1

First off, incredible movie. (I won't give any spoilers.)

Secondly, horrible experience for me. 75% of this movie shakes like a drunk operating the video camera during an earthquake. It's a great effect, and is important for the feel of the movie, but I got motion sickness like a motherfuck. Didn't blow chunks, but came close to it. And that was not even looking at the screen for about half of it.

The movie was the shit, though. Great plot, great acting, great CGI. It leaves you wanting a little more, but it gives you enough not to leave the theater pissed off. Personally, I came home and started looking for more info online right away.

But go see it on the big screen if you can - and if you get motion sickness easily, I've heard non-drowsy Dramamine does the trick.

Enjoy!

Hobbit on Jan 18, 2008

2

I absolutely thought the movie was awesome. It left some things unanswered, but I expected that from a JJ Abrams production. The monster didn't disappoint one bit, although I think it should have had a bit more screen time. I hope JJ or the director answer some questions on the 2-disc Special Edition DVD.

Max on Jan 18, 2008

3

Saw it last night and loved every second of it. It lived up to my hopes for it and loved it, I was happy with the amount they showed the monster. Plan on seeing it again tomorrow.

Stephen on Jan 18, 2008

4

I absolutely LOVED this movie…

http://nick-reinhart.com/2008/01/18/cloverfield-rocked/

Nick Reinhart on Jan 18, 2008

5

worse movie i have seen - the boring 20 minute start a party seen i almost fell asleep i wiould have walked out but i had seen the clips and only stayed because i wanted to give the movie a fair go. Then we had the whole running with camera for the rest of the movie some stages i could even watch it as it made feel sick. The only good thing was great sound because i couldn't watch it.

ballo on Jan 18, 2008

6

Saw the movie this afternoon. The reaction in the theater was very mixed. Those with half a brain were transfixed….realizing this was a very cool ride and a quite unique way to shoot a "monster" movie.

Then…there were the idiots. The ones saying "oh man…this movie blows" while picking out the underwear from their ass cracks. The ones that expected to see lots of cute professional camera angles…a happy ending and perhaps the president flying his own F18 to save the day.

And such are the comments about the films. Quite amusing to say the least.

CobraKai on Jan 18, 2008

7

I just got back from Cloverfield. I have to say that it was more of an experience than a movie, but I loved it.

I get goose bumps thinking about how ominous, and real the movie felt. From the time the attack started, I was frozen in my seat. My heart pounded, and I was a nervous wreck until the credits rolled.

When it was over, the whole audience sat there, still, in complete silence for quite a few minutes. You could hear a pin drop. It was if everyone was in shock at what had just taken place, and didn't quite know how to react.

It took a minute to snap out of the trance, and I immediately thought "WHAT THE FUCK JUST HAPPENED?".

The shaky camera was rough, but it served a purpose. The acting was completely believable, and the monster, was just damn scary. I won't give spoilers, and I really don't think anyone should. Describing the monster would not do it justice. You have to see it, and experience the terror that the main characters feel in order to get this movie.

Don't expect answers, or any big alien invasion conspiracy to be explained. Cloverfield is artistic in it's presentation of what would normally just be a giant monster movie, and to me, perfect the way it is.

This may just be the best movie you see this year! I plan to go back and see it again. I wish it was in IMAX.

TCox on Jan 18, 2008

8

My husband and I just saw this movie and came away very disappointed. The Blair Witch filming effect was awful and made it difficult to see the action. It had all the optimistic potential in the trailer but the finished product left a lot to be desired. When the brother died at the bridge, there was very little emotion and sureal. When the friend, Hud (camera guy), died there was emotion but by then it was too late. Hud was too stupid. The pretty girls were just incidental eye candy. The ending was abrupt and too predictable. I want a do over.

Ty B on Jan 18, 2008

9

ok, look at the poster there is a stream of water coming from near the staute of liberty and going toward n.y.c. and in the end a sphere drops into the water when rob and beth are on the ferris wheel on coney island in the top right corner of the frame. this is when the monster comes to earth and he swims from coney island, hits the barge, and terrorizes n.y.c. and at the end of all the credits a male voice says "it's still alive" backwards and to hear it you have to play it backwards. this means there could be a sequel but if not the monster is not dead.

mike on Jan 18, 2008

10

Easily one of the best movies I've ever seen! Nuff said.

Futch on Jan 18, 2008

11

I went into this movie with dramatically high expectations. I had checked out all of the Internet elements for Cloverfield - the Tagruoto web site for the evil oil company, the Slusho soft drink commercial, the fake newscasts in Spanish, Italian, and German, TIDO-wave for the eco-terrorists, Rob's MySpace web page and the videocam content too (see http://movies.ign.com/articles/845/845649p1.html for info on all of the Viral elements).

I was really intrigued and thought that these Internet "pre-movie" pieces were brilliant, a new way to bring movies into the world. I also enjoyed the online trailers and teasers and thought that this movie might be spectacular. Also as a kid I grew up loving Godzilla so I thought perhaps this could be the next generation. Also I thought that the "found footage" idea was great. As a final note, I am an avid fan of LOST and follow it religiously with an almost cult like devotion to the characters. I bet you think I loved it.

Guess again - I thought that the movie sucked. And typically I would love a movie like this. The reasons: (a) characters are flat and one-dimensional, yes I know its cool and low budget that they used no-names, but it shows in the result, as the New York Times said, the characters have the emotional depth of Tater-Tots; (b) there is no suspense, nothing was scary at any time, and there was no dynamic tension either; (c) there is little or no connection between the innovative Internet elements and the movie content itself. I am seriously disappointed. I hope that JJ Abrams can make it up to us with a great Star Trek movie but now I am quite concerned about that too (side note: I am a big Star Trek fan too in addition to LOST). I am glad to see many other people liked the movie - maybe I need to see it again. Caveat: I saw the film in a movie with a small screen (avoid that at all costs as this should be seen big) and also there were lots of kids in the theater making noise and acting like idiots which did impact the experience.

Eric on Jan 18, 2008

12

This is the first time in a looong while that I've gone to see a movie on opening Friday - they did such a great job creating buzz (and thanks for helping and linking to the "news bits" and the trailers).

I loved it! I didn't mind the hand-held shaky camera - made perfect sense to me, and added to the sense of being right in the middle of it. I was glued to my seat the whole time. And the ending I thought was perfect.

elkit on Jan 18, 2008

13

Roller-coaster - one of the best.

During the party, there came a point were I thought to myself, "…ok - I get it. let's move on…" and the lights went out. Perfect. I enjoy a well done first-person account in which I get to find out what is happening as the characters do. This allows me to be right there in the story-line, trying to figure out what to do next armed with only the information a single individual might have at that moment. When they decided on the subway, I thought "…what? You watched the CNN report! Are you insane?"

Blair-Witch was way over the top. I felt separated from the story. Not so with Cloverfield. I actually reacted to the story, which is something that is rare for me. I was even caught off-guard in a couple of spots, and overall I was surprised by the effect it had on me.

Going in I had no high-hopes nor preconceived notions about what I thought it should be. It is a JJ Abrams movie, so I expected the subtle mind-games and a few "close-calls". Meaning it's big, it's scary, but I can't quite figure out what it is type of scenarios. Instead, I got a section of society terrified and herded like cattle (the bridge - what were they thinking?). So I enjoyed the movie very much and I'll probably pay more money to go see it again - something I have not done since the first Star Wars.

My recommendation is this - clear the head and expect to be entertained. It's a good story comprised of terror, true unknown, love, honor, and courage. There is no costume bravery, and the dialog is in the average dialog of people today. This is one movie that does need to be seen on the big screen to get the full effect, so don't just wait around for the DVD. Treat yourself, and if your prone to sea-sickness, take some Dramamine an hour before the show!

Enjoy!

Sean on Jan 18, 2008

14

I loved it! Very creative, very compelling, it hooked me and kept me the whole way. It won't be for everyone, but I really thought it was fun. I've had a crap-week so it was the perfect movie-going experience of escapism that I needed…which is what movies are supposed to do!

http://www.mynameiscorey.com

Corey

Corey Mann on Jan 18, 2008

15

Saw the movie Friday afternoon. I do like the way the movie was portrayed … yes I agree that the camera work was dizzying, but understood … me and the people I saw the movie did run through the dozens of possibilities for the monster and yes hope there is something down the line that puts an explanation to the monster, but that is what Abrams does. Tries to leave you guessing and your imagination. However, this time I would like to find out more.

The one thing I do have to say is that one possible reason why this movie is going to be so enticing for viewers is the "curiosity" element. Why do we all stop to look at a car accident? Why do people stay when a hurricane approaches? Why do we love large scale events? It does have a lot to do with the fact that we all like to "BE INVOLVED". It kinda goes the way of "Where were you when … ?" The way the video was shot is exactly that feeling and gives the viewer a way to feel like they were actual in the middle of all of that chaos.

Definitely want to see it again for what might have been missed, including as one comment showed earlier (and no it shouldn't have been said since it might spoil things for others) that there was something we missed from the end, actually two things and we did stay all the way to the end of the credits … but won't say what was there because we might have missed something or what amounts to nothing.

John on Jan 18, 2008

16

Thought it was really good and would definitely see it again…. definitely lived up to the hype for me. Everybody in the theatre loved it and it's intensity. Going again tomorrow!

C on Jan 18, 2008

17

i like the monster scenes (which were few and far between) but the rest was crap. like i said to my friends, this movies like a good BJ that went south at the wrong time

PS the host was better

mos on Jan 18, 2008

18

Scared the crap out of me, was completely freaked out at the parasite/spider things. Sick as a dog by the end. LOVED it…in retrospect.

