The movie is about a group of friends, one of them films everything with a camcorder. That's the whole movie.

It was pretty good.

Given how this film is likely to divide opinons ala Blair Witch, let me toss in my 2 cents on the time:

1) If you hate the film, you wouldn't want it to last any longer.

2) As someone who liked the film, I think the run time was just about right. Shaky cam can be a bit much in long stretches, and the restrictions of the"found footage" format keeps the film focused on one group of characters from beginning to end. There is no way to pad the film bycutting away to a B-story. I think it works better "lean".

I thought the movie was interesting, but wasn't a huge fan of it myself. I liked the concept, but the camera literaly moved to the point of making me nausous. I expected it to move, but at points it was rediculous levels.

I can see why people would like it, but just never clicked with me.

This movie is really hyped in my school everyone is talking about it even the teachers. I might see it sometime tomorrow

It's a specific film technique, or rather apes one, called "found footage". In real FF films, the director uses footage filmed by others to tell his story. IN this case (or Blair Witch or Diary of the Dead), there is no "real" footage to steal, so the film is staged as if it were filmed "naturally" - in this case by Random Bystander Hud, who happened to have a cam corder handy when the shit came down. The purpose for this decision is threefold:

1. It keeps costs down. By restricting to a 1st person point of view, the director has a reason not to show you everything, the way they would in a tradional Godzilla movie, and that keeps the FX budget down (note, however, that simulating this style is not necessarily easier than filming it in a traditional manner).

2. Increase authenticity. We all have experience with camcorders. We have seen "homemade" footage of tragic events from the JFK assassination to 9/11. This choice nominally makes the events feel more "real."

3. Increase suspense. By not showing you everything going on, increasing authenticty and placing the viewer in the middle of the action on screen (much as a FPS) it is hoped that the dramatic tension will be increased.

Of course this all depends on the technique being well done, and whether you are a person who likes it. Those who do not like "shaky cam" will find it hard to enjoy the film regardless. 

Didn't read any posts, don't want anyone to let something slip...but I would just like to say I have been waiting to see this movie since I first saw a clip of it almost a year ago!! Tomorrow I am going to catch an early showing, hopefully beating the crowd (yeah right), and I am extremely excited this movie is finally out! WOOP WOOP!

Like I said in the other thread, I thought it was below average. Not terrible, though the acting and writing were uniformly awful. It's not scary in any way - most of the money shots are of the "Ooh, that looks neat" variety, rather than the "Oh shit it's coming for us!" that the creators were obviously going for. The monster looks realy good at all times, and it tears a lot of stuff up.

Spoilers:

The little monsters weren't bad, but they're a disappointment nonetheless. The filmmakers obviously wanted to keep the mayhem level as high as possible, but couldn't figure out a way to do that consistently with the big guy, so we get these little guys to pad the running time.

The ending would have been cool, if I cared about any of the characters at all. Unfortunately neither the script nor the cast is up to the task. I'm more disappointed with the former than the latter, because I've liked Drew Goddard's work for a while now.

A good many people in my theater laughed and cheered in my theater when the main characters died, and then booed when they came back on screen. Nobody shushed them.

My brother called me as he left the theater and told me how much he hated it. He claims (and I have no reason not to believe him, he used to get sick on merry-go-rounds as a child) that he actually left the theater to go throw up because of the disorientation he suffered. He went back in afterward to see if the end would justify his price of entry and was pissed off that he wasted $8 on it.

I haven't seen it but my brother has superb taste in movies so I'm gonna take him at his word. Believe the hype people it just isn't worth it. DVD is the way to go with this one unless you want to hug the men's restroom toilet barfing up your $6 popcorn and $4 soda.

Shaky cam has been around for a long time. People should know whether they can handle it or not. It does help to sit towards the back of the theater.

As for your brothers taste in movies, it sounds like his review was based solely on his inner ear, so he may not be the most reliable souce in this case, except for those who suffer from the same malady.

The prospective of the camera is something that would hold me back from seeing it (at least until a DVD release). That is something that would make me very sick.