Seen Cloverfield? What Did You Think?
by Alex Billington
January 18, 2008
J.J. Abrams' Cloverfield is undoubtedly one of the most buzzed about movies in recent Hollywood history, especially for something so low budget and "small", in comparison to summer blockbuster standards that is. In just over 6 months time, since the very first trailer debuted, director Matt Reeves has shot an entire monster movie that takes place in the streets of New York City. And now it's finally here and the monster has finally been revealed. Does it live up to the hype? How does it stack up in comparison to other monster movies?
Just drop by, leave a comment, and create some discussion! To fuel the fire, I loved Cloverfield because of how unique and entertaining it was, despite not fulfilling my exact expectations (of a huge blockbuster flick). Although you can read my review, I think Cloverfield will generate quite a polarized response from fans because too many people are expecting something much bigger. But the reason why I loved it is because it was so different and told in such a unique way. Cloverfield was incredible, it did live up to the hype, and has set the grounds for all monster movies to come. Do you agree?
Reader Feedback - 209 Comments
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
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
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
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
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
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
I absolutely LOVED this movie... http://nick-reinhart.com/2008/01/18/cloverfield-rocked/
Nick Reinhart on Jan 18, 2008
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
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
Easily one of the best movies I've ever seen! Nuff said.
Futch on Jan 18, 2008
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
i thought it was great!! but i wish there was an explanation on how we were seeing the footage.
ralph on Jan 18, 2008
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
I ABSOLUTLEY THOUGHT IT WAS HORRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A WASTE OF MY TIME & MY BOYFRIEND'S MONEY!!!!
NIKKI on Jan 20, 2008
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Monster Looks like Joe Dirt
Mr X on Jan 20, 2008
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Whats a fecophiliac ?
Greg on Jan 21, 2008
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
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 that smug fuck on post 56 who said: Author: Tom Comment: 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: You if you're going to try and defend your point of view, or this film, at least make a few points instead of insulting people. You self righteous asshole. What you're the only one in American who watches the "important" films or your taste is somehow superior to everyone else. Taste is subjective, dickhead. "Unique in the pantheon of monster movies..." Gimme a fucking break. Despite the fact that you're an assbag, you're entitled to have liked that movie. And if it wasn't for the fact that I found your post so insulting and IGNORANT, I wouldn't have bother to even write this. TO EVERYONE ELSE: I'm sticking by my guns on this film. At least for now. I've seen lots of other movies that I've not liked at first glance and later found that I enjoyed them more and more after another viewing. But I didn't enjoy Blair Witch- I know, I know, its a different kind of film. That being said, not having enjoyed that film, I'm finding it really hard to enjoy this one. TO READ WHAT I ORIGINALLY POSTED GO TO POST #49, if it even matters. -30-
Julian in San Antonio on Jan 21, 2008
Corporate movie industry IS totally and absolutely flooding every main movie review sites/forums with direct/indirect marketing plugs. Done pretty convincingly but you can start to see the mass same exact posts over and over. The movie was a low budget "Blair witch" scam to make as much money as possible by way of false flag mass internet marketing plugs, which are directly and indirectly linked to the whole Cloverfield scam money machine. I to got sucked in, would not believe the "tin hat" peoples warnings about the auto plugs. I said to myself "no way can they all be fake plugs" but every REAL person I have spoken to, including the 5 I know who have seen this shit movie, hated it. When I was leaving the film people trashed the movie theater, and were pissed-off. Lots of "Boos" at the end and people yelling "scam". I agree, one of the biggest scams ever pulled on Americans. Not bad, invest a pitiful $24.7 million, make $41.8 million within the first 3 days of playing. Better then drug money, and they do it legally to the people. We have no recourse of action, but to learn what the corporations are doing. The wost part is Hollywood will realize that they no longer have to make great movies, spend money to give the people a great film, all they need to do is make a low budget scam movie, completely flood every possible FREE internet site with "wow" posts... and they are rich. Have to hand it to them, what a country.
fcktheCorporateScamArtists on Jan 21, 2008
Click on my name on bottom, to see how you will feel after your stupid enough to spend money on this RIP-OFF. I never seen so much fake plugs on a movie, they have to be fake, I agree, because they never did fully show the monster, well all of 5 seconds of it before it chews on the camera guy. Always thought it was coming up, that the next scene will show a really great long, full, monster scene.,.. but it NEVER HAPPEN. So go here if you want to know how your going to feel if you waste your money to see this movie: Click name beside the date, but only if your over 18.
Click_HERE_if_your_over_18 on Jan 21, 2008
I've seen this movie 3 times now, If your an adrenaline junky like i am, you should definitely see this movie. It gets your heart racing and you feel like your the one carrying the camera. Personally my thoughts is never listen to what others say (including me) make up your own mind. People are all different and have differing viewpoints. I thought cloverfield was a fun movie, other people when they were leaving the theatre (and on these boards) said the movie was horrible, and worse movie i ever saw while others said Oh My god! That was awsome! Just proves that people have differing viewpoints when it comes to movies. My point is, if you want to see a movie, see it, screw what other people think, think for yourself.
Tythandril on Jan 21, 2008
From post #88: "Lots of "Boos" at the end and people yelling "scam". I agree, one of the biggest scams ever pulled on Americans. " Are you kidding me? Has it come to this? You have to be kidding. You have to be. It was a movie. If you felt like half the "negative" posts that's fine by me. See my final quote at #20 for my 2 cents. However, posting about a movie and linking your feelings to some pathetic marketing ploy has got to be the stupidest comment I've read on here. That's saying something too since last night I see several posts inacting an entire "fecal war" going on in several posts. It's the Fecal Wars Part 1. Look out...flying shit....literally everywhere I read. Great, these shoes are ruined. The monkeys are throwing shit in their cages. Typical of most internet forums. Didn't take long for the inmates to run the asylum. Got to love it. Or don't...who gives a fuck now. This forum for talking about the movie has gone completely insane. I blame myself for going off in my previous posts....I do. I'm not going to scroll back thru 88 posts (89 if you count this one). Fuck that. Having read most of them since Friday (opening day) I'm pretty damn sure there's just as many negative "reviews"...if not more!!?!?!?!? than positive. So my question I guess, if I even have one, is where are the fake posts? How does one find a fake post exactly? Nobody has told me that. There's some outlandish comments being made and now it's gone overboard. To equate not liking a movie with the greatest scam ever is quite an astonishing leap. To say nothing of the fact that the U.S. was "sold" a war in IRAQ. One is reality the other is not. Now, that was a scam. The movie is just a movie. The war is people dying. Fuck it...now I'm taking it overboard!! ARRGGHGHGGHGGHHHH. Now, if I could get paid for doing something this simple I'd be on it like flies on shit...whoops...crap...left myself open for abuse now...here comes the poo....look out!!!
Matt on Jan 21, 2008
I loved "Blair Witch project", but hated Cloverfield. You knew what you were getting with BWP, but with CF you truly expect to see the creature in all it's glory, simply because they hyped the super secret monster and hide it from everyone for so long. Even JJ Adams stated "... the whole movie will be completely opposite from the comming attractions, and the monster will be a huge, seen, part of the film..." JJ Adams, you are now a liar, and a thief. You have shamed your name... why be so untruthful, unless your only plan was to scrape as much money as you could, from a trusting public. Ohh, and to post 89, I did feel like I got f@cked after wasting my money to see it. A little on the graphic side and glad you put the warning, but definitely made a point. Ouch!!! (bit funny too)
Barbra Dellaroso on Jan 21, 2008
This board has some funny reactions, very funny cross replies. The poor person "TCox, post 74", she or he got slammed, or I think they call it "owned" now. Anyway, very enjoyable post if you scroll back to Post 74, and watch the ball go in motion, with the following replies 75,76,77,78,79 and 81, these could well become classics. You people should work for a comedy club, because I would come to see you all. lol!
Linda H. on Jan 21, 2008
Well I thought I would add my thoughts also. I love it, it was very well played. It kept me on the edge of my seat. I agree the monster didn't get enough time and I am hoping for some kind of follow up to explain things. There were a few things that could have been a little different but it was really great.
Chas on Jan 21, 2008
It felt like the lesser of two recent, more effective doomsday movies: I Am Legend and The Mist. At least those had people I could care about. Those movies at least made the stock sci-fi/horror characters somewhat believable and sympathetic. These folks were by the books and I couldn't relate to them.
Charlie on Jan 21, 2008
I really feel sorry for people like Eric, who spent all their time building up the movie in their mind based off of all the time they spent chasing down clues on the web, etc... I went into this film with an idea that it would be like the teaser-trailer we saw during the Transformers film back in July AND THIS MOVIE WENT BEYOND MY EXPECTATIONS. I loved it. I cared about the people, I put myself right next to them when they would make a decision I would mentally say stuff like "bad idea, don't go after Beth" or "please don' t go into the subway". I was totally drawn in and taken on a suspense ride. I have no clue how people are saying that it had no suspense, the film was ALL suspense. I have a feeling Eric and the nay-sayers are people who find every film flawed, and that THEY themselves could have and would have done a better job. yeah right Spielberg, you're awesome and the rest of us could only hope to be as smart as you. This movie is alot of fun, go see it. If you don't like it, stay away from me because you are probably an unhappy, overly-judgemental person. GO SEE IT!!!