K on Jan 18, 2008

19

i thought it was great!! but i wish there was an explanation on how we were seeing the footage.

ralph on Jan 18, 2008

20

My wife came home early from work….gotta go!! Cloverfield…bye!! Mach 5 to the local theater to make the next show at 4:10. Ticket in hand…interest in movie is high, heart beating in anticipation, hype palpable.

Let's talk trailers quickly….

Extra Cheese on the first chick-flick trailer…WTF was that? Iron Man…saw it preceding I AM LEGEND (NY in jeopardy again…damn!), Star Trek –whatever. Not a Trek fan (so shoot me with you tazer or phaser or whatever the hell you trekkies call it) but with JJ it raises a blip on my "must see radar" I'll admit.

Now…Cloverfield. Excellent intro…got that. Nice building up of character relations. Not much time to do that after all it's only 84 minutes long. Let's go, Let's go…holy poo on a stick that first explosion was sweet. Oh, and the audio as the BAD ROBOT logo comes up was nice…BOOM.BOOM.BOOM…ominous!

I understood the concept after seeing the very first "treat/morsel" handed us preceding Transformers last summer. Look, if you took the time to read my post and got this far AND you didn't care for CLOVERFIELD I say boo on you. Boo on you. Or maybe poo on you? Hmmm…Shame on you for not having the brains to figure out from all that's been shown on the TV, your frakin' IPOD, YOUTUBE at work when you should have been working…you know who you are and every other place where there's a screen on this pebble in space called earth. ARE YOU THAT BLIND??

IT'S A GODS DAMN MONSTER MOVIE FOR THE SHORT ATTENTION SPAN CROWD. Look people, I'm touching off on 40 soon with a giant bald spot/UFO landing site on my head and YET I GET IT AND LOVE IT….count me in on the JJ BAND WAGON. In fact book me a seat on that above mentioned SHORT ATTENTION SPAN CROWD BUS deal too.

Yeah, you read that right. I come in at about a 0 on an attention span scale. Maybe I had too many bowls of fruity pebbles as a kid, maybe I smoked too many bowls as a kid but in either case I digress. I'm not too old to rock and roll and I think the over 40 crowd (if my brother reads this he fits it to a T) will poo poo this movie and cry like little babies on forums and websites galore until they go to bed w/o sex AGAIN….roll over…your on my side. You know who you are.

Man, how big was that Mt. DEW I drank?? I'm shaking like a leaf typing this post. Anyway…

It is what it is. Nothing more. They never hinted at or promised anything more than what you got. If you truly went into the theater thinking you were going to get some kind of plot other than HOLY FUCK THAT BUILDING JUST CAME DOWN!! then you should have seen the BUCKETLIST instead. Especially that guy I'm gonna mention in the next paragraph. Wrong theater jackass….

One last note…theater was roughly 1/4 full…good crowd..no stupid f'ing cell phone clowns, laser pointer fucks or other worthless trash. But a big F U to the guy sitting off my left shoulder behind me laughing at the most inappropriate times! WTF dude?? I bet he was in the NAM and laughed when his buddies got shot too. F that guy. AND F me for that matter…I'm done. No I'm not…one other off topic middle finger to the guy sitting next to me at BEOWULF (Now that sucked)…nice cell phone flashing every five minutes. Look kids…and some of you adults too…if you go see a movie and you have to check your damn phone then you need to not go, stay at home, diddle yourself, take a nap and just leave me in peace. Phew. I've been waiting to get that one off my chest.

Hate these f'ers like me who type endless posts eh?

Fill out this simple quesitonaire. If you answer YES to at least on of these then go see the movie. Nuff said.

1. Do you like monster movies?
2. Do you want to see a monster tear the shit out of a city?
3. Do you like to watch crap blow up?

Go see this movie. Or go see Bucketlist. I don't give a shit…it's your dime. I liked this one. Goodbye.

Matt on Jan 18, 2008

21

I really wanted to like this movie and high hopes for it.

Going into it I was thinking/hoping that they would actually make it believable. As if this was someone's actual experience if a monster would attack NYC. I mean after all was that not the point of shooting the whole film in a handycam perspective? They did so well by keeping the monster and any trace of it out of the trailers, i've been waiting so long for a movie to do that.

However hollywood is too scared to stray from its same predictable/cheesy crap. This movie lost me about 35 - 40 minutes in for good. (I wouldn't read much farther if you don't want to spoil the movie) First off, they made guy with the camera (Hud) way too stupid. Some of his lines are enjoyable and funny but overall this character is awkward and horribly written and unbelievable. The second problem I have with the movie is after the subway, the plot just goes down hill, sure I believe that he would do anything to find his woman and save her. But honestly how ridiculous was it for them to go through what they did to get her and to save her? I just wish they could of maintained a somewhat believable element to this film and keep me on the edge of my seat, but that was not the case here.

Mark on Jan 18, 2008

22

SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!! This movie is just a piece of crap. It's worse than The Blair Witch. I have seen so many movies, and this one is the WORST!!!!!!! It's not even a movie. CRAP!!!

Jack on Jan 18, 2008

23

All I can say is that this movie blew me away. I felt everything that every character felt. I cried when they did; I was pumped with adrenaline when they were…

this movie is a classic already

Josh on Jan 18, 2008

24

Like I said before….if Speilberg did a musical or metallica did country album or in this whatever JJ did so far or will do….I'm sold. It was such brilliant picture. Let me tell ya why?….it was about 35 mill, brilliant viral marketing, love story mixed in with intense fear, compassionate human story, Camera work was brilliant…film school thesis like, (have you seen sugarland express…hmm), Unknown actors except lizzy caplan, I guess, NYC my hometown getting hammered, JJ and the gang displayed that you can have a huge film with a good piece of writing …..Bruckheimer and Micheal Bay will always wish that they could be as good as JJ and the gang.

By now you all probably heard that cliche…..blair witch/monster or real world/monster. whatever….I'm not even a scifi monster movie fan….but I think I've seen most of Godzilla movies (yes there are 28, I think….and god were they aweful…and yes I've seen the HOST)….whateever….find out for yourself…..Cloverfield is one of a kind, unique, innovative and fresh look.

Any of you out there seen 28 days later….what did you think of it…please respond if you loved it? ….thanks.

Last, hey Hobbit, why don't you run for your life with a dv cam; while a whole building or monster coming towards you…..you see what I mean. It needed to be that realistic. You didn't see any of the reporters around wtc on 9/11 shooting a perfect shots….no they were and shooting the picture therefore, whatever.

scar on Jan 18, 2008

25

I liked it more for the cinematography than the story. I agree with one of the previous comments–there's not much character development nor explanation. However, considering the nature of the movie–footage found during the aftermath–I don't think there's much need for either. It begs a sequel or prequel explaining things, but I don't know if such a thing would be appropriate. The special effects are fantastic, more because of how well they fit into the cinematography than how cool they look.

The merit of the movie is in the style, not the story, and for this I think critics will love it but the public will dislike it. Motion sickness is going to be a factor, too. I don't get it, fortunately, but the friend who accompanied me yakked in the bathroom during and couldn't watch the rest (he listened, though).

It's also really short. It's tops an hour and 20 minutes–approximately the length of single DV camera tape.

Colin Dean on Jan 18, 2008

26

THIS MOVIE IS FACE MELTING AWESOME!!!!

my only crtique is that i want more, i want to know more about the monster. but i realize if they put any kind of explanation in there it would of been forced and unnatural.

one of a kind, i have never been scared at a monster flick before. i thought they were all just 'fun' and nothing more. this scared me. that monster freaked me out.

cant wait for the dvd with all the extras!!!

sarah on Jan 18, 2008

27

VERY GOOD IDEA FOR A GREAT FILM BUT THE PRODUTION IT WAS TERRIBLE ALL THE MUVIE LIKE A HOME VIDEO CAM WAS FILMING EVERYTING COME ON THE PICTURE WAS A JOKE AS WELL IF THERE IS EVER A SECOND PART FOR THIS THING MAKE IT LIKE A REAL NUVIE, I CULD TAKE MY VIDEO CANERA AND JUST FILM SOMETHING LIKE IT AND ADD WHEALS SOUND IN THE BACKGROUND AND TAKE A TOY CITY AND DO DESTRUCTION TO IT HO ANOTHER THING DONT U THING THAT NEW YORK MAY FIND OFFENSIVE THAT U DUPLICATED THE 911 INCIDENT AND WHY NY? WY NOT ANOTHER CITY I WENT TO THE MUVIES TO SEE THIS GREAT FILM BUT IT TUNR DOWN TO BE THE WORST THING EVERY ONE HAD THE SAME IMPRESION WHAT A WASTE OF TALENT

PS. DINT HAVE $$$ TO DO IT RIGHT?
IVE SEEM BETTER PICTURES IN HOME VIDEOS @ YOUTUBE.COM

DAVID on Jan 18, 2008

28

Awesome movie…..nautious tummy…. Would love to take some Dramamine and go see it again….mind you, I was in the Navy and I don't get motion sickness easily!!!!

s-dot on Jan 18, 2008

29

This movie is filled with uniqueness, letter everyone realizing the different perspectives of a person, with personal situations within an world situation. Three things that I am disappointed to see though, the first was the monster; couldn't tell what it was, even the shape; guess its suppose to by mysterious even though its gigantic. Second, when the camera guy gets killed by the monster, there is a better view of the monster, but how the monster killed him wasn't too nicely done; if a monster was that big why would it aim for one person? Third, the ending was quite brutally done, characters introducing them selfs and what has happened, basically a summary leading to their death. So did the monster die? or is there a part 2? ( I personally wouldn't believe in a part 2) Quite the movie for a viewer like me, id give it a B++

roman on Jan 18, 2008

30

Woah.

