/11 of people doing that, though not too sure.

wow omg, people diving into stores to save their lives which is probably the only OBVIOUS solution when there is GIANT SMOKE AND DEBRIS GOING EVERYWHERE well shit man, it must be about 9/11 i mean its not like this is what you would do with debris going everywhere.

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.

I'm not saying I don't understand how people can see it is 9/11, but I don't look at it that way.

It's not the only way to look at it is what I was trying to say, I just saw it as another disaster movie that shows people helping each other etc, until I read the reviews.

i never really saw the 9/11 connection. i guess because it's in new york and buildings get destroyed it must be referencing 9/11??

(you know there's been like 3,000 monster-attacks-nyc movies before i don't see how this is evoking 9/11)

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?

I guess shaky cam must make all the difference here because I am pretty sure everything else you said has been done to death in hundreds of other monster movies in new york.

When you have a monster, shit is going to get blown up, rubble is going to be flying, and amazingly enough if a 500 foot GREEN DINOSAUR-LIKE THING was attacking my town I'd probably be confused and running around and I am sure so would a lot of other people.

BUT MAYBE YOU'RE TOO BALLSY AND ARENT SCARED OF SUCH THINGS AND YOUR BUILDINGS CAN RESIST MONSTERS WHAT DO I KNOW???

i don't get why everybody so vehemently denies the idea that this movie could possibly be referencing 9/11.  a lot of people seem to get very offended by that notion!  like it was pretty obvious to me but everybody thinks that people are attacking the movie by saying it references 9/11 which they aren't necessarily doing.

edit: by the way although i don't want to sound high and mighty or elitist or some shit but if you guys refuse to believe that MAYBE (MAYBE???) the movie is referencing 9/11 then you probably read movies too literally and you probably don't really understand them! 

edit edit: you are probably the type of people who watch eraserhead and hate it because babies don't look like that.

edit:::::: from now on every time i see a topic about a bad movie i'm just going to talk about david lynch instead

i don't get why everybody so vehemently denies the idea that this movie could possibly be referencing 9/11.  a lot of people seem to get very offended by that notion!  like it was pretty obvious to me but everybody thinks that people are attacking the movie by saying it references 9/11 which they aren't necessarily doing.

I'm not denying the possibility that the movie could possibility be referencing 9/11, but then again I'm not denying the possibility that I'll marry Leah Dizon.


It's really far fetched imo, and its annoying that everyone now and days has to point out every single fucking thing as a 9/11 reference even if its just as CLOSE as OMG STUFF GETS BLOWN UP AND PEOPLE RUN AROUND SCARED (uh...don't people do that when y'know, stuff gets blown up and OMG MONSTER?) & OH YEAH ITS NEW YORK BY CHANCE.

So what, it doesn't even matter.

so you're telling me he shot an entire movie with handheld cameras about a disaster in New York from a civilian's perspective and not once thought about 9/11 or how much like 9/11 this would look.

ps what other things are pointed out as 9/11 references?

so you're telling me he shot an entire movie with handheld cameras about a disaster in New York from a civilian's perspective and not once thought about 9/11 or how much like 9/11 this would look.

i am sure he thought about 9/11 because it is hard not to think about such a terrible thing every day

but it is completely ridiculous to go "oh my god...its just like 9/11?!?!?!?" to it. Just because its New York, its a disaster, and people are freaking out doesn't mean he was going "heh...heh....this will be symbolic of the terrorists crashing the plane into the important buildings heh..."

it's not very far-fetched at all and i don't see why you people think that!  yeah no shit people are going to run when shit blows up but that's not the argument here hurrr!  jesus it's a movie shot entirely on a HANDHELD CAMERA about NEW YORK UNDER ATTACK.  hint: maybe shooting the entire movie on a handheld camera was more than just a gimmick???  did you consider that maybe... maybe J.J. Abrams was influenced by the real life events of 9/11 (fun fact: every artist ever takes inspiration from real life) and wanted to recreate the fear that came with the attacks by making a monster movie?? and maybe he recreated those images by shooting the movie on a handheld camera and having a shot of people running from the smoke and hiding in stores that looks a lot like this one video of people running away from the smoke during 9/11? 

I would also like to point out the number of positive reviews that pointed to exactly what Roman just said, which I quoted.

it's not a stretch at all!!!

guys vertigo is about alfred hitchcock's misogynistic tendencies.

NO IT'S NOT ROMAN SHUT UP NO IT'S NOT

vertigo is about a guy who forces some girl to look exactly like this other girl he was once in love with THERE'S NOTHING MORE TO IT. 

wow omg, people diving into stores to save their lives which is probably the only OBVIOUS solution when there is GIANT SMOKE AND DEBRIS GOING EVERYWHERE well shit man, it must be about 9/11 i mean its not like this is what you would do with debris going everywhere.

you totally missed my point and looked at the wrong statement

jesus i wish i could find that video of people doing that in 9/11 (not to be a dick but jesus fucking christ)

i'm saying the whole scene itself. jj abrams decided to have people stand in the street looking scared, then they look the other way and a big tower/building starts to fall and then the giant rush of gray debris cloud and people start diving into stores.

i swear it is EXACTLY a recreation of some camcorder vid of 9/11.

and i really don't see why people are getting offended.

:edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2d1kLnSi6E&feature=related

not too good of example but it's the same idea (don't take this as the exact same thing as cloverfield it is not)

i'm not refusing to believe it's about 9/11 or whatever i just said i didn't think of it while i was watching the movie.

Yeah, I didn't think of 9/11 when I saw it, but after reading so many reviews that compared it to 9/11, I don't think it's weird or far fetched that people did. Like Fire Mage has been saying, I can think of a few 9/11 videos that look very similar to some scenes in Cloverfield.

And Steel is making a good point when he says that saying it referenced 9/11 is not necessarily an attack on the film.

But anyway, you guys are getting a little hostile so maybe we should just drop it before the discussion turns angry.