Haxby on Jan 21, 2008
Each and every person who said that they hated the movie listed their reasons. I'm going to say why they are WRONG and their reasons give no justifications to hating the movie. 1. Camera Angles, Shakiness. The point of the handycam and 1st-person point of view was to make it as realistic as possible. What did you expect? What, Steven Speildberg and his camera crew just SO HAPPENED to be filming in New York while the attack happened, therefore filming a perfectly professional movie of the whole attack and its events? Yeah, that's realistic. The shakiness is realism. When you run, your vision shakes just as the camera did. The point of the movie was not being able to see every second with exact clarity. There was darkness, blurriness. You saw the important parts, however, and so that's all you really needed to see with perfect clarity. And other times when you couldn't see what was going on (i.e., Helping Beth, Hud's death, the ending), you got the exact gist and so could therefore make up YOUR OWN version of what happened perfectly well. The directors wanted you to conjure up what happened at the very end, or how Hud died, and other such things. What's wrong with using a little bit of your imagination? Why hate a movie just because it provokes thought? 2. Character subjectivism. "Tater-tot emotions." How can you say that? How can you say how people should react in a situation? Sure, Rachel didn't cry for three hours over Jason's death...but would that make a good film? People crying left and right? No, in this film, pure instinct took over and so therefore the characters were able to push aside their feelings for a short period of time, every so often, to allow the plot to progress and so that they could survive and focus on their goals. Once you've been cornered in an overpopulated and oversized city with a giant alien, running for your life while mourning the loss of a sibling or a loved one, please feel free to tell us how all of us should feel when facing that situation. 3. The Beginning Again, I go back to my realism statement. Imagine an opening scene as a news anchor announcing the attack on the city, and then we go to our protagonists and continue to see the film the way it was. How would that suck? You had no background information at all - who they were, why they were where they were, the story behind Rob and Beth - the beauty of it all was, is that everything portrayed in the movie was perfect realistic. Real people go around with video cameras and share secrets and snoop on their friends and fool around. Real people sleep with their best friends and it causes a huge rift in their relationship. The beginning allowed for a solid relationship between the viewers and the characters to be made, and I think anyone can be the goofy cameraman who talks too much, the wary drunk girl who hates getting hit on, the perfectionist party-thrower, or the one in love with someone he shouldn't be. Anyone can be any of those people in those situations. There were some unrealistic parts, in my mind, however, like the helicopter crash, and the fact that Rachel was taken onto the helicopter and not Beth, because Beth was injured. Other than that, though, the circumstances were very realistic. I loved the movie, I thought it offered audiences a way into the film in a way that no other movie has done before. It exceeded my expectations and is a wonderful peice of film. I would nominate it for Oscar film of the year. Congratulations to all the actors and directors, they produced a wonderful experience.
Jess on Jan 21, 2008
UNREAL... There are some things that I don't understand about the PRO's of this movie. People have over and over again mentioned that this was a movie that exemplifies and "Goes outside the box". Well, I hate to say this, but this was not the first movie that was made in first person perspective. In order for you to be "in their shoes" you have to be able to relate to the characters. This film failed to connect with most of the audience, either by being nasuated by erratic camera movements, or there were no points of interest w/in the characters. People say this was original? What’s so orignal about a guy and girl screwing each other then waking up in the morning to either regret or cherish their moment together? You say that they are trying to keep the movie as real as possible? Where was this at the movie presented? All I remember from this movie was “HUD, ROB, BETH, and OH MY GOD” lines being used redundantly through out the movie. You can experience first person view with a pan camera just as well as a POV camera view. A good movie establishes the connection between audience and characters, although the climax may not give you closure; saved for the sequal, it should be able to establish the “WHY” and “WHO”. WHY did this happen and WHO would I relate to with these characters. It is not necessary for the movie to “Spill the Beans” in the first movie, but damn you have to be able to begin with an IMPACT with the audience. My take on the movie was, they sure do have a lot of asphalt in New York. I never thought in my willdest dream that a movie could make me throw up the way this movie did. A few bangs and booms around the people does not present a good movie. I have read some people say it kept them on the edge of the seat; and it did, to alot of people about to run out of the movie theater to puke their guts out. Kudos to the advertising department for the buzz it created, because it sure did got me to see a JUNK of a movie. Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me. This will never happen again. I learned that a real “GOOD” movie does not have to create a lot of HYPE from paid advertisement, just WORD OF MOUTH.
Ron on Jan 21, 2008
This movie was AMAZING! I loved the effect of the hand held camera. It had me on the edge of my seat the ENTIRE way through. This has to be the BEST movie I've seen in a long time. I was a little upset with the ending, but I'm also thinking that there will be a second. I will DEFINITELY be going to see this movie again in theaters. My friends and I have been doing research, and we'll be looking more carefully to things the second time around. Kudos to this movie. I absolutely loved it. :]
Nicole on Jan 21, 2008
From Post #89: "I never seen so much fake plugs on a movie, they have to be fake, I agree, because they never did fully show the monster, well all of 5 seconds of it before it chews on the camera guy. Always thought it was coming up, that the next scene will show a really great long, full, monster scene.,.. but it NEVER HAPPEN." Where do I start? It's HAPPENED. HAPPENED...it' YOU'RE as in (you are) 18 or older. YOU ARE. HAPPENED. "I never SAW"...not seen. I NEVER SAW SO MANY...not so much...SO MANY. SLOW DOWN...YOU ARE TYPING TOO FAST. PROOF READ A LITTLE BIT. Screw it, I probably made countless grammatical errors on all of my other posts too...what was my point.....OK..... I only comment since you had the depravity to post a link to porn on this site about a movie review. So you hated ALIEN and JAWS too?? Those films are very similar in the aspect that the "monster" isn't completely shown all of the time in every scene the "monster" is in. People that post and piss on the fact that the monster isn't given a proper "coming out party" fail to recall that the camera was in possession of one character during the attack. What would you do for instance if this was really happening? Run to the monster and say "hey, you big fuck. Smile so I can get the best shot of you. Thanks, ya big lug.???" The entire point of less shots of the monster is for the LESS IS MORE value. ALIEN would have blown if they showed the "alien" all the damn time. They used suspense and had the audience lured in that way by NOT SHOWING IT!! Would JAWS have been as much fun if you saw it on every attack?? NO! You fuckers would complain if they showed the monster for the entire length of the film. Then the complaints would be : "TOO MUCH MONSTER", "TOO MANY SHOTS OF THE MONSTER", "SHIT, THEY SHOWED NOTHING BUT MONSTER". "FOR FUCK'S SAKE, THAT MONSTER DOES NOT LOOK REAL", "HONEY, ON SECOND THOUGHT I'LL TAKE YOU UP ON THAT BLOW JOB...THEY'RE SHOWING WAY TOO MUCH MONSTER", HONEY, CHECK OUT MY MONSTER"..... On and on it would go. If you got sick, you sat too close. Can't hack it? Get out. Go home. Leave. Just go. Shut up. Go. Shut it. No, don't want to hear it. Shut it. I'm tired of these "I want my money back" complaints too. This society sucks massive *radio edit* right now. These pieces of trash would return bread to the grocery store if they brought it home and one piece was bent. Fuck getting your money back. It's a theater movie not a DVD you bought at Best Buy. I don't really care if you liked the movie or not. Don't care. Don't. My point is that the entire spectrum of posts that are negative all say the same shit. In fact, I'd be willing to say THOSE ARE THE PLUGS....genius plan of reverse psychology. Get me to see the movie by saying how bad it is eh? Is that your plan Hollywood!??? I'M ON TO YOU!!! That or you want me to see *cough* more... porn.
Faaip de Oiad on Jan 21, 2008
i loved the movie i thought the video camera/ documentary was hard to follow and I also though the flipping to before got a bit annoying but it was awesome it defiantly need a second.
Cass on Jan 21, 2008
It seems there's been a lot of fun at my expense in previous posts. That's fine. Have your fun. By the way, I didn't even know fecophiliac was condition until I saw Laughable's mom in "2 Girls 1 Cup".
TCox on Jan 21, 2008
First off i must admit that i was obsessed with this movie as soon as i saw the first trailer before Transformers. I came right home after Transformers to do my homework on Cloverfield. I would go on all the viral sites and waited anxiously for more teasers and trailers....so after i came out of the theater i felt sick to my stomach...and it wasnt even because of the camera. I felt like JJ had dooped me into seeing this movie....i fell victam to the hype..BY FAR AND NOT EVEN CLOSE THE WORST MOVIE I HAD EVER SEEN!!!!GODZILLA WAS BETTER THEN THIS CRAP!!!!
Nate D O Double G on Jan 21, 2008
Best monster movie Iv seen. I dont know about you but I diddent get motion sickness at all! I felt like I was actually there in NewYork with then, I mean Im seeing what they're seeing. The graphics were awesome! I loved how you dident know anymore than what the characters knew. There where alot of questions unanswered, but who knows maybe there will be anohter movie explaining what happened and what the monster is and came from, and if there were actually 2 monsters. Make sure you watch closley. There are several things in this movie that are wierd, like why the monster seems to grow bigger when its hit by the guns and missles? so this is not your tipical hollywood predictable godzilla movie, its nothing like that. Brase yourself, this movie is one heck of a ride.