I seriously cannot believe some of the reviews on this page.

I'll start off by commenting on those.

1- The Stupid thing everyone is saying: " I couldn't see because of the shaky camera, it made my head hurt!"

Okay I was sitting in the front row, and I'm actually partially blind, it didn't affect me at all stop complaining and get over it, you can't get PERFECT Picture on a camcorder which is what it's supposed to be filmed as. Besides just because you got a headache and moaned and bitched about it, doesn't mean everyone else did, some maybe have I know my head hurt but you know what I got over it, because that isn't important.

2 - "The ending was predictable"

What kind of ending did you want? Did you expect the monster to tap dance while the cast suddenly resurrected? What's wrong with you people, this is supposed to be set in our times and to what could be, set your imaginations on "REAL LIFE" and deal with it. Predictable, you mean like actual events? you mean like going to a birthday party and suddenly a non predictable ending there is no birthday cake. That's just stupid. There was nothing wrong with that ending CONSIDERING IT'S BEING FILMED BY AM AMATURE WHO IS SCARED SHITLESS. I mean..woulnd't you be? Wouldn't you be too busy running for your life not caring how the video footage would look like? That's real, in a perfect world the footage wouldn't be perfect either :/
—-

My Comment on the Movie

I don't remember the last time a movie expirience made my heart race the way Cloverfiled did, I don't remember the last time an ignorant audience stayed quiet for as long as it did.

I went to the midnight showing and I couldn't sleep, by I couldn't sleep I mean : THIS MONSTER DELIVERED! I was actually told that it was a mutated whale so I wasn't expecting something as scary as this thing was (what is it anyways? I found some credible explanations but now my head is going all crazy just trying to figure out what is was). I was expecting too many things from the movie and…this movie completely blew those things out of the water, I was there I was the person behind the camcorder. I don't nay I can't remember nor re-call any other movie expirience like this (and trust me it's more of an EXPERIENCE) considering it's like you're watching a government filed case and this 'footage' was found and just recorded from a little camcorder, I can tell why they chose this out of possibly maybe 30-60 other recording that they must've had, because this one took place before the incident and followed it through, it actually passed for "possible" in this time and age. The way the story progresses is lovely yet keeps you sucked into the screen,it would not have been better if it was done from 14 different angles. The first person view of the camcorder was for lack of a better word perfect.

I loved the storyline, the filming int the begining has everything to do with the entire aspect of clover filed, but I wont give away any spoilers.

It's a must see movie…it's a must see as many times as you can see it movie. Forget another movie this week, this is clover field weekend.

and believe me as much as this movie delivered, the dvd will have fist-fights breaking out to get a hold of.

Scarlet Yokata on Jan 19, 2008

31

i have to say i liked it, didnt quite live up to expectations just leaves you hanging so they should make a sequel from a military standpoint maybe?
my only problem was the handycam, had no problem with blair witch i thought that movie was hilarious like most scary movies but for this i ended up getting there halfway through the previews and only 5 of the 320 seats were open and all of them up front, so im sitting in the front row with my buddy trying to watch a 100ft screen and its shaking all over, nauseus 10 minutes in but i pulled through
response from the rest of the crowd was mostly dislike wonderin if they could get their money back, about 20 people walked out fairly early in

little spider things were freaky, dont let em bite ya

harrison on Jan 19, 2008

32

well, just got back from watchin the movie.
and to be honest, i get motion sickness very easily… -i almost blew chunks in the movie.
the whole shaky-camera-effect thing gave the movie a very realistic feel, and also made my head spin
and even though i spent most of the movie listening to it, rather than watching it, i will say that i did watch the parts with the monster, and i've gotta say… that thing was pretty dam scary.
and thats all im gonna say about it.
-over all, pretty awesome movie.
id watch it again, but on a tiny little screen, like a psp or an ipod, just to make sure i dont blow chunks… hahah

stevo on Jan 19, 2008

33

I'm sitting here, 6 hours after getting out of seeing the movie, and still making comparisons. It's an amazing film - I'm normally pretty jaded about films, but this thing had my palms sweaty in tension for a fair amount of the movie.

It's not for everyone - if you're looking for a Hollywood make-it-all-perfect storyline, you will be sorely disappointed. The filming technique can be a bit distracting at times, but it also makes it feel a lot more real.

I wouldn't put it on my top ten list of all time, but I would definitely say it's one of the best new movies I've seen in the last year.

Jim on Jan 19, 2008

34

What was I expecting? I was expecting a great movie.
What were you expecting? You were expecting noting.
Now your dream came true and my dream was FLOP!
Everything in this movie is BAD.

Tom on Jan 19, 2008

35

this movie sucked. its very predictable and the monster is fucking stupid. its a rip-off of a starship troopers/pitchblack monsters. too long on getting to know the characters and after you do, you would rather see them killed. camera shaky shit sucks, you see the ground more than the monster. the scene in the subway was so fucking long and drawn out, i wanted to leave then. but you try and give it a chance, well dont. it doesnt get better at all. you never find out what the fuck it is, where it came from or anything. i could put a pen up my ass and write a better story. for all that think its great, i feel sorry for the future of this type of movie or genre. if you are into overdone CGI shit then this is the movie for you. the concept was way cooler than the final display. ooooh i see it its a big grey bluury blob running through the city, oh shit what is it can you please let us see the whole thing, no you can see his ass and tail an back for an hour and 20 minutes, oh god its a rider gone evil from the dark crystal, wow its scary he walks on his elbows, oooooh.

jason o on Jan 19, 2008

36

I thought it was incredible. Absolutely amazing. The acting was superb and the elusive glimspes of the monster for most of the film were enough to keep you guessing. I. LOVED. THIS. MOVIE.

However, my ONE single compaint was

(SEMI-SPOILERS……)


The whole movie, the monster is really just a background threat of sorts as we see these people trying to get out of the city. You hear it, see it's effects to the city, but that's about it. I liked this aspect of things. But at the end, when it get's right up in Hud's face and we see it up close…I thought it was unnecessary…seems like the scene was forced in just to appease all of the assholes who would complain that they never got to see the monster. These would be the same assholes that left the movie pissed about the ending.

anyway, just my 2 cents

Birdwatching From Mars on Jan 19, 2008

37

Oh and for those of you complaining about the quality of the monster and the shaking of the camera and how it "ruined" the story,..well, mayeb "First Sunday" would have suited you better. Or whatever garabge Michael Bay has on the way. Stick to your traditinal cookie-cutter movies and stop criticizing something unique and…GASP!…different.

Birdwatching From Mars on Jan 19, 2008

38

I feel that filmmakers sometimes develop a strategy where they don't necessarily offer something distinctly new but simply an alternative to something old,and very much well-disliked.That's how I felt about people liking the movie-most people like it because it's DIFFERENT,in a whole lot of ways-I wouldn't call it innovation,Blair Witch style on a monster movie and a few brave directional choices-but seriously,the film was just decent,there was nothing truly remarkable or groundbreaking about it.

Additionally,the cheesy love story sucked ass and I can't believe someone would say (I'd exclude Caplan though) that this was "well-acted"-the male lead couldn't even carry a simple scene,every smile or serious expression looked affected and weak,like you could tell how self-conscious he was that he was being filmed.

And all this shit about the movie actually not ending and a couple clues left in the movie-it's all pretty distracting from the film itself like the makers are trying to milk the hell out of this project by continually offering "clues" and "revelations" and really people are totally overlooking how bloody crappy the film is with all this (I must say,brilliant) promotional effort.

twispious on Jan 19, 2008

39

Awesome movie, the best monster movie I have seen yet. The whole idea of using a camcorder to do the movie made it seem so "realistic". The people complaining about the shakiness of the camera during the movie need to stfu. If you were running away from a terrifying creature about to feast on you while recording the attack with a crappy camcorder, I seriously doubt it would be a smooth shot.

It was all about the immersive effect the movie had by making it feel like you were one of the people trying to survive the attack. The mystery behind the creature also made it a big plus, I can't stand hearing that the monster was created by this or found deep in the earth or in the sea. Leaving it a mystery and keeping the audience guessing just made it that much more enjoyable, the unkown is always a terrifying and in some cases an exciting aspect.

ts on Jan 19, 2008

40

loved the movie stayed till the end of the credits…the say "its still alive" backwards? didnt see any splash at the end but i was looking for ripples in the water surpisingly

lesper4 on Jan 19, 2008

41

OK…just got done going the posts following my "review/feelings story" at number 20…marketing ploy to get you to read it…again! Take that JJ!!

I'm reading some nice comments that nail it: I'm speaking to you ts, Birdwatching from Mars (nice blog too!), Jim, Scarlet and the rest of those positive vibe folks up above.

I won't name names as you can weed out the rubbish yourself BUT c'mon folks. Don't bother wasting my time posting up a two sentence review that spews out nothing but venom. Stop listening to Eminem as you post and get off your "I wasn't pleased with the dialogue", or "the shaky camera had me *add your own words for throwing up*"…WTF ever! Like totally! Whoops sorry. That slipped. It's that damn Zappa stuff that keeps creeping into my posts! UGH!

