Perhaps one of you, eloquent commentators, could explain how "Monster" (on the market since January 18, 2008) can be a knockoff of "Cloverfield" (on the screen since January 16, 2008)? A great show of clairvoyance or a masterpiece of film-making and marketing? There are quite a few flaws in the movie (like why the recording on the first cassettes was OK and the distorted picture/sound effects appear at the same time the monster does - if the cassettes were found later together, damaged), but they are their own flaws. Oh, and stop wondering how one camera battery could hold for so long - the girls had a few batteries, as they indicate themselves at one point.
Reviews
2 Reviews
Heroes' Mountain
(2002 TV Movie)
an accurate (so I'm told) report of an inferior rescue effort
16 July 2006
I was able to watch the movie last Friday on Polish TV, four years after the movie had been made and nine years after the tragedy. And I was disgusted. The movie was a disaster, and if it is an accurate report, the rescue had been a disaster too. The rescue should have started with an attempt to make sure if there were any survivors. Not by simply saying "nobody could have survived this", but by using IR detectors, trained dogs, highly-sensitive microphones - there are numerous options. And what we can see is rescuers listening for survivors' voices by ear! and otherwise just standing or walking in the way of other rescuers. Now that's a well-organized action for me! And when the sole survivor is finally found, instead of dropping everything else and removing what has been piled on top of Stuart Diver, they talk and talk and talk. Indeed - three-fourths of the whole movie is talking. If that's the way rescue is brought in Australia, I surely don't want to go there at all. One more thing: If in the mountains you build a house of reinforced concrete with such poor foundations that melting snow can bring the whole structure down, then you really ask for trouble.
Tell Your Friends