Alex on Jan 22, 2008
If Box Office Mojo has reliable data then this answers the nay-sayers of Cloverfield. Godzilla was hardly better unless you're talking about the Japanese versions. Then you might have a leg to stand on. Weak argument otherwise. You can Google the Box Office Mojo site for the average grade/percentages of A-F grades (as if grading and starring a movie/book or whatever actually is a valid way of recommending said item), and box office total so far. For those that followed the viral campaign and claim the movie is poorly done than I feel badly for your waste of time and effort. I did not follow anything since I have little interest or time and don't want anything to spoil any movie. So, if they indeed promised one thing and delivered another OK you got me.....Again, I can't offer insight as I stayed away from it. It's better to turn a blind eye to all that marketing and hype. At least that way you can't say you were "duped". For what it's worth JJ Abrams basically took his "WTF was that monster moment from the Pilot episode of LOST and ran with it by placing a monster in NY". He had all the jerky camera movements, mystery, suspense and "monster movie" items in that first few hours of LOST. I could be WAY OFF BASE but I think there's something there. That may indeed have been part of the genesis of Cloverfield. He didn't show fans of that show jack shit for a long time too. So if you don't like LOST you probably won't care for Cloverfield either. Same guy, same concept.
Matt on Jan 22, 2008
First off... Whats all this talk of plugs? What are you guys suggesting? Someone get back to me on that... Anyway... Hey, Howdy, How's it going? Personally I loved this movie. Its an absolute exhilarating experience for those that come stomach keeping your eyes glued to the screen. If not... take dramamine and rub a lil' vagisil on it. You'll be ok. (sorry to be so graphic but it is what it is) About the movie... The monster was fantastic. The cast was fantastic. The story was fantastic. Whoa... wait... what's going on here? Oh crap... I think I'm a "PLUG"! No it can't be! I had my own opinions and conjecture on the film. That can't be though. Something has taken over and made me a "PLUG". Oh God what will I do now? I liked the movie and now I'm a "PLUG"! Please! Give me my life back!
C-Young on Jan 22, 2008
Well put C-Young. I think maybe the cool thing to do now is write negative reviews, and bash people who disagree. The web is pretty divided on Cloverfield, and it's getting to be ridiculous. There's been a lot of cheap shots thrown on this post (I am guilty, I admit, but in my defense I felt forced to defend, and counter all the immature jabs thrown my way). The debate will only end at the box office. Next Friday will be the deciding factor, on whether the negative talk sways ticket buyers away from Cloverfield.
TCox on Jan 22, 2008
What bothered me the most about the movie was you had kids with a camcorder at a party, and not one boob popped out of a woman's over-tight halter top. I've seen hour after hour after pants-tightening-hour of "girls gone wild" ads on Comedy Central and yet, you're telling me that people go to parties and film chicks and chicks don't push their exposed nipples into other chicks eager mouths as they paw each other's moistened panties wantonly? This is the reality we are supposed to believe exists? I can see a huge f*cking multi-tentacles monster from the depths of the ocean popping up because people are stealing it's Slurm-recipe. That sh*t can happen. Jack Cousteau hinted at it in the 70's, but his accent made his warnings go unheard. I can see little mini-muthas springing spritely through stairwells and biting people and causing their bellies to explode like jalepeno poppers left on a griddle too long. But a world without horny 20-something nymphos at every party, muff griding and boob-displaying to anyone fool with a camera. No shower gropeouts? No panty flashing? not even boob baring? Sir, Cloverfield exists in a hellish reality (no naked horny hotties) that I don't even want to contemplate the existence thereof. The portrayal of such a world offends me deeply. -Jibbles-Jebby
Jebby on Jan 22, 2008
Holy shit! Theee TCOX!!! You have already become legend on two other movie forums. You getting "owned" *snicker* has to be the fuck'en funniest stuff I read today, shit the past 6 months!. There was a link to come here, never thought I would acculy get to post under someone so famous. I feel lucky to be the one to post right under your post, truly! I know, I need a life, but I admit it. P.S. Please, who ever Mr/Mrs. "Laughable" is (Post 76), you need to do stand up, because you made me, and some of my friends, die laughing a few hours ago. Even, poster # 81, Mr. "Harry B.", you should be his/her back up comedian, truly. ROGLMAO! LOL!...
Mike D. on Jan 22, 2008
It will probably drop like a rock simply because it is a YOUTUBE generation movie...cast is roughly average in age of 27...target demo is roughly 16-30 year olds...with these facts one can deduce that this Mt. Dew swilling generation will eat it up quicker than a diabetic thru candy laced panties. Then dump it like a 16 year old prom date off on the side of the road while chucking White Castle boxes at her. Good movie. Yes. Classic? Debatable. Master debatable? Yes. Cunning Linguist? Certainly. Warrants a B grade if not an A- which is in tune with the first weekend viewers. Having seen it twice in the span of three days I can say that it doesn't hold up over repeat viewings. It's a "one and done" type movie for me. Enjoyed the movie the first viewing and hoped to find little "bits" I may have missed but did not. Honestly, it flew by both times and seemed even faster paced the second time. To the crowd that trashed this with huge amounts of insane comparisons (i.e. I want my money back, worst scam ever, paid reviewers etc. etc.) one can only hope that they suffer from bone cancer and end up on life support. To anyone else that disliked it BUT had a nice "review" as to why they didn't...thank you. That's all I ever wanted. If I was surfing the net for reviews I WANT TO KNOW THE BAD. BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHY. People failed miserably on this particular site. It's a bunch of shit to read personal stories and no backup reasons why the movie didn't bode well for that person. And lastly, to the porn poster/link/dick...why did you link us to a porn of you, your sister and your mom in a three way? Why?
Matt on Jan 22, 2008
Chuckle.... is some funny posts. lol
MxM3 on Jan 22, 2008
Matt...dude those are some pretty harsh comments.... "To the crowd that trashed this with huge amounts of insane comparisons (i.e. I want my money back, worst scam ever, paid reviewers etc. etc.) one can only hope that they suffer from bone cancer and end up on life support". Wow....you are prime example of a back alley abortion gone wrong. The movie sucked dude...and all of you other losers that liked this movie were probley the fat little hobbits that i saw alone in the theater cheering with amazement for Star Trek. Go play Magic cards or Jerk it to Anime or something.
NATE on Jan 22, 2008
For those that can handle & appreciate the shaky "real life" cam, it was very well made. Almost perfect CGI. Did it live up to the hype? No. How could it. Hype is exactly that; hype. It was refreshing to see a new & imaginitive giant monster film. Maybe 3.5 out of 5. Very good movie. Matt & Nate, be nice. I'm supposed to be the asshole on First Showing.
Sinner on Jan 22, 2008
Nate: How could you possibly know that I just now finished tossing a load on my Magic cards? Finally someone stepped up!! Took long enough. Here it was my 6th or 7th post. Damn, Nate...about time! Good for you. Cheers! However, you owe an apology to all the fat little Hobbits, Magic players, Anime fans, and back alley abortions gone wrong (which is a medical miracle and a subset of the Girls Gone Wild video collection for the real sick fucks out there). ABORTIONS GONE WILD!! Now I made myself sick. Yuck. Where the fuck do you live that all those miscreants ended up at your movie theater?? On the same night too! If I'm going to the cancer ward tomorrow to apologize for being an evil SOB you better hold up your end of things. Sinner: Nice olive branch too! LOL!! Be nice kids! Felt like being separated in the play area!
Matt on Jan 22, 2008
Almost perfect CGI?? "Sinner", I have to agree with some of your post, about 2 stars out of 5 for me, but to go as far as perfect CGI is a bit much, wouldn't you say? Ya, if perfectly making the camera go out of focus, I agree with you (not kidding, to make that camera affect just at the right time, like a camcorder would actually do, is not very easy) but if they put more money on high quality, longer scenes with the monster, instead of "fast, out of focus shots", it would have been a great film. Like the idea of the "handheld" view. Too bad it couldn't been a bigger-budget movie. I also have to agree with many of the other post, JJ A. did a great job of taking all our money and gave us little back in return. BTW, "TCox" (pst 74), you did get your butt ripped. I to, started to burst out laughing after I scrolled back up to see what everyone has been talking about. lol Great come back pst 76-81! lol
Peter W jr. on Jan 22, 2008
LEAVE "TCOX" (post74) ALONNNNEEEEE !!!!! lol!
TCox Fan on Jan 22, 2008
this was one movie my family and i couldnt wait to see. i finished work early so we could take in the 1st showing friday. i plowed thru popcorn with anticipation and i was surprised to say the least. 1st off the camera operator at the theatre was having trouble with the focus so when the beginning began showing some wording about, footage found in cloverfield which was once called central park, i wasnt sure what i was watching but once i figured it out i was glued to my seat. what a great idea to make it seem like it was real. i really thought it was going to be godzilla so i kept trying to SEE the monster. once or twice i wished the picture would be still but i know that was part of its "catch"....without that it would have been just another monster eats city movie. i say bravo for giving us something to wonder about and be amazed by.
brenda on Jan 22, 2008
Hey, I love Star Trek and HATED Cloverfield. I rather burn my money, then getting fucked by JJ Abrams scam ever again. Good movie if your into anal penetration, because you feel like you got fucked in the ass after spending your money on this rip off. Have to give good old JJ A. credit, he knew where to spend all the marketing budget, right here in on the web. I fear hollywood will realize they no longer need to hire good actors, or spend money on extended, involved CGI scenes to satisfy the audience knowing there would be harsh backlash by not. But because only half the people are outraged, hollywood may think they need only make a grade "B" scam films, as CF, then spend 1/3rd the low budget on a great marketing company that will "carpet" bomb the internet with hype and false plugs, and they will become super wealthy for almost nothing. No matter if you enjoyed this film or not, the fact remains that this was a very low budget film, only had less then 17-22 seconds of the entire film that actually showed the monster (poorly at that), and yet Cloverfield made $42 million in less then 3 days. No matter how you look at it, this will not be good news for what Hollywood will be investing in the coming few years. You will see so many films like cloverfield over the next few years, that even the people who like it, will regret they said so. And to (post 111 "Matt"), your a raging psycho looser, to wish "cancer" on people just because they don't like a movie???!!!, your a disgrace to this world. No question that your nothing but a disgusting flesh body, so incredibly fat, that your trapped behind your keyboard, imprisoned by your own sweaty, bulbous, slime cover fat mass. You have no clue what cancer is, but watch out what you wish for moron, things have a funny way of coming back on you.