Anywho…if you wanted to see this movie and wanted tight, crisp editing, cool innovative shots, pans, zooms and monkeys flying out of your ass you obviously just rolled out of bed for the first time in years. That's how most of you look lately too. Brush that damn hair once a month! Are all the combs taken at the local CVS?

And what's with dressing like street urchins too? Some of you kids are having your parents credit ruined wearing shit like that in public. When did dressing like some dick who lives in a shoebox become fashionable?? Maybe I just rolled out of a coma!?!? Who knows… I'm out "E" or how ever you'd spell that.

Matt on Jan 19, 2008

42

This is the best movie I have ever seen!! It was scary, and it had a great plot. I love how it isn't all just a monter attacking a city. It has a great story so even if you don't like horror films you have to see this. The ending leaves you hanging, but in a good way. I loved it and everyone has to see it!! I got to the movie too late to see the movie I orignally went to see and went to cloverfield instead. So glad my friend took so long to get ready or I would have missed a great movie.

Alley on Jan 19, 2008

43

The shakey camera movement was too much for me.
I left after approx 45 minutes or so.
Although I understand its purpose, it was more of a distraction for me,
as well as slightly nauseating feeling from excessive
shaky camera movement.

What I was able to see was decent indeed.
I liked what I was able to see of the monster and the littler creatures that were dispersed out from it.
For me, the shaky camera was too much and I left.
I realize I left and missed the better part of the movie.
I'll rent it on DVD and edit it through the scene selections and watch the better parts.

Allan on Jan 19, 2008

44

Wow…I saw this movie last night and i have several things i would like to say about it..so i will start with the bad.

The Bad
I understand that the movie is in first person, but there really was just too much shaking. Yes, it makes you feel like you are a part of a real attack, and yes it makes thing scary at some points, but it just made people sick. I don't get motion sick at all and i got somewhat ill.
Also, I felt like i saw only part of a movie. I think that the ending was not all that great. I feel like we just got to a good part in the movie and then its over.
Lastly, this might just be me, but several things are wrong when it came to the military. Different branches using each others weapons or transports. This might not be a major issue, but I tend to notice these things.

The Good
I thought that majority of the actors did a good job. There are parts that are total bs, like Beth being stuck with metal sticking out of her for 6 hours. I doubt that she would have the energy to run anywhere at all…not to mention in high heels..(lmao). Other then that, I liked most of the cast. I did feel bad for the deaths of everyone.
Also, I loved the way the movie starts. You get sucked into this story of a guy having problems with Beth and then you have the caring friends and brother, trying to make rob feel better. This was one of the major Hell yeas in the movie. When the monster first attacked, i was relaxed and caught up in this other story, then its Holy CRAP!!! What just happened. So, the emersion was complete for me.
Last, I loved the monster. I think that it is something different and seemed to scary others in the theater. Again, I feel like I only got part of the movie, because we don't know anything about the monster…Why do the bugs make people explode into a bloody shower? Why is the monster attacking New York? How come it has these bloodthirsty bug things???? WHY??? Now you might say I am hating on this point, which i suppose is partly true, but this is because they did such a good job. If the movie totally sucked, then I wouldn't care what ultimately happens to rob and beth (they could be alive..lol maybe not).

SOOO…i would stay go and see the movie. I think there are some major flaws, but i think the monster is cool. I would love to see another movie where it is shot in the normal sense. Maybe, they could play the Point of View idea again, but that of the government. Would it not be cool to see it from the soldier's eyes or even the general? There is Cloverfield two right there…It could even clear up all the questions in the movie…Where the monster is from? What are those bug things and whats up with their bites? Then maybe even what happened to the people from the first movie. What happens to Lilly? She would be questioned if she was there. Is there a chance Rob and Beth lived? Maybe they got stuck under some stones and the blast just damaged the camera…(its possible lol).

Mike on Jan 19, 2008

45

isnt that the point of a review. to say what you think. you people act like you can only say good things about it. the movie sucked, so what. the coockie cutter comment was fucking as stupid as cloverfield. you have no idea what the fuck anyone on here has seen. im into shit you would never dare watch, let alone review. michael bay, yeah ok. lucio fulci, or takeshi mike, vanbeeber. go check out the movie CHAOS mr. cookie cutter, or maybe SALO.
i bet your into shit like chickenhawk, hahaha! goto http://www.myspace.com/sleazoidmafia666 for some other horror!!!

jason o on Jan 19, 2008

46

I agree 100% its so unique. Unfortunely not everyone has the same love for movies that i do and won't really appreciate it. Its definately a monster movie, but also much more.

Efrain on Jan 19, 2008

47

yep, saw it, got seasick from the home movie-like filming (which was absolutely unecessary and had no positive impact on the film at all). thought it was very far fetched and unrealistic. the trailer snippet in the beginning of Transformers is totally mischevious but very misleading. so many times throughout the film, it's just a blurry mess and you couldn't see anything. makes for a great experience. what the movie contained was a bunch of scenarios and reactions that would not happen by people in real life. such as having a metal pole completely lodged in your chest, having it pulled out by two people that just ran up 40-something flights of stairs, then having approximately 30-45 seconds to make a full recovery and running at 35 m.p.h down the street. because that is realisitc. then there was the military helicopter crash where only the 9 lives numbskulls survive, not the two trained soldiers. why woud they survive? oh, because that would make sense. so, my review, i give it a -20 on a scale of 1-10. sorry, just wasn't my type of movie. my apologies to those who enjoyed it.

tammy on Jan 19, 2008

48

no question that the film has a lot of excitment and value in terms of realism. but there are limits to what you can do to a viewer in terms of trying to make a film realistic. the shaky camera is beyond those limits and destroys the value of the film.

that said, they needed to cut 15 minutes of the party scene. It didn't add to the story because really all they were trying to do was to convince us that Rob must really have fallen hard for Beth, hard enough for suicide. But even after all that buildup to a mind frame of life-risk commitment, it's still hard to suspend disbelief when they decide not to evacuate to go find her in the face of falling buildings, etc.

the characters likely would have been like, "where's rob going? he's on his own." Or, "OK, Rob, good life. See ya!"

that 15 minutes that should have been cut is the difference between getting through the whole film, and running out to vomit in the trash can because you're motion sick.

doug on Jan 19, 2008

49

(I posted this on "Is Cloverfield Really Over? The Discussion Continues!" So I thought I'd post it again here) - Julian in San Antonio

Let me first apologize for my complete ignorance about this film. I guess everyone else has done some sort of internet search on the background of this story and all the little viral cues and clues as to what certain things in the movie point out. Maybe I'm just not very smart.

I didn't get it. In fact, I left the theatre thinking that I'd been robbed. Could someone please explain to me how it is that I'm suppose to like the fact that I was staring at walls and asphalt and shoes and feeling generally like I've only really seen about 30 minutes of actual film. I thought this film was held together by duct tape and paper clips and that people are giving it much more credit than it deserves. A film that's been inflated by lots of clever marketing ploys designed to empty wallets. I mean, by the sound of this board, people have liked it and that's a good thing. I'm not trying to downplay that. I guess I'm just trying to figure out why.

A friend at work and I were discussing how this was a new way to tell a story. Maybe taking a more linear approach isn't always the best way.

I understand that its hard to get any kind of character development in that span of time and with the structure of the film. But still, I didn't feel anything for any one of the characters. I also understand that the nature of the storyline sort of locks us into this view of the events in the film. That still doesn't make this any easier to like.

I don't think the monster was scary. The lack of monster was. When I didn't see it, I felt better about it (think Jaws). My wife said she was more frightened when the sound of the beast stomping around NYC bashed us through the theatre speakers. I would be inclined to agree. And while I was hoping to get a good look at it, I sort of wanted it to remain a mystery. I'll tell you what was kinda scary, those crab-like spider things. Especially when they were crawling around in the dark.

I don't believe Abrams has redefined anything about a monster movie. I think that it's just a new spin. I do think that Abrams and the studio managed to get people involved with this movie in a different way. There a greater sense of participation and interactivity to this film. The markets are changing. Audiences are changing. Marketing has to adapt with it.

I'm an indie filmmaker. I'm just getting my feet wet (I've only done three shorts). Maybe I need to do more reading about this "new frontier" that Abrams is crossing into. Maybe I'm so new to this game that I'm not thinking outside the box like Abrams does. I don't know. As a writer, I don't know how this film was written or what it will become (sequels, cross media). But that's another subject. Maybe I'm picking it apart on a purely technical level?

All I know is that when I left the theatre, I was pissed off. I felt like the marketing campaign was designed to fill seats and generate dollars purely on the sense that people would feel like they were given something new simply because someone turned off the steadishot option on the video camera. They've sold me a lot of nothing and they hope that will all the "leaked" information and peekaboo tactics I'm going to feel that it's more than it was. And if I gotta go into a theatre looking for shit in the background, well, then let me watch it for again for free. Maybe I need to see it again to get a different perspective?

Forgive my rant and its lack of cohesion. Someone please explain this all to me cause I guess I'm just not bright enough to see what you guys see.

I guess its safe to say I'd make a bad test audience for movies like this.

PS: I'm wasn't expecting "cute professional camera angles" or a "happy ending". I was expecting to get my money's worth and some sense of having seen a really great movie. Maybe the President flying his own F18 might have helped.

-30-

Julian in San Antonio on Jan 19, 2008

50

I really enjoyed it. I don't expect everyone to be satisfied with it though, and I understand why they don't.

But all the hype was worth it for me and I had a great time at the movies today. That's all that matters.

Rob on Jan 19, 2008

51

It's not suprising to me that people are either saying that they absolutely LOVED it, or absoluely HATED it. Number one dividing issue:

SHAKY CAMERA:

Some people could handle it, some people couldn't. I thought it was great. I sat far enough back in the theater so that drammamine wasn't necessary. But I can certainly imagine it really being an unbearable distraction if you were sitting too close to the screen or if you are prone to motion sickness in the first place. I thought it did a fantastic job of making me feel like the monster attack was actually happening. I'm no cinematographer, but no crane shots, no sweeping panoramic views, just a dude with a Sony in his hand. I loved it.

WE DIDN'T GET TO SEE THE MONSTER ENOUGH:

Really? I was very content with how much we got to see the monster. It was a special treat everytime Hud ran the camera towards it. I remember several times where I was almost motioning with my own hands hoping he'd swing the camera towards it. But if I was in his situation, I'm sure as hell hiding behind that car while the military does its thing. The gratuitous shot of the monster at the end? Plenty of monster for me.

THE CHARACTERS WERE ONE DIMENSIONAL:

It took place in a freaking 8 hour period! (Well, the flashbacks and stuff but the primary amount of it.) Also, I don't see myself growing too much as a human being while I'm scared sh*tless, running from who knows what. The movie made me feel like I was RIGHT THERE with the characters.

THAT ONE CHICK EXPLODES INTO A SPRAY OF BLOOD:

Ok, this wasn't a dividing issue, but it was freaking awesome. "Hey Hud, I don't think I feel so good…" Well, the blood coming from your eye probably isn't a good indicator. Note to self, never get bitten by anything ever again. "Damn, is that a mosquito bite on my arm? Damn it all, just kill me now before I blow bloody chunks.

Icarus on Jan 19, 2008

52

I ABSOLUTLEY THOUGHT IT WAS HORRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A WASTE OF MY TIME & MY BOYFRIEND'S MONEY!!!!

NIKKI on Jan 20, 2008

53

wish i knew where i could get more info, newspaper said that there were mock news reports being released online that explained the monster but i have yet to find them. Honestly i thought the movie was a waste of time, but im still interested in what the monster was, if anyone could post a link giving more info about it that would be great.

wrstexperienceever on Jan 20, 2008

54

This movie is an experience, bit far from a GREAT movie IMNSHO!

What's wrong… I didn't note one hint of originality in this flick! It's so chock full of cliche' moments that any hardened horror vet has seen at least a dozen times over! The characterizations aren't even believable… I wouldn't have put on my Captain-Save-A-Ho cape for that chick considering how she showed up to the party! And that relationship drives the whole freakin' story!

What's good… It's an experience. The faux documentary thing has been done before, even preceeding Blair Witch, but it's the strongest thing going for this movie! It lends the film an amplified sense of chaos, making the film a bit more interesting to watch even with all the cliche moments…. That is if you can handle it without getting motion sickness! The sound is pretty awesome as others have noted. I actually liked the ending!

What's okay… The monster! The headshot is cool! Once you see it in full form, you might wonder like me how such an anorexic beast could perform some of it's feats of strength, even with being a gargantuan and all! Also I guess JJ Abrams wasn't brazen enough to straight use Lovecraft's description of Cthulhu as his monster, so he went and lifted Dagon instead for heavy inspiration! JJ even said in a recent interview that the monster has been asleep under the sea for thousands and thousands of years. Come on dude! Quit being an egomaniac JJ and give Lovecraft the obvious props he deserves for your not so original inspiration!

The verdict… Overhyped for sure! It was worth a watch on the big screen (I had free passes!), where I think this one is best seeing for maximum impact of the choatic experience! But one of the best films ever? A modern classic? Gimmie a flippin' break!

At Least I Didn't Pay For it! on Jan 20, 2008

55

People booed the ending.
So I ask: Why are filmakers trying so hard to be original? Why can't they just make a plain old, damn good movie, like filmmakers did five, ten and twenty years ago? And, if they are going to put an original spin on a monster movie, why pick Godzilla? It failed the last time out with Matthew Broderick, and Broderick's version was basically good, with a good story, and exceptional special effects. As well, how are special effects supposed to look good when the entire movie was filmed by a running, stumbling, and fumbling half-wit, played most excellent by T.J. Miller, whose camera-handling and off-color remarks represents the movie's entire section on originality.
And, why do filmmakers always try to take advantage of a widespread fad, such as today's fascination with reality TV?
Because it makes money?
I doubt that very much with Cloverfield. It opened on friday. I went on Saturday. The theater was half empty, and at least four people left midway through the first Act. The word is out: Cloverfield is a shallow and literally nauseous attempt to exploit Reality TV addiction by rehashing a 911-ish attack on Manhattan by a Godzillesque but nameless non-creature from Godzilla-knows-where.
Cloverfield is today's equivalent of the 1968 Green Slime, except Cloverfield is not green, but it is slime, despite the fact that it is making some its money back ($16 million on opening night which is not bad for a home video that cost $25 million to make). But Cloverfield's $16 million translates into approximately two million-plus people responding to the highly flatus on-screen and online hype. Someone wrote that most of the $25 million was spent on generating the hype. Very believable considering the quality of scripting, filming, lighting and, even, gripping in Cloverfield. Another wrote that there will be a sequel, which is also very likely, considering all of the questions surrounding Cloverfield, namely, what is "Cloverfield"? And, why doesn't the non-creature die from the Airforce's massive air strike? And, what are those mini-me versions of the creature? And, why was there only one creature? And, finally, where did it come from?
It is very likely that Cloverfield is a simple, metaphorical movie about peoples' fear of, and response to, an unknown terror, and not at all a monster movie about some dark and lurking gigantean pouncing on an unsuspecting and sleepy seaside town. If that is the case, then kiss your sequel goodbye, because Reality TV doesn't do metaphor.
Postscript: do the filmmakers realize that "Hud" stands for Heads Up Display?

park_lanes on Jan 20, 2008

56

The ignorance of the average American and his/her taste in cinema is disgusting.

This film is unique the pantheon of monster movies in that it actually has genuine tension and scares. You feel like you are right there with the folks fleeing for their lives.

Anyone with an IQ over that of a wet sponge should have been able to "get it". As for everyone else — go watch Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Tom on Jan 20, 2008

57

I saw Cloverfield on 1-18-08, and it was really good. At first, the camera angles made me dizzy but I liked them. I was really disappointed with the end, but I'm hoping for a sequel. Personally, since the film was only and hour and twenty minutes, I think that if they had used a regular camera and shot it normally and given explanations, it would have been better; then again, this would have been more of a thriller than a monster flick. Overall I appreciated the movie and think that JJ Abrams and co. did excellent work. I also found it funny that all the 'spoilers' were completely wrong… It begins not with kids or sanitary workers finding it the day after, but who knows how long after that day it is the property of DoD (Department of Defense). They are playing it back, for research I assume: and the movie plays from there. The video camera belongs to the main character, Rob, who is initially documenting his day with the girl he loves, Beth, but isn't supposed to. They plan to go to Coney Island, and then the story switches to Robs younger brother and his girlfriend, Lily who are out getting things for a surprise party for Rob,who got a job in Japan. The younger brother is supposed to be filming the testimonies and goodbyes of the party guests, but he delegates the job to Robs best friend Hud. Beth arrives at the party with her bf and Rob is sad and angry. he fights with her and says some rude stuff so she goes home. Then, the monster hits and Hud has the camera. The movie is a documentation of Hud, Rob, Lily, huds love interest and Lily's bff Marlena and the younger brother escaping the monster and going to save Beth.

Asha Thompson on Jan 20, 2008

58

It's ubelievable how dumb people can be.

Listen folks. The whole movie is presented as a recovered amatuer video. The footage is taken during some extreme situations (including running) so the shaky camera makes sense. It adds a level of realism, that no other movie has been able to pull off since The Blair Witch Project. That movie was ok the first time I saw it, but didn't stand the test of time. Cloverfield, however will.

My point is, it's supposed to look that way. If you don't like truly original cinema, that's outside of the normal blockbuster production values, then go see the next Michael Bay movie.

Tcox on Jan 20, 2008

59

I and every person on this sight has to know that these responses are plugged. You have to be the most unlively, sick in the fuckin head, dumb mother fucker and a total fuckin idiot if you liked this movie. It was terrible, horrible, boring, sickining, and most of all the most dissapionting movie since the Blair Witch Project. I just left this movie 30 min. ago- oh my god everyone in the movie theater was in aggreance with me they all asked for their money back. Who gives a shit about the damn plot. For the money that your average waged person has to spend this was the biggest rip off in movie history. I wish someone would have warned me before i went in. I will be antifucking cloverfield. By far the worst 50 dollars i have ever since. If you liked tis movie you arent from this damn world. Its Simple your a fuckin idiot!! The fact is its not recovered amatuer video it is a HORRIBLE MOVIE- Hey tell us its a fuckin recovered damn video recorder noone will go to see it!!

Stevo on Jan 20, 2008

60

these are not plugged. if they were plugs, there wouldn't be spoilers. just because not everyone feels the same doesnt mean that one opinion is more valid than another. Another thing- don't call other people effind idiots when youre the one with out enough vocab to say anything other than f****** this and s*** that. You probably didn't like the movie because YOU yourself are that stupid. respect the site and the people on it. grow up. and by the way, if you really paid 50 bucks for a movie, your very stupid ass got ripped off. im sorry that your brain never fully developed en eutero.