HR Tab on Jan 22, 2008
POST 111 "MATT", fuck tard, are you 12 or 13? Go kill yourself and do the world a favor before you rape a poor women and reproduce. To wish "cancer" on people who don't agree with your demented view, is the lowest possible a person can get. I fully have to say post 119 says it all right about you. Well said 119, well said.
Nacy on Jan 22, 2008
"Matt" (pst 111), you wish cancer on people just for not liking a fake monster movie? Showing your true age, are you 10 years old, fat, no friends, and feel like you should commit suicide? If so, go with your feelings, have some balls!! Show "them" that they will be sorry for messing with you, your dad WAS wrong for touching you in that way, but now your dirty, so go take a lot of pills or get the gun and show us you mean business, put it in your mouth (like your father did with his dick) and pull the trigger!
KillYourself Matt, please. on Jan 22, 2008
Hey Matt, pst 111, I like the movie, but if I had your coward fat ass beside me, I would snap your fuck'en little neck. I'm glad you wished cancer on others, simply for not agreeing with you, because it will come back to you, don't worry about that. You have no clue how things work, especially when you "wish" something as terrible as cancer, because many millions of souls who suffered untold misery due to this terrible disease, seem to find the cowards like you, that open wish it upon others....
Bob Mcfarlen on Jan 22, 2008
As a women, I can tell you "Matt" post 111 why you will never know anything but the touch of your own nasty little hand. You are the most disgusting little "boy" I have seen post on the web. If your are a man, your mind is that of a child and you are nothing more then some poor little boy who's mommy didn't breast feed. I also bet your father cocked you like an old window, but to wish cancer on someone for not enjoying a sad little monster movie, that you are obsessed with, is simply insane. BTW, the other people are sooooo right, it will find you now, then you will be wishing you never "wished" it.
Karen V. on Jan 22, 2008
MATT, the one thing you can be sure in now is the curse that will find you. no question about it, I feel really sorry for you, truly. Im barely living proof of making a fools wish, and now only have the internet as a way to have some kind of life. so sorry for you, so so sorry. I do not hope you hurt yourself, but please do yourself a favor and do something good for a poor soul with this horrible disease to make up for the terrible wish you made, please, before it's to late for you.... it does come back to you, it does......
Peace2all on Jan 22, 2008
Fuck him, PLEASE GO OFF YOUR SELF "MATT" POST 111. Do the world the best thing you could ever do for it, KILL YOURSELF. Wish cancer on people for not lik'en a foolish movie!!!!???? Bad batch off sperm if you ask me, your mother should have swallowed, instead of letting your father blow his nut in the fucking crack whore.
JJmark on Jan 22, 2008
Great movie, will definitly seen it at least 2 more times...Did not get sick from watching shaking cam it made it way more realistic.it made the viewer feel as if they are watching a home video of your own friends, because that is the way you need to see this movie....Also I am getting fustrated of those who complain about style of the film and say that they apparently suffered from motion sickness this is just something they can say against the movie because they truely enjoyed it.They are just looking for something to sabotage their own experience
PJC on Jan 22, 2008
well i finally got to see the movie and in all honesty, I found it to be realy boring and lifeless. The type of viral marketing and the hype they created probably gave me the wrong expectations. I won't go as far as to say it sucked, but in my opinion it fell short of what it could have been. There were several aspects that particularly disapointed me about this movie: 1) The first 15 minutes of the movie were not only boring, but realy did nothing for the story. I believe the movie would have been better of starting at the party. 2) I found all of the characters to be rather uninteresting and replaceable. Although the acting was ok, the characters never sparked any interest. The way I see it, if you are going to make a movie -especially a monster movie- that focuses on a single group of individuals, they should be exeptionally interesting. 3) While I think the concept of using the camcorder style was realy cool, I think it failed in the delivery. The constant shaking already annoyed me after the first 5 mins, but it realy got tedious to watch as the movie draged on. Fortunately I don't get motion sick, but I know of a LOT of people that do get sick from a lot less than this, so for them this movie might be a complete no-go just because of the crapy camera. 4) Overall I found the story -or the view point of the story- just not interesting within the given scenario. Not once did it realy draw me in or get me excited in any way, shape or form. In fact I was waiting for the story to pick up steam throughout the entire movie, but it never did. In fact, the entire movie would have been awsome as a build up for the "real" movie, had it been on youtube or a similar site, but as a feature movie it was ultimately lacking. The only thing positive I can say about Cloverfield is, that it indeed had a very fresh and unique approach. Unfortunately that wasn't enough for me to enjoy it. As I mentined before, it didn't flat out suck, but I still regret having spent money on it. However, should there ever be a sequel -or the "real" movie as I would call it- then I would give it a chance since i believe there was a lot of unused potential....just please no more shaky cam.
Riv on Jan 22, 2008
ok ok lol, that "Tcox" shit is f@cking hilarious! LOL I came here from another forum to check it out, to funny! Go scroll up to post 74 where "TCox" tells people to "fuck off" because they post a less then favorable review, then, gets hit left and right by great reply/rebuff post by "Laughable" and others.... "spit coffee all over my keyboard.." lol lol, love it. P.S. "Matt" post 111, grow up! To wish cancer on the people for not give cloverfield a positive review is pathetic. I also agree with many others here, that kind-of-thing "has a funny way to come back to you"....
Larin on Jan 23, 2008
No question that your nothing but a disgusting flesh body, so incredibly fat, that your trapped behind your keyboard, imprisoned by your own sweaty, bulbous, slime cover fat mass. You have no clue what cancer is, but watch out what you wish for moron, things have a funny way of coming back on you. P.S. "Matt" post 111, grow up! To wish cancer on the people for not give cloverfield a positive review is pathetic. I also agree with many others here, that kind-of-thing "has a funny way to come back to you"…. Fuck him, PLEASE GO OFF YOUR SELF "MATT" POST 111. Do the world the best thing you could ever do for it, KILL YOURSELF. Wish cancer on people for not lik'en a foolish movie!!!!???? Bad batch off sperm if you ask me, your mother should have swallowed, instead of letting your father blow his nut in the fucking crack whore. JJmark on Jan 22, 2008 As a women, I can tell you "Matt" post 111 why you will never know anything but the touch of your own nasty little hand. You are the most disgusting little "boy" I have seen post on the web. If your are a man, your mind is that of a child and you are nothing more then some poor little boy who's mommy didn't breast feed. I also bet your father cocked you like an old window, but to wish cancer on someone for not enjoying a sad little monster movie, that you are obsessed with, is simply insane. BTW, the other people are sooooo right, it will find you now, then you will be wishing you never "wished" it. Hey Matt, pst 111, I like the movie, but if I had your coward fat ass beside me, I would snap your fuck'en little neck. I'm glad you wished cancer on others, simply for not agreeing with you, because it will come back to you, don't worry about that. You have no clue how things work, especially when you "wish" something as terrible as cancer, because many millions of souls who suffered untold misery due to this terrible disease, seem to find the cowards like you, that open wish it upon others…. "Matt" (pst 111), you wish cancer on people just for not liking a fake monster movie? Showing your true age, are you 10 years old, fat, no friends, and feel like you should commit suicide? If so, go with your feelings, have some balls!! Show "them" that they will be sorry for messing with you, your dad WAS wrong for touching you in that way, but now your dirty, so go take a lot of pills or get the gun and show us you mean business, put it in your mouth (like your father did with his dick) and pull the trigger! KillYourself Matt, please. on Jan 22, 2008 Matt…dude those are some pretty harsh comments…. "To the crowd that trashed this with huge amounts of insane comparisons (i.e. I want my money back, worst scam ever, paid reviewers etc. etc.) one can only hope that they suffer from bone cancer and end up on life support". Wow….you are prime example of a back alley abortion gone wrong. The movie sucked dude…and all of you other losers that liked this movie were probley the fat little hobbits that i saw alone in the theater cheering with amazement for Star Trek. Go play Magic cards or Jerk it to Anime or something. NATE on Jan 22, 2008 POST 111 "MATT", fuck tard, are you 12 or 13? Go kill yourself and do the world a favor before you rape a poor women and reproduce. To wish "cancer" on people who don't agree with your demented view, is the lowest possible a person can get. I fully have to say post 119 says it all right about you. Well said 119, well said. Nacy on Jan 22, 2008 Ouch!