Asha Thompson on Jan 20, 2008

61

Monster Looks like Joe Dirt

Mr X on Jan 20, 2008

62

This movie is most definitely the best one I've seen in a long time. This is due mostly to the filming style and the fact that the movie focuses on the main characters, the group of people trying to survive, in a way that I've never seen done before. The sound scheme for the movie is pretty good, and the story has no epic devices or key plot elements that make it seem too far-fetched, albeit the fact that it is a monster movie. With this movie you pay to see a group of normal people reacting in an extreme situation in the way one would expect normal people to act. There is no epic battle scene. There is no epic way that the main characters save the world. There is no corny romance plot. The characters in this movie are in no particular way special. They are all just friends who work in the same company or know each other some other typical means of social interaction. When hell breaks loose, they run for their lives. My point is, this movie accomplishes what many other films cannot; it captures the essence of humanity in a realistic way.

monch on Jan 20, 2008

63

In regards to post 55.

Quote:
"Why are filmakers trying so hard to be original? Why can't they just make a plain old, damn good movie, like filmmakers did five, ten and twenty years ago?"

Just my personal observation on this and I have no film or acting experience,
so my thoughts are just simply from a viewers perspective.

For whatever reason or reasons, as to why its became like this, films are changing and not entirely what many people and myself included, consider in a good way. Like writing novels, movies too are about telling a story.

With that said, I personally believe and somewhat in the defense of writers and movie makers.
Really, how many times can one be creative and somewhat original and innovative telling the same old story.
A space story, a love romance story, a western, a gang story, war, faith and etc…. Its really difficult at best, to do it justice and not at some point repeat some similar threads of former writers work of previous movies.
So in that regards I empathize with most writers and film makers in that aspect.
I'll elaborate more on this later.

For now its not rocket science.
Example:
As much as I love them all, we don't need another Star War movie.
How many times can one retell a space movie story and in all honesty and be innovative, fresh and original
as far as writing is concerned?
Its clear film makers and writers alike have exhausted these story lines.

Again, we don't need another Godzilla monster movie. I love Godzilla like everybody else, but really,
we don't need another Godzilla movie. We don't need another, I hate you and will fall in love with by the end of movie romance again. I think you see my point. But what are we going do? Stop going to movies altogether? Not gonna happen. I like going to the theater to see a movie too much. I like the whole theater experience.

Yet, in regards to the short coming of movies these days, these are the never ending issues we all face in a personal way in our daily lives. Regardless of ones culture or period of time one lives. Love, faith/religion, battle/war, gang story lines and a handful of others. As much as these have been exhausted, these are the ones that link us together, as a community, a society and as a people. So we all have to find a way to view, write and make movies that can still effectively tell these old familar stories without being lame. Is it possible?


Maybe, maybe not? Even so, the obvious:

You have movies made that most, not all, as far as a marketing perspective is concerned,
that will fall short. Very limiting spending for support of projects cause what might be a potential decent movie, never makes it beyond the casting process. To much spent already on main stream big name quality actors and actress that can really bring the character and writing alive on the screen. So what may be a good movie gets canned right at the start. Writer, producer and etc have potentially certain actors in mind for a character, and now have to settle for someone of less caliber. Believe it or not, it takes good acting to make the writers story come to life, yes good acting or the lack there of, can make or brake a movie.

Also:

Don't think for a moment the bigger names in hollywood aren't holding out for the potential script thats got oscar nominee written all over it, because they are? So, one gets used to a caliber of acting thats very limiting in skills (making magicial moments happen) and learn to like cheezy acting. Granted, not all newbies or unheard actors fall into this catagorey, because you can run into a few here and there that have the gift.

Low budget movies begin to go somewhat main stream.
I call those filler movies. In short its my definition of a low budget main stream movie, and alot is getting made. Gotta have something to "fill" the gaps throughout the various seasons of the year.
So, I've became a "filler" movie goer in the last few years.

I'm going some where with all this and here it goes:
But before I do, one more thought before getting to the truth of the matter.

So, you would think it wouldn't pose a challenge to writers and film makers to create some better than a comic book movie or another space movie? How long will this trend last? Your guess is as good as mine.

The truth of the matter:

I have to give credit to the writers and film makers in general that are willing to step outside of the cookie box, to be innovative and fresh with the old worn out story lines. Maybe just maybe, the writers are trying to get our attention to tell us something through their work. Maybe they are trying to tell us, "this is as good as its gonna get gang."

In other words, to tell a story thats already been told countless times over, like it or not, myself included, this may be as good as its gonna get for awhile. This is what your gonna get (viewers) writers stepping out being creative and innovative in areas or writing and film making the we average views may not warm up to. So bare with us (speaking as a writer)and get use to it because this is what you are gonna to see more of.

So, if the use of home movie cameras and the excessive shaking of it and among many other things that writers and film makers will use to be different, bothers one, myself included.
Maybe, we as viewers need to realize and prepare for more of such.
Why? Because all (speaking from a writers view again) we are trying to do is to tell the same story alittle differently and can only do so much.

Thats all Cloverfield is, is another "filler" movie.
Its a far cry from innovative, fresh in telling an old monster story.
He managed to get so no name actors and spent very little money on production and it shows,
and spent bunches on marketing and advertising. Which isn't revolutionary, instead is a very common ploy
many do especially when the story lacks.

Allan on Jan 20, 2008

64

I find it amusing that so-called cinema 'purists' are quick to call anyone who doesn't agree with their opinions (might want to look that word up in the dictionary) ignorant and dumb. You loved the movie, yes. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to or SHOULD because it is 'original cinema.'

The best thing about the movie was the marketing. And the rest of it? Disappointing and at times, absolutely unbelievable.

Shaky hand held footage added to the realism of the flick. Yes, we get it. Doesn't mean that for some people, it doesn't alter the experience into a vomit inducing one. But I wasn't so much bothered by that (I could stomach it easily, no pun intended) as I was by the emotional discconect from the characters and/or the situation they found themselves in. The supposed relationship that drove the 'story' forward was weak at best and just… ridiculous. I thought the actors themselves did a decent job, and yes some could argue that you can't really expect anything given the format of the movie, but they were all friggin one dimensional. For example, if Rob is going to sacrifice every one of his friends in order to get to Beth, at least give us some plausible explanation beyond his deep deep love for her, or at least some remnant of regret on his part for doing so. If the movie is steeped in realism, why did the characters themselves and their motivations feel so painfully unreal?

I also was unimpressed by the monster. I agree with the poster who said that some of the best moments were when you couldn't see it (the build up, the use of sound, all great) but when the beast finally appeared, it was a let down. I just simply don't get the insane appreciation for this monster when the aesthetic concept of it is nothing we haven't seen before.

I watched the movie, and I can appreciate a good movie, but in this gal's honest opinion, Cloverfield was anything far from good.

Kat on Jan 20, 2008

65

My post was number 13, and I just got back from my second time this weekend. I have not gone to see a movie a second time since the first Star Wars. I guess I'm in the idiot, stupid, dumb, etc. etc. category judging by some of these post. Or, perhaps I fall into the complete-lack-of-cinematographic-excellence-understanding category as others might point out.

Either way, I don't care. My job is not to sit around and criticize movies. Simple minded as I am, I could care less about what I think the camera angles should be, what I think the story-line ought to be, how the story was told, and so on. Other people get paid to do that. Like I'd know what I'm talking about anyway. If I did, I'd either be making huge sums of money creating these movies, or I'd be disgruntled, and making less sums of money criticizing them. So, my perspective is not unlike the one I have for buying a car… if I don't like what I see initially, I won't buy it. Being simple minded about some things does have it's advantages, you see.

So, if you get sea-sick easily, maybe not for you. If you seek excellence along the lines of Out of Africa or Dr. Zhivago, don't bother.

But, if you want to go to a movie and allow yourself the exhilaration you felt watching big, hairy monster movies as a kid, go see this one. Any other reason might be a waste of your time. I went for fun and thrills. That was what I expected, and that is what I got.

By the way - at the very end of the movie (shot of the beach), watch the upper-right corner of the screen. I was surprised I caught it the first time…

Have fun!

Sean

Sean on Jan 20, 2008

66

Stevo at post #59:

calm down, relax…take a deep breath. Go back to school, take a typing class and an English class for that matter.

It's web 2.0 my man. Reach out and touch someone…or yourself after you get done beating your cat.

Yeah, I liked it. I just saw it for the second time today and paid $3.25 for the matinee both times. That's $6.50 to see a movie in the theater twice. In my humble opinion that's dirt cheap considering the price of DVD rentals. Anyway, I'm getting off point…..

When you rely on insults that don't have any "oomph" I think we know who the real motherfkr is. It's me! Reaching thru your monitor via MY keyboard to choke your silly, sad little ass. Get back in your basement and continue surfing for child porn and leave us be. Just because your wife left you for another chick doesn't give you the right to come on here and spout off expletives with no value behind them. You are weak and I bet if you read this you'll fire off another post. You can't help it. Prove me wrong. Go silent. Then I win. Hell, we all win.

Next time. Check your emotions at the door. Oh, and speaking of checking things try using a spell checker too.

Matt on Jan 20, 2008

67

CLOVERFEILD 4 Stars
***NO ALERT… THIS REVIEW CONTAINS NO SPOILERS OF ANY KIND***

Okay… people keep saying this movie sucked. Mainly because theyre expecting a cut dry Hollywood predictable movie where some scenes & shots are allowed for dramatic effect for the benefit of the audience right? FUCK THAT. This movie is made to put you in the thick of the commotion of the occuring event as all hell seems to break loose in New York city. This movie does live up to the hype and it leaves alot of questions unanswered and totally preps you for the sequel thats sure to come. The cloverfeild monster doesn't seem smart but it definitely kicks ass "unintentionally" as it defends itself from the military. For those that get upset because you can't get a decent still shot of what the monster and its entourage really looks like because of the motion sickness possible-vomit-inducing recording skills of Hud (best character in my opinion—The friend that is brave enough to record the events unfolding) GET A GRIP!! Shit… if I was the guy (HUD) holding the camera all I can tell you is that after hearing the cloverfield monster's roar I wouldn't care about recording the events unfolding… actually I'd only be interested in 2 things….

#1 Where did that sound just come from?

#2 What in the fuck do I need to do to get-as-far-as-fuck away from it to survive?

For those of you that may have managed to see what it looks like online, bootleg movies & online animated gif images don't do it justice. To see it on the big screen is worth the price of admission alone and IT IS IMAX worthy if you really want to get a good look as this Monster.
Also some may say in a Match of Godzilla Vs the Cloverfeild monster all I can tell you is this…
when you see HOW BIG this creature is you'll realize that ANY Godzilla would get beaten to a pulp going head to head against this thing!!
If your curious about seeing this film GO SEE IT!! Don't worry stress about losing the $8.50… Your'e paying for the ride that is CLOVERFIELD.

P.S. Some may tell you there is something to hear once the credits are done rolling…if you didnt see the movie and youre reading this now dont wait for it… just get the soundbyte online…its not much but its worth hearing if youre a fan of this new monster.

If there is going to be a part two, the responses J.J. Abrams will see online will help him greatly because the movie sequel writes itself. He better hurry too because I can forsee alot of parodies of this movie (i.e. Homerfield:Homer Simpson mutates and starts rampaging thru springfield as a giant creature. Hes angry because he can't find any doughnuts or duff beer & tears off the head of Jebidiah Springfield and tosses it towards a party being thrown for Lisa Simpson because shes going to Japan as an exchange student….Bonerfield, Jedifield, Matrixfield & quite possibly Cloverbitch:alternate bridezilla) waiting too long to do the sequel will distill the excitement like when the 2nd matrix film came out and seeing Trinity doing that matrix kick or Neo doing the bullet-time back lean wont be as awesome to see again because alot of spoofs kept doing it in humorous ways.
As far as a prequel-sequel goes they have to find a way to either show another video of someone with a camera with events happening because to do otherwise will kill the style/feel for the movie. I think the cloverfield monster isn't the culprit… I think the cloverfield monster is just a bi-product of what happens when someone is bitten by those freakish critters that come off of him/her. Near the end the closeup shot of the monster it looks sorta humanoid. Maybe those critters need to stay latched onto you (more than just six of them) because if you don't let them stay attached to you the end result is what we see in the trailer (girl exploding, before she explodes we see someone being carried past with a critter attached to them). Also I don't think what falls from the sky towards the end is the cloverfield monster. It looks too small to be the clover field monster unless its really really far away in the shot. Maybe its something that causes a chain reaction leading up to the awakening to the cloverfield monster. Anyways thats my 2 cents opinion.

The HARRISON on Jan 20, 2008

68

What a movie experience!!!! Not since storming the beaches in Normandy in the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan or riding shotgun on a Hum-Vee during an RPG attack in Black Hawk Down, has a film managed to rip me from my seat so completely and place me in the middle of a story. Cloverfield is not a drama, not an action film where characters are simply introduced, developed, an travel an arc to some conclusion. Cloverfield, starting with its rough cut, bureaucratic top secret homeland security header, is a fictional primary source- creating the same horrid fascination, fear and dread, deep in the gut when watching the Zapruder film or, sadly, clips of planes flying low against a very blue September sky. Cloverfield is a one and one half hours of dizzy, grim voyuerism- a thrill ride, where your heart beats fast, you forget to breathe and you realize your jaw has dropped and your mouth is dry. I was still in my seat after the credits had rolled- shocked, feeling very small, fragile, and insignificant.

Peter on Jan 20, 2008

69

Peter - You just nailed it. The only other movie experience that I could compare it to was the beginning of Saving Private Ryan. It was truly a panic inducing movie. There were several times that I thought I was going to fall prey to my anxieties.

For those who think this movie sucks: Ok. Fine. Write your responses and spew your bile. I may not agree, but you're certainly free to your opinion.

Stevo (Post #59) You really come off as a prick with your post, and whether or not you meant to is still unclear. Plugs? Are you serious. I think may the conspiracy stuff got to you just a tad bit. Let me clear it up for you: Cloverfield is just a movie. I bought my own ticket, and these are my own thoughts. I also didn't get into all the viral marketing stuff online, namely because I have a life. I had no expectations other than to watch a movie.

(Peter - this isn't against you) To those who want to throw 9/11 into the conversation. Shame on you. Nothing in this movie made me think of those horrible events. Same location? So what? Is New York to never appear in a film again? That's absolutely ridiculous. The locals have to drive past ground zero on a daily basis. I hardly think a monster movie set in NY is going to get them worked up. It's insulting to suggest otherwise. There's a reason things happen in NYC. It's only one of the most important cities in the world. It added to the severity of what was happening in Cloverfield, and to suggest insensitivity on the film makers part is nothing less of ignorant.

TCox on Jan 20, 2008

70

So this is the future of movie making. I have a working script aswell.

Picture this…

Person takes a crap on an aluminum foil and places it inside a microwave oven..
Person sits close to the microwave to fully emmerse himself in the burning boiling crap inside the oven.
Person spurts out names and sentences "Rob, Hud , Scott, Oh my god-" over and over again.
Person places burning crap in the dryer with a handheld camera and turns it on.
Person bangs on the dryer to create some type of booming noises.
Person takes crap and camera ties it on a string and around his waist and runs around with the camera in tow behind him in some neighborhood 3 1/2 times. Why 3 1/2 times? well, thats a secret
Person makes an Omlette and Bacon….. The end

WOW I just made a Cloverfield Movie.
See any smart guy can make a "BIG Movie" just keep it a secret ehy.

Thank you I will be taking more money for the sequel please.
JJ Abrams.

Ron on Jan 21, 2008

71

Cloverfield is a rip-off. Many responses are being plugged through out the internet. I have never seen this much auto scrolling and hired plug scroll's. People wake-up, they have place money into plug advertisement like they do on TV advertisement. If you think differently, you need to research before you post. If you also take the time, you will see mass repeated plug posts. I work for an advertisement company that has been hire to do this many times but on other movies. I just never seen it accomplished to this level. I have to give them credit for their truly ground breaking investment in completely carpet bombing the entire net with plug advertisement.
It is 100% legal, and is nothing more then the new way to get people to a movie. Only a matter of time that it was finally realized by the industry how powerful plug adv. can be. Now, a good part of all future film's budget will be diverted to this format. TV is getting to expensive and this (web plugging) gives the industry the best possible bag for thier buck, only problem is on the internet, people always believe reviews are from "just your every day Joe, telling how he felt about the movie", and never realize it is just a paid plugger or gen software.
Anyway… I give the movie 2 stars out of 5. Cloverfield was a fast money maker, that ripped off the people who spent money to see something great. There was only two, 12 second scenes, that showed almost the whole creature, almost. The rest of the picture was a fast foot, blurred half body glimpse as it went by the next building, or like watching two boxers fighting from 6 inched away! If this is future of the movie industry, to take people for every dime they have and give a joke of a movie in return so they came make as much money as possible and without the need of spending money on good solid actors, then Hollywood is sadly going the way of the Doo-Doo bird.

Jerry on Jan 21, 2008

72

Wow "Jerry" (Post 71), many of my friends and I were just talking about this. We were so taken back by Cloverfield (not in a good way), we actually demanded our money back from the manager.
We didn't expect the money back (and didn't get it), but we wanted to make a point to the rest of the poor "sheeple" standing in line for the next showing. Five of us went in to see this travesty of a movie, and all five had the same reaction "Where was the monsters". You said it better then I Jerry, "like trying to see 2 people fighting from 6 inches away"! You did get to see the big monster 2 times, (you read that right, 2 times) but never well (clear) or whole (about 75%), in only for less then 10 seconds!
My friends were the first to start telling me about the auto plug'in, and how it is on the biggest scale they every saw. Now that I see it for what it is, false advertisement at it's greatest, I feel some type of LAW should be made to protect the consumer from the film industry. If we allow the corporations to do this with out limits, we as the paying public will never know truth again.
Outraged consumer.

Kelsh on Jan 21, 2008

73

I feel the same way as post 71 & 72, exextly the same but the sad truth is that our little pathetic posts will never be taken into account. People will say that they need to see for themselves because there must be some truth to all the:

"Wow!!!! Best film I have ever seen!!! Felt just like I was part of the movie! That same kind-of feeling when I saw "Saving Private Ryan"!!!"

WHAT A LIE, DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALL THESS FALSE WEB PLUGS. Sorry for the Capps, not some nut, just didn't want some poor "sheeple" to read the first "wow" and not the rest.

I hope I save even one persons money, and I also hope that this becomes the most pirated film ever, so the people take back and stop part of the money train JJ Adams has made on the backs of good people, who trust we will not be taken. When you buy a product, you can take it back if it does not do as advertised, but they know your stuck if they take trusting people at the movies.
Post 72 said something great, we need the same consumer protection laws with the movie industy now, as with any other company who sells something to the public. Laws against the industry from not posting they had something to do with a "online" posts. If a post or "plug" is in anyway linked to the movie corp. (as in hired people to post on the websites like they realy seen the movie, or software to auto post good remarks to lead people because of false scenes of trust). I hope this post gets read by someone concected with congress and helps to start a law to protect good trusting people from fake plugs

Robert M on Jan 21, 2008

74

Wow. If you like it, and post a positive review you're a "plug" now.

Fuck you, I liked it.

TCox on Jan 21, 2008

75

Post 71 72 73, You are sooooo right, but I'am sorry to break the news…. NOT ONE PERSON WILL LISEN TO ANY OF US. See, even all thoughts cap's is like screaming into space, only the first few posts are ever read, then the "sheeple" (love that term) sums up all the "WOOW, greats!!!" against the "Movie SUCKS", and runs to the theater. Why? because now that the movie corporation has taken over the Internets main movie forums and movie sites that people trust in, the "WOW'S" plugs will always over power the true viewer posts. I do like the idea of a consumer protection law that advertisement companies must place a note that they plug'ed a post, or face massive fines. But again, this is laughable until a few Congressman get the feeling they got ripped off and wake up to how the web has now also been taken over by the industry…It's a FREE way to advertise, what did you think would happen???
BTW, it is not just movie plugs, the corporations are involved in EVERY form of false web "falsvertisements" (I hope I coined a phrase, you seen it here for the first time lol >:) )

Laughable on Jan 21, 2008

76

To post 74, Lighten up Francis! I hate to break the news to you pal, it's now all about you.
Now go sharpen your knives and take a valuim.
People are talking about the "WOW, GREAT MOVIE!!!" mass plugs. Yes, some real people will like the film, some people like to play with feces too, but that's there problem.

Laughable on Jan 21, 2008

77

Laughable, That was fucken great lol!!! Ya, Tcox, why would you tell everyone your a fecophiliac ?!!
The movie SUX, Better time hitting my finger with a hammer….

LOL !!!! on Jan 21, 2008

78

I just spit my coffee all over my keyboard!, LOL! I'm crying, I'am laughing so hard, i can barely type. That just made my day. Post 76 & 77, thank you. Funny people.
PS. Wow, Tcox, did you get OWNED (post 74) lol lol lol!!!

Venace on Jan 21, 2008

79

Whats a fecophiliac ?

Greg on Jan 21, 2008

80

Re 70, 71…

For the record, I am sitting here in my own living room watching sports center on the TV, watching my daughter nap (hopefully) for the next hour. I am unemployed, and had looked forward to those two hours in a dark theater since the previous Friday- time alone, free from the demands of both daughter and wife. I looked forward to a different take on the classic "monster movie" and and an afternoon without theses questions popping up: What am I going to do to earn the $2800 a month, after taxes, to cover my mortgage (s)? Where am I going to find the money to fix the basement floor that is so rotten that the joices have cracked, literally broke in the middle from 20 years of water damage? How am I going to salvage a 10 year career in institutional equity sales- experience that no one seems to find relavant or worthwhile in what i hope will be a new career in asset management? So believe it or not- my review, my response to a heck of movie…post 68…is as real as those everyday pedestrian questions.

Yes, the cynic in me beleives not all posts are geniune reviews. Yes, I no longer give credence to any piece of data, statistic or fact used to advance an opinion anywhere in the media. But what i do is use my grey matter to make a judgement the best I way can- whether it is deciding whether global warming is the end of the world as we know it, if the war on terror is helping keep us safe or ruining our democracy forever, or if an innovative viral marketing campaign is the source of all evil in the world or just another sign that change is the only thing I can count on.

What I won't do is be fearful. I will do wade through all that is crap and all that good, live my life, love my family, work and go to the movies.

Peter on Jan 21, 2008

81

They are saying Tcox #74 like "shit". Fecophiliac is a slang for people obsessed with feces (shit) or likes to make small animals out of piles of there own feces (shit).

I saw the foolish movie, waste of time. Although, I don't know if post 74 likes feces, his/her point of publicly saying "I like the movie", does propose a good foundation for the assumption that "Tcox" (pst 74) does indeed like feces, and just may be a Fecophiliac.

H.B.

Harry B on Jan 21, 2008

82

It's like this.
If you want to see a big, flashy production with star power and big-budget everything, avoid this movie.
If you are a monster movie purist who demands all the standard tropes involving generals, scientists and ray guns and a tell-all, show-all reveal, avoid this movie.
If you have a delicate little tummy and can't stand suspense or shaky camera, avoid this movie.


BUT..

If you want to see a fresh take on an otherwise stale genera, and have a heck of a fun ride along the way, SEE this movie. I loved it and I'm going to see it again.

Dr. Worm on Jan 21, 2008

83

This is the funniest thread I have read in a long while. I to burst out laugh'in at post 76 and 77. It just made my day, which was not going well. Thank you so much.
I also feel bad for poor "tcox post 74" but I have to admit, I could not help smiling and laughing. I did see the film and really tried to like it, but I too, felt they took my money and gave nothing back, my daughter did like it, but because she's young. She said she liked the "idea of the man going back to save his love" and could care less about the "dumb" monsters except the spiders were "nasty", as well as, the big creature was a "blurry mess".
I have been on line since the commodore 64 days, and can tell everyone that, yes, big business is mass scrolling or "plugging" the online reviews, especially with this movie. I have never seen so many cap locked, auto generated, or payed plugs, like I have with this.
Anyway, it's only my opinion, but I love the thought in post 72 and 73 of asking for some consumer protection laws that make that force them to note when any type of plug is connected to the industry from a payed source. Just like campaign reform laws.

Sharleen on Jan 21, 2008

84

Loved the movie. Simple as that. YMMV, so there's no sense in arguing about it.

One thing I realized walking out of the theater is the immense opportunity for expanding this story in a DVD Special Edition. Think of all the possibilities for content filled with news coverage of the attack, more D.O.D. films recovered from all over the region (and other cities later on, attacked by the Monster/Mini-Monsters?), a "documentary" from the future - perhaps a Discovery channel style piece that recaps what is known by science and rumored by conspiracists twenty years after the attack.

If Abrams and Co. run with the vast potential, they could come up with a DVD set that would answer so many of the questions left in my mind by watching "Cloverfield".

bob_tomato on Jan 21, 2008

85

74
Wow. If you like it, and post a positive review you're a "plug" now.

Fuck you, I liked it.

TCox on Jan 21, 2008


76
To post 74, Lighten up Francis! I hate to break the news to you pal, it's now all about you.
Now go sharpen your knives and take a valuim.
People are talking about the "WOW, GREAT MOVIE!!!" mass plugs. Yes, some real people will like the film, some people like to play with feces too, but that's there problem.

Laughable on Jan 21, 2008



77
Laughable, That was fucken great lol!!! Ya, Tcox, why would you tell everyone your a fecophiliac ?!!
The movie SUX, Better time hitting my finger with a hammer….

LOL !!!! on Jan 21, 2008



78
I just spit my coffee all over my keyboard!, LOL! I'm crying, I'am laughing so hard, i can barely type. That just made my day. Post 76 & 77, thank you. Funny people.
PS. Wow, Tcox, did you get OWNED (post 74) lol lol lol!!!

Venace on Jan 21, 2008


79
Whats a fecophiliac ?

Greg on Jan 21, 2008


81
They are saying Tcox #74 like "shit". Fecophiliac is a slang for people obsessed with feces (shit) or likes to make small animals out of piles of there own feces (shit).

I saw the foolish movie, waste of time. Although, I don't know if post 74 likes feces, his/her point of publicly saying "I like the movie", does propose a good foundation for the assumption that "Tcox" (pst 74) does indeed like feces, and just may be a Fecophiliac.

H.B.

Harry B on Jan 21, 2008



**Funniest farkin thing I have ever read online. All I have to say is Tcox -74-, you got RAPED! LOL
By the way, movie wasn't that bad, but I agree with all the hyper plugs going down.

dogcage on Jan 21, 2008

86

I was extremely disappointed with this movie. If it is in fact setting up a sequel, I think we should all get a refund or a free ticket for the sequel.

1. I didn't feel connected to any of the characters, yes I did enjoy Hud's commentary, but I wasn't rooting for the characters to survive. I think if they had brought in some back story to the characters with flashbacks throughout the movie it would have been a much more enjoyable movie and it would have lessened some of the shaky cam effects. i would have really liked to see the characters build their relationships and then I'd hopefully be able to gain some further understanding into their relationships and therefore feel more inclined to root for someone to make it out alive.

2. Closure - the movie just ended, we didn't learn about what happened after the major attack and how the tape was found. All we saw is that at the beginning of the movie we get the Depart of Defense Warning, so we figure somebody either broke into DoD or somebody from DoD was watching the tape, but why? (Sequel…….)

3. Length - I felt robbed, the movie was an hour and a half and it was rushed all the way through with a lack of story and a lack of suspense.

One_Eyed_Cyke on Jan 21, 2008

87

Well, it seems Abrams really does have his finger on the pulse of America. Everyone seems to have really, REALLY liked this movie. Which is fine. I mean, if you're gonna dish out your hard earned cash, you are definitely entitled to get some enjoyment out of it.

Personally, I might either have to watch this again or just leave it be for a long time. I just wasn't expecting it to be some kind of "reality television" type experience.

Oh, and to tha