Sharon on Jan 23, 2008
Let's move on and review Cloverfield...someone please... Vile comments beget vile comments. Some of you were reduced to that level of posting and only fan the flames. I see nothing but one-upsmanship going on...you're no better than him. Don't let someone get under your skin like that....it's not worth it.... I wanted to review the movie but this is no forum. It's a chat room for trashing people.
upset on Jan 23, 2008
Wow... this has turned into quite an intellectual debate. Never before have I seen so many "dicks, fricks, anals, rapes, tards, aborts, jerkins, crack whore" blasts over a damn movie. JJ Abrams must be a freaking genius to be able to create such a stir amongst blogs and web pages. For the record... my favorite display of intelligence and maturity lies within this line, "Go kill yourself and do the world a favor before you rape a poor women and reproduce." "...rape A poor WOMEN..."? Nice grammar bud. Guys... get an IM on your Ninja Turtle special edition PC if you want to exchange "bad words" amongst eachother and quite ruining a good site! I will jam your chiclet ridden pie holes with a fat slab of soap. Yes... just like mamma does when you talk back.
C-Young on Jan 23, 2008
So right 131, so right. The kids are loose on the web again, letting us all know how the next generation looks at the world. These young adults are so out of touch with reality, that they feel the need, to actually make statements, as the following by "Matt" post 111: " one can only hope that they suffer from bone cancer and end up on life support.". To even have the ability to think of such evil thoughts, for any reason (let alone a monster movie) are at the very least, a person that should not be allowed on our streets. I also read post 120 from "Nancy", I think the message she was trying to say, was "Matt" pst 111 should be taken off our streets before he (Matt, pst.111) attacks, then rapes, some "poor", as in "feel bad for", women. It is terribly sad to see and read what is happening to some of our young adults, how can anyone possibly wish a thing such as cancer, just for voicing a negative feedback? I thought the movie was very childish and is the reason I took my 14 year old son (It's a monster movie people, for peace sake, not realy for older adults). It was made for young adults of this generation and is why there is such a very harsh difference in opinions. One can tell the age of most of the people leaving feedback in this thread, simply by reading the child like responses of hate, for not agreeing with thier feelings. These children feel personally attacked just because another individual does not "feel" in the same way. I hope this is not what is waiting for the future of America. I mean, look at all the hate and name calling, all for a monster movie. I even feel funny writting about this "monster" movie, using the word seems so kid like. How can normal people become so obsessed with a little kids monster movie, too the point were they "wish bone cancer" on another human being???? I'm terrible afraid for my kids, and our future as a whole, in this beautiful and wonderful country.
Afraid on Jan 23, 2008
C-Young...caution...this forum may turn on you next. It's not a pleasant read after that one guy Matt made one cancer comment and then the storm happened. It's almost comical to think that people had to fight this guy's (Matt) one comment off with an obscene volley of "anal rape, fat jokes, abortion stuff" too. How is that better than what he (Matt) said? Apparently he threw enough stones at someone's house and broke their window. Whoops...move on. So the sacred cow is cancer but wishing someone dead is OK? What a world. Their true face has been revealed. If they have kids or families how would they feel reading their replies? Lord above what a barrage of death wishes..."ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand"...... Meanwhile....."The vigilantes gather on the lonely torch lit hill"........
tom on Jan 23, 2008
Sorry. Sorry for the poor choice of words in my post. It was overboard. It was wrong. I'm done. Sorry again.
Matt on Jan 23, 2008
Wow. I guess the maturity level is on a elementary school level here. I still don't see why joking that I eat shit is so damn funny. Maybe you should say I eat my boogers too. Haha. Damn that's a good one. Morons. Apparently it's funny to those living in their parent's basement, who spend their time popping pimples, and dreaming about the day they get to touch a girl, other than their sister. Go put your Spider-Man pajamas back on watch A Land Before Time. The grown ups want to talk about movies now. Also, to wish cancer on someone is about the sickest thing I've heard on here. If there's a hell, I'm sure they have a reservation for you.
TCox on Jan 23, 2008
Thanks for the warning "tom". I think I'll be alright though. Life's thrown alot worse my way... alot worse than a slew of bad-mouth kids slandering my name, children, family and whatever else their IQs can muster up. Like Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting, "You're just a kid..." Do YOU know what the Sistine Chapel smells like? I didn't go through every post and see who's commenting on who... who said this and who said that. All I saw was ignorance and generally I keep moving when confronted with such. I'm not going to point anyone out or say who was more at fault. To me... it's all the same. So... how bout the movie?
C-Young on Jan 23, 2008
Come on "tom" or shall we say "Matt", you gave it away in the first few sentences. Your indirectly defending this psycho "Matt", which places you in the same ball park as everyone else, including myself. But you see, I do not care about looking politically correct. I watch 2 people suffer untold pain because of cancer, so I for one applaud all the people who are outraged at "Matt" and his psychotic view and wishes. Matt post 111, you are a coward. Just to let everyone know, I gave the movie 3 stars out-of 5. Lacked a full view of the creature, but enjoyed the hand held camera. Would have been a much better film if they had more money to invest in CGI, but the sequel should be much better. Call this film a test, and by all reports, JJ will have lots of money to invest in the next.
Karl on Jan 23, 2008
C-Young (#136) Hell, I forgot which movie we were even discussing. My apologies. Oh..that's right...Cloverfield. I liked it, and I've seen it twice now. It was better the second time. Apparently most here didn't agree with me. Since they're saying Cloverfield is shit, and I say I like it, apparently I like shit. You got me. My mouth was open. (I say with the worst Eddie Murphy impression possible) That should just about sum it up. Oh, and some douche (Matt - Post #111) wished bone cancer on those who didn't like it. He's apologized, so I think we can movie on. I completely forgot to give a shoutout to TCox Fan (#117). Thanks for the support. Please send me the link to your YOUTUBE video, when you get it finished. I know you've been busy with your school's production of High School Musical 3, so just keep me updated.
TCox on Jan 23, 2008
One thing I haven't heard anyone mention, and I honestly didn't catch it until the second viewing: Did anyone think that the monster at the end that offed Beth, Rob, and Hud seemed to be a 1/4 of the size of the monster that was destroying the city? I've read speculation that the bombs dropped on the monster made it bigger, but I didn't really get that. Plus, how did the monster get to Central Park so fast? If the camera never stopped recording, then we should have heard the monster approaching the helicopter crash site. We didn't, so it only makes sense that there's more than one. Anybody agree with me?
TCox on Jan 23, 2008
TCox (#138) Ahh... the "fart game". Just stay away from the GI Joes huh? Don't worry... you kids will play someday. Matt (#111) apology accepted... not that you owe me one. But I understand where you're coming from with that post (#134).
C-Young on Jan 23, 2008
Getting straight to the point.....I didnt care for the movie at all. I am a 24/male and I thought it was lame and boring....i almost fell alseep....I thought THE MIST was a million times better then this movie...just my opinion...and i am sure someone will have an opinion about it.
PFox on Jan 23, 2008
Well dip me in feather and call me a turkey, it's TCox! Ggad damn, I never be think'in 2 see you in rea.... I mean virtual life! U'z practly a celbraty. Be so kind as to sign the next post to me, plz?
Tcox#1 in my book on Jan 23, 2008
#142 - TURKEY! I think all chances of discussing Cloverfield are done. Alex - thanks for the review. I agreed with every word of it, which for some reason didn't set well with others. Nice website, as well. You guys do good work. My apologies for inadvertantly contributing to the overall decline in maturity, and subject matter on this post. You can't win in an argument against those with "special needs". You just have to nod, and pretend what they're saying is more than a bunch of run-on sentences and jibberish, they got their mom to translate from their crayon drawings. Seriously. My 9 year old has better grammar. I'm still puzzled by how many theaters were able to provide booster seats. TCox has left the build......er...post.
TCox on Jan 23, 2008
Can someone please tell me what a "TCox is? I'am lost and do not feel like scrolling through 142 posts, thank you. BTW I think JJ A. is a pure genius, he knew how to take the American people for a record amount of money. I feel the movie was terrible, and I for one enjoyed "Blair Witch". The whole camcorder filming was a great way to complete a movie, but all JJ wanted to do is make as much money as possible, laughing all the way to the bank. Call it a "scam", "false hype marketing through plugs", whatever you like, he is a genius to rip off the Americans with a movie so hyped up, such a secret, but one he never had to deliver on. Did we even see the entire "monster" for more then 5 seconds without a blur? An yet, some still give a positive review? Americans are so foolish at times, no wonder they are giving away thier country to China, letting all their massive manufacturing base leave to cheap foreign countries, All the while having a huge smile on their faces, not realizing thier country will eventually collapse, having nothing to fall back on. We are seeing this right now with the economy. With no manufacturing base within the country, it is almost impossible to pull out of a recession. Bush is talking about giving billions back to stimulate the economy, jump start it, but where do you think the money is coming from, China. If Bush was to give every family $1000 each, the money will only stimulate China's economy, since America makes nothing any more. What happen to you people, the world use to look up to the USA, even me. Now you are so politically correct, you rather loose your country, then to speak up against the foreigners that are truly raping your once proud country. Amazing how you have "black congresanal caucus" "black colleges" "black rights leaders", but the second white people in your country open their mouths or speak about white pride, or any other race, it is turned into racism. Can you imagine what would happen if a "white congresanl caucus was formed to simply help with the reverse descrimination. I'm a Native American Indian, and this confuses us. We pride ourselves on not being afraid to confront the issues. We laugh when any one tries to call us names, thinking we will simply stop speaking and apologize.. for what, having pride in ones own race? Is this only allowed now if your Black, in America? This has everything to do with movies like cloverfield, people are afraid to speak out because a few start calling them names, even the shameful person here that wished "cancer" on another, just for speaking thier view and dislike. Like this movie, you allow yourselves to be taken and ask for more. So confusing. Do any of you consider what will now happen to Hollywood when they see how much Cloverfield makes? They will make only low budget "hype" films, without the need of great actors or involved CGI scenes, it will set the entire industry back, and put even more of your people out of a once solid business. Have some pride in your country again, before China walks in and just takes it. We already put up with the white man and forgave, we will never allow the yellow man to take away the little we have left.
Featherfall on Jan 23, 2008
pFox on Jan 23, 2008
For those that can handle & appreciate the shaky "real life" cam, it was very well made. Almost perfect CGI. Did it live up to the hype? No. How could it. Hype is exactly that; hype. It was refreshing to see a new & imaginitive giant monster film. Maybe 3.5 out of 5. Very good movie. I did see the monster fall in the ocean behind the ferris wheel scene @ the end. I can only think that it must be from space. Brings up some interesting ?'s. Did it have a ship or was that the monsters body that splashed down? I'd like to think it was the creatures ship. Were those smaller creatures parasites similar in the Alien films? Before I saw Cloverfield, I thought that chick behind the tarp was violently vomiting blood. The soldier on the gurney with the blown out stomach kinda changed my mind about that. Was that poor soldier bitten as well? I might be asking ?'s that have no answers yet, however movies that make you think about them 5 days after you've seen them are usually good ones in my opinion.
Sinner on Jan 23, 2008
Sinner: See this link to answer some questions that you raised. I read thru it the other day. Some food for thought. http://imdb.com/title/tt1060277/faq You'll have to copy and paste it but it is a FAQ about Cloverfield from IMDB. Later.
Joe S. on Jan 23, 2008
Guess it hyperlinks in post 147...didn't know if it would. Anyway, check it out...interesting stuff on there.
Joe S on Jan 23, 2008
I have to watch Cloverfield again, then I can say whether I liked it or not. It was depressing, and what is a "Cloverfield" anyway? It never said.
RH on Jan 23, 2008
RH post 149: See link I posted in post 147. Scroll to second question...WHAT DOES CLOVERFIELD MEAN? See ya!
Joe S on Jan 23, 2008
Really cool. Thanks Joe.
Sinner on Jan 24, 2008
cloverfield made me extremely nauseous. don't see if if you get motion sick easily
maggie on Jan 24, 2008
MAN I WENT TO GO SEE CLOVERFIELD ON THE 18TH...I WAITED EVER SINCE I WENT TO C TRANSFORMERS FOR DIS MOVIE....AND I HVE TO SAY...THAT MOVIE WAS WACK TO ME...AND IT WAS OK....BUT NOT AS GOOD AS I THOUGHT IT'LL BE....BUT MY OPINION FOR ME IS THAT.....CLOVERFEILD WAS WACK....COULDA BEEN BETTER IF IT HAD GODZILLA IN IT...THE MONSTER LOOKS TOOO DAMN ANIMATED FOR ME...IM SORRY...BUT IM MAD I WAITED SINCE JULY FOR DIS MOVIE AND I AINT LIKE IT...AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! lol
Tekail A.K.A Santana on Jan 24, 2008
Greatest movie I have seen in a long time, enough said. P.S. some people need to learn english
Stan the moose on Jan 25, 2008
The marketing campaign was brilliant, but the film didn't deliver. Could have been much better with a little character development, so that we cared about these folks. And the shaky filmwork? Annoyingly overdone and unrealistic. Honestly--look at your home movies. Even my cheapass video camera has stabilizing. Sure, the scenes when they're actually running would have movement, but it's simply inexcusable to have that kind of motion throughout. A gimmick that wasn't well thought-out. Cloverfield wasn't terrible--it was entertaining enough, if almost totally mindless. But I'd have enjoyed it more without the motion sickness.
MJ on Jan 25, 2008
this movie sucked, was godzilla 2000 part 2, THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE VOLTRON
emilio r. on Jan 25, 2008
this movie sucked, was godzilla 2000 part 2, THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE VOLTRON IMO
emilio r. on Jan 25, 2008
20th Century Fox is already adapting Voltron. Godzilla 2000 was good; I have it @ home. Cloverfield straight rocked. Can't wait for the sequel which will probably be even better. We seem to be speaking in absolutes but wrong on all counts Emilio.
Sinner on Jan 25, 2008
Cloverfield blew me away. The opening is genius because it's absolutely non-traditional. You're immediately hooked in. The first-person telling was amazing (no spoilers!), and you quickly became involved with the various characters because of it. What I truly liked was how it paid tribute to an entire library of classic horror/monster movies, from War of the Worlds to Godzilla, plus tapped into many of our archetypical fears: walking in the subway tunnel in the dark with rats running around your feet?! (Maybe you have to be a New Yorker to really understand that one...) What disturbed me most were the allusions to 9/11, complete with people running from a cloud of debris, choking, screaming ... but the entire 9/11 reference is important because it was a true-life horror and one we all now keep sealed up in our deepest heart. Very intense movie on many levels.
Linda on Jan 26, 2008
got a headahe from this dumd movie didnt hollywood learn from blairwitch hand held movies suxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
anthony redondo beach on Jan 26, 2008
Liked the concept... But have to say that my wife was getting nauseous by about 35 minutes into it. You can see my take on the movie at my blog: http://writer.fitzhome.com/?p=127 I'm a bit concerned that they're talking about a sequel from the POV of a different group of folks caught in the fictional "event" with a video camera. It would have to be pretty different to keep my interest I think. --Fitz
Brian Fitzpatrick on Jan 26, 2008
Blair Witch Project + Godzilla = Cloverfield It is possible that this film was supposed to original. Unfortunately, this is a film that melded two concepts quite poorly. As for the technique behind the camera, I can understand the reasoning behind it. I mean it's inexpensive and has a feel akin to the reality TV shows that today's society devours. Unfortunately, this film technique doesn't work well with people who are prone to motion sickness. It is possible to shoot a frightening film without me having to wonder if the couple behind me is going to blow chunks in my hair. It's a good idea, but perhaps a little overdone for the big screen. As for the monster, like many have said, it would not be necessary to see the thing. The film had much more potential when the audience was not sure what was happening to the characters. Once the monster was shown, what was there to be suspenseful about? Oh, the suspense was over whether another character was going to find the love of his life? Well, I'd be concerned if those characters had any depth. Perhaps you could chalk this up to the film technique, but it doesn't excuse the major problem -they were flat characters. It can be hard for an audience to connect with these characters because they have very little dynamic. The audience simply does not know enough about them to connect with them. My first reaction to them, knowing this was a 'horror' film, "Can we just kill them all now?" They had a very 'teen horror film' feel to them. Knowing that none of them were virgins, I assumed they were all going to die. My personal emotional reactions ranged from boredom through the first 30 minutes (my mother's vacation slideshows are more interesting)... to amused (was I the only one to laugh in that theater?) when the night-vision was turned on and the mini-monsters were stalking the characters. The film simply did not elicit any concern or fear from me. My humble suggestion to anyone thinking about viewing this... wait until its out on DVD - it will probably cause less motion sickness on a smaller screen and the rental fee is less than paying to see it on the big screen and being disappointed as I was. Or, take the 10 bucks you were going to spend seeing this and spend it on seeing "I am Legend" instead. It makes for a better sci-fi horror.
Nicole on Jan 27, 2008
I saw Cloverfield on Sat. 11:30AM, twenty-five or so people in theater. I purposely stayed away from reviews and comments for a week until I saw movie. I will start by saying that I was "I thought this flick was GREAT ! I came out of the theater "wanting more". The "Buzz" from the patrons as they were leaving was "WOW" ! The audience at my showing was mixed consisting of about ten under twenty, and the rest in the thirty to fifty age group. I didn't here any negative comments, a "usher" was holding the door open as patrons exited the theater and was asking "Well how did you like it" ? Everyone was responding positively ! So I am going to see it again and I hope there will be a "Cloverfield 2" !
Pat on Jan 27, 2008
You know, I really agree with both sides, of the comments about this movie. I have vertigo, but I take meds for it. Oddly enough, the camera treatment of this film didn't' bother me a bit. I guess I was very lucky. I also think the movie was more like, "Blair Witch project" meets, "Godzilla with Fleas". I saw it on opening day at 12:30pm on a Friday. We had about 100 people ages 20-60+ As it got into the movie, I saw some people get up and sorta walk around, and leave for a few minutes then return to their seats. I didn't hear anyone say they felt sick. But we really hated it when the camera man got killed. He got a good look at the monster, but it would have been more effective if all we saw was a huge shadow and the cameraman getting picked up by it. Oh well, if anyone is disappointed, by Cloverfield, they can always rent the dVd, "The Host". I intend to by it. I also intend to buy "Cloverfield". I wonder if the new movie, "The Water Horse" is any good???
RH on Jan 27, 2008
I saw it friday night...... It was a great movie. For all the people whoo say they get motion sickness 1. You must be sitting in the front row. 2. You must have eatin a gallon of popcorn. 3. I get motion sickness more than anyone I know and I didn't get the least bit sick. My friend was eating popcorn the whole movie and said he was fine. idk, just another reason to complain. P.S. I saw the monster fall into the ocean. =) I was lookin
Ray on Jan 28, 2008
I seen Cloverfield this past weekend. I was pumped to see it since i first seen the 1-18-08 trailer when I went to see Transformers. I dont believe any hype of any movie. I just knew i wanted to see this movie and wanted to know what caused that giant explosion. This does not feel like a normal movie ( in a good way ) It felt more like a documetary of some tragic conflict from years ago i was watching on The History Channel. It had my attention from the first scenes till the end. The little band of party go'ers felt like real people with real problems they were dealing with when Clover showed up. We all know people like this. We hang with them,partied with them,and discussed our life's problems with them. So when they all started dying I felt Genuine saddness. Clover itself was what a Monster should be. Big,alien and confused by its new surroundings. Rampaging through New York just as confused as the party go'ers. It doesnt know where it is or why it is here. When it see's something that frightens it, It lashed out. Seeing the Statue of Liberty is just such an example. A big green giant which might be a possible enemy. So it defends itself by knocking her block off. The crab like parasites were also a plus. What animal on earth doesnt have flea's,mites, or in the case of humans, crabs. When they are first viewed I thought they might be offspring. And seeing Marlena explode after being bitten. That was a pleasant shock. The movie being shot from the view of a hand held camera is also a wonderful experiance. It reminded me why I loved Blair Witch so much. It's as if the camera is itself a character. GREAT MOVIE Herb
Herb Calf Robe on Jan 28, 2008
I loved it. Every minute. It was a great movie in my opinion.
dave on Jan 28, 2008
I have been going to the movies on a regular basis for years now and also have a large home dvd collection of good and some not so good movies. I can honestly say without a word of doubt that Cloverfield was by far worse movie I have seen on the big screen for many many years... Whoever came up with the idea or plot (lack off) must be quite sad... and I feel sorry for anybody who invested money into such rubbish. Seems I was not the only one to be made dizzy and sleepy with the first 20 mins... The only funny thing about the whole movie was how we as in a theatre of around 100 plus people just sat there waiting in shock and amazment for something to happen when the lights came up... and yes the majority of us walked out shaking our heads in disgust...
Movieman on Jan 28, 2008
Just saw the movie. There were several things that I did like - the representation of how well off sheltered spoiled young people would re-act when face with something their status nor credit cards could resolve and how they de evolve into truly meaningless actions that has nothing to do with their personal survival, from my point of view was right on point. I have read other comments where people talk about the lack luster of the protagonist but in real life when face with a truly impossible situation, people, Do Not become super hero’s that can stop anything that comes their way and out smart the police, military, monster and anything else, as Hollywood would love people to believe to make a happy, political correct ending. For instance they never even think to pick up weapons or change out of three inch pumps to include party dresses and Brooks Brother’s suits, even when given a perfect opportunity. This thought is in line with 132’s comments and something that I have been saying for years, in reality we were watching a bunch of 10 year olds bumbling around (the babbling of one character just after one of them explodes and the other character trying to explain why they needed to continue on their pointless quest) I read back through the posts and agree with 127 and 155, which is why I personally would not recommend the movie to anyone is because of the moving camera perspective, while I understood the reason for using that type of effect I just thought it was really over done and was very distracting; for about a third of the movie I had to listen rather then look and was more concerned about trying not to throw-up rather then the action (or rather) over action on the screen. I just thought that a bit more third person view could have rounded out the characters and the story line, that is to say if there was one. I think one of the reasons why there is so much comment on this movie is more because there are two generations the younger who really loved/liked the movie and are easily pleased by any slight of hand and will call it cleaver and the older group that expect to get something for their money and truly resent being tricked. A classic, naw, too many dangling participles, as it were, do I care about a sequel? Nope, don’t really think there is a need. The story, the whole story is about the last panic hours in the lives of several sheltered spoiled young people, focusing on how their prefect world can turn in an instant to carnival of horrors.
Kym on Jan 28, 2008
Wow, People, you must have eatin something bad or something, because it really wasn't that bad. Just a complaint to get your money back.
Ray on Jan 29, 2008
I want my $17.00 back. If I wanted to watch bad home movies, I'd go to my in-laws. Just because something is different, doesn't mean it's good. Get over it, you artsy-fartsy types. I saw a girl hurling in a trash can. And it was because the movie was BAD. Not because of motion sickness.
Sid on Jan 29, 2008
this movie has elements in it that no other movie does thats why this is my favorite movie
mayorofwonderland on Jan 29, 2008
fantastic film! lucky for me I don't get motion sickness! it has been a very long time since a movie made me jump and shriek--literally! if you can deal with the manner in which this movie was filmed then you will be in for a treat indeed! A+++++
GothBunny on Jan 30, 2008
TERRIBLE. plot; what was it? were not gonna tell you. okay.. howd it get here? were not gonna tell you. well... what were the little things? were not gonna tell you. fine. why did the chick explode from a bite? were not gonna tell you. DAMMIT!! at least tell us if it died. NO. well, did the protagonists die? WE WONT TELL YOU. that was the entire plot. if you watch the trailer, your not going to learn anything else. this is the first time i truly regretted giving money and time to a motion picture. you dont even get a good freaking shot of the thing! the damn camera is moving like a drunk in a earthquake, even when things are calm. i hated it.
cloverhater on Jan 30, 2008
they are going to make a prequal, that will describe the monster more. The girl exploaded becuase the little monster came out of her. After the credits there was a voice transmition that said Help US and then its still alive, hopefully it comes out in 2010 with I am Legend 2
898 on Jan 31, 2008
Ok...here goes plug No. 176, which will probably never be read ever do to the fact that I just got back from the movie in Israel, and it premiered here on the 31st....so Nobody will ever read this little comment probably, since all the buzz tapped out of cloverfield by now anyway. In my view...and in answer to some of the comments that I read here, I think that cloverfield was, on the whole, a good movie. It was more of an experience to me, that tried to tap into the reaction people had on 9/11, and I think that it did a good job. I don't complain about the shaky camera cuz I knew that's how it was filmed, and because of THAT, I knew that I won't see a lot of the monster cuz logic has it that the guy carrying it would be busy running away, so no complaints there, either. The monster itself, in my opinion, is yet another one to put on the "already been designed" shelf. Human originality, I think has long ago ran dry and all we're making up now are variations of past things, or the making of stuff that we have already seen on films or read about in books....SO...no complaints there, too. Unless that was a complaint, right?! The one thing that this movie is for me (and, people, I'm from Israel, and I have'nt seen ONE american post regarding the matter, albeit, I have'nt read all them), is a closure on the 9/11 trauma that shook up the States and the world. If movies like cloverfield are popping up again on the screen then two things happened with the America's dealing with it's trauma: 1. It is finally ready to look a footage that resembles the streets of Manhattan in every way as in 2001. The dusty, overwhelmed population, hardly breathing their way to some safety, not knowing yet what's going on and why. 2. You're making monster movies about it again. Same as most monster and sci-fi films from the early 50's until now have been allegorising the U.S.'s fear of communism, and foreign invasion, so has cloverfield, to me, ended America's and Hollywoods' dealing with this post trauma. The reason for no-names taking the lead roles is obvious, seen as they are portraying the little people caught in the storm. It could have been anybody, like you and me, and it's actually also us, cuz we're holding th camera. their level of acting is irrelevant because no one looks as tough as Bruce Willis when N.Y. is falling apart, or like any other dramatic, well known actor we're used to seeing (unless their reactions are drawing from the movies THEY had seen). These are just people in the middle of a very bad storm, they lost their friends and family, and they are terrified and want to go home, so they don't look exactly like what block buster movies have shown us they should. And these were the emotions I tried to tap into while watching the movie...the phone call Rob has with his mother in the subway was a good, hard scene. Hope I never have to make the same call with mine. So, that's it for me...I said my peace, hope it'll get picked up by someone and commented on. Sorry for all the miss spellings, but my English is only THAT good. chears.
Israelidude on Feb 1, 2008
I am indeed rather shocked at some of the responses for this film. I'm in England so had to dodge spoilers for two weeks until i saw the film on release night (tonight) and the film was incredible. But from some of the responses, it seems that some people just do not understand the idea of what Cloverfield was trying to do. People comparing the film to Godzilla and Blair Witch are wrong to do so because it is infact incomparable. What was done in Cloverfield, is infact revolutionary. To try and achieve a blockbuster movie with no professional camera's is an incredible attempt at bringing life back into cinema, and it did it. The movie was incredible, what some people have described as a "boring" opening sequence, is actually the perfect amount of time to get to know characters and understand characters enough so if or when they die you actually care, the fact you don't get any time to reflect on their death is just the reality of the concept of the film so those saying there was no "mourning time" REMEMEBER WHAT YOUR WATCHING. Rob had no time to reflect on what happened to his brother, he had no time to think of the consequences of what had happened until we saw him break down into tears in the subway station. THAT IS THE POINT OF THE MOVIE. As for the monster, it was superb. Very original and the miniature monsters reeking havoc were just a great little touch to the movie. The CGI was again excellent and it all seemed very real. As for Hud, is he too stupid? Is there not a stupid person in every movie? In-fact, i ask you, is there not someone in your life who tries to make light heart of the worst situations to try and make you feel better. Hud reflects as do the other characters what we expect and see in real life so to accuse his characterization to be over-dramatized is ridiculous. As a Media Student, there is absolutely nothing to pick at fault with this movie, and if you are, then you went into the movie totally expecting the wrong thing. Cloverfield has just stood out from a crowd, and it can stand proud. It is an absolutley superb film, and one which i wil lsee again.
Stuart Mellor on Feb 1, 2008
well what Stuart Mellor just said pretty much summarized what i was thinking Cloverfield was told in an amazing way and some of the scenes in the movie just wouldn't be the same with professional camera it had a very unique feel that I've never experienced in a movie before. They combined horror, drama, action and with hud and flaming hobos comedy that actually made me laugh in the theater. If you haven't guessed yet i loved the movie and can't wait for a sequel which if you were wondering is said to be the same events but from and soldiers head cam and should be released around December depending on involvement with Invisible Women. Though the ending was very... predictable i guess it still was surprising in a way if anyone cares about my opinion i thought i was something totally new not a movie an experience i would give cloverfield an 9.9 out of 10 why a 9.9 well thats simple there were no flaming homeless people.
HUD on Feb 1, 2008
Not a great movie, the build-up at the party lacked any impact because anyone going to the movie was waiting for the "moment" of terror. I didn't care about the characters after that, and I really cannot agree with anyone who feels that it was a movie deserving an above average mark. The creature itself was laughable; like an earlier contributor there was silence in the cinema at the end of the movie, and then people began to wake up. Middle of the road scares, about 4 out of 10.
David B on Feb 2, 2008
I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but that was not created with a consumer grade camcorder. the camera they used was worth about $100,000. That's a little out of most consumer's price range. Even for upwardly mobile GenXers. And there were no miniatures. You don't get a guy like JJ Abrams as executive producer and then elect to use miniatures. CGI is more prevelant than you may be led to believe. Even shows like CSI: Miami use GCI for lots of things on a show by show basis. Will this stand the test of time? Maybe. Maybe it will be remembered for the kind of involvement it generated from the public. I believe this is a film that capitalizes on the same thing that dozens of "reality" tv shows capitalize on: America's growing taste for voyeristic television. (Think "Cops" and "Ghost Hunters"). Video games have taken this approach long before "Cloverfield" ever came along. First person shooters like "Duke Nukem" and the dozens of WWII shooters ("Call of Duty", "Medal of Honor) and the incredibly popular "Doom" & "Halo" series'. This is, of course, first person involvement on a different level, but a definite precursor to this style of filmmaking. There are dozens of blogs on the web that are similar to this too. Blogs from soldiers on the ground in Iraq who want to show friends and family back home what their lives are like in country. THAT, my friends, is groundbreaking. The story of a war from the inside, in a way that we've never seen it before. Raw and uncut. That's what this film wants to capitalize on. I don't think it's shameful or wrong, but groundbreaking, it's not. Its just the subject matter is fictional and the scale is at a multi-million dollar level. When you take that approach to making a film, you automatically have to stand for some critizism from anyone who loves movies. My fear is that this will turn filmmaking on its side and cause more clone films like this to emerge and really take away from a true revolution in film. If this kind of involvment is what's needed for films, then there's a different way around it. Take the film "Series 7: The Contenders". A movie that takes a "reality show" about a bunch of people who are given guns and asked to hunt and kill each other for a bunch of money. And I'm not saying that the thematical aspect was the same, but the way it approaches the material. Even Paul Greengrass' "The Bourne Ultimatum" had a much better approach to this. It was filmed tightly, crowding the action for a documentary film feel and a real in your face experience. The effect of being there can be accomplished without having to resort to holding an expensive camera to the floor and running with it. I've posted before and I'll said this again. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for liking this movie. Taste is subjective. I personally don't see what the big deal is about this. Maybe this does spark a movement to truly revolutionize the film industry. And if it does, this film should be given some form of credit. But I will never consider this a candidate for one of the greatest movies of all time. -30-
Julian in San Antonio on Feb 2, 2008
heyy, ppl u will not belive me but when i saw it the ending was soo ????? yeah and well i went on youtube and they say that at the end before the credits when rob and beth are at coney island you see something falling in the water. people say its rob's company's satalite. WHOA now i went to go check it out again on youtube and there right but the only thing is you can't tell if its a satalite or the monster, but it can't be the mopnster because, they taped this in april and it happend in march they monster then would have already attacked. so people say that the satalite that fell in the water woke up the creater that was asleep for many years and was figurinf out a way to get to land cause of course the satalite would be far down in the ocean and it would take a while for the monster to come above the ocean. hope you read all of this cause u need to in order to have a big surprise of a clue.
shannon on Feb 3, 2008
This is a bad film and with it coming in at 1hr 10mins long, bit of a rip for your money.
Capa on Feb 4, 2008
I think TCox said it all, he is 100% right and more. Cloverfield, in my opinion, was the best movie ever made, and i really don't care if some of u guys disagree. TCox, leave a new comment tomorrow morning and i'll check it out. Cloverfield owns all.
Matt on Feb 4, 2008
I hate it!!!
really honnest man on Feb 4, 2008
Overall, I enjoyed the film. There were times when I wondered, "Why doesn't Hud just drop the camera?" but that would have ended the movie, so I continued my suspension of disbelief until the helicopter rescue scene. Why on earth would the military helicopter pilot fly in the same direction as the monster? The movie lost me there. If you are rescuing civilians from an alien/monster, fly in the opposite direction of said alien/monster.
Ace on Feb 4, 2008
Matt #183 - You're still on here? By chance I was reading the article about Stallone signing a 2 picture deal today, and thought I'd check out the latest on this post. It's nice to actually read that people are talking about the movie again. It got ugly there for a bit. Just to clarify...I never said it was the greatest movie ever made. I liked it, and I think it's one of the best in it's genre, but it's no where near the greatest. I think Linda #159 nailed it - "The opening is genius because it's absolutely non-traditional." I agree completely with her on that. I think the non-traditional aspects are what makes this movie work. Like it or not....Cloverfield 2 is coming.
TCox on Feb 4, 2008
Went to see it when it first came out. It would have been a great movie except for it being shot from a video camera. Your eyes were all over the place. Should have had more screen time for the Monster. Thought it was good though. Diane G.
Diane G on Feb 5, 2008
Failed attempt. Monsters been done. Setups been done. About the only good spot for me is that some of the acting was quite decent.
Essdub on Feb 5, 2008
Re: Multi-monster hoopla... Carpenter's re-do: "The Thing" Re: Another monster kicking this monster's ass... That would be Hannah Montana fanboys... And she's doing quite well at it, thank you very much!
Spike-the-Poet on Feb 5, 2008
Horrible movie. Overrated. Over 90% of the audience in the theater I was at complained at the end about how much this movie was just hype. Over half of the audience (including myself) felt sick from the motion of the camera. In the parking lot we overheard someone say, "Blairwitched again! WTF!".
J Maurice on Feb 5, 2008
I'll be brief. An unsatisfying movie that blew chunks.
Ken on Feb 5, 2008
For the reason that some people are still not UNDERSTANDING cloverfield STILL..i will post my earlier comment again.. I am indeed rather shocked at some of the responses for this film. I'm in England so had to dodge spoilers for two weeks until i saw the film on release night (tonight) and the film was incredible. But from some of the responses, it seems that some people just do not understand the idea of what Cloverfield was trying to do. People comparing the film to Godzilla and Blair Witch are wrong to do so because it is infact incomparable. What was done in Cloverfield, is infact revolutionary. To try and achieve a blockbuster movie with no professional camera's is an incredible attempt at bringing life back into cinema, and it did it. The movie was incredible, what some people have described as a "boring" opening sequence, is actually the perfect amount of time to get to know characters and understand characters enough so if or when they die you actually care, the fact you don't get any time to reflect on their death is just the reality of the concept of the film so those saying there was no "mourning time" REMEMEBER WHAT YOUR WATCHING. Rob had no time to reflect on what happened to his brother, he had no time to think of the consequences of what had happened until we saw him break down into tears in the subway station. THAT IS THE POINT OF THE MOVIE. As for the monster, it was superb. Very original and the miniature monsters reeking havoc were just a great little touch to the movie. The CGI was again excellent and it all seemed very real. As for Hud, is he too stupid? Is there not a stupid person in every movie? In-fact, i ask you, is there not someone in your life who tries to make light heart of the worst situations to try and make you feel better. Hud reflects as do the other characters what we expect and see in real life so to accuse his characterization to be over-dramatized is ridiculous. As a Media Student, there is absolutely nothing to pick at fault with this movie, and if you are, then you went into the movie totally expecting the wrong thing. Cloverfield has just stood out from a crowd, and it can stand proud. It is an absolutley superb film, and one which i wil lsee again.
Stuart Mellor on Feb 6, 2008
I went to see it last Friday night. I think the hype was built up way too much. I was one of many people who walked out. Either b/c they were sick or the movie was so terrible. The plot at the beginning was less than exciting. It was so bad in fact, the theater had a disclaimer at the desk saying most people who watched it got sick. I watched the first 20 minutes or so then I got a refund and didnt waste and more of my time. Typical Godzilla type movie.
Gleb on Feb 6, 2008
In response to TCOX at POST 186....that is a different MATT...not the one (me) that was shelled for a stupid comment weeks ago. I learned that there are no Carlin, or Doug Stanhope fans on the forum. So this guy is either playing games or it's legit. The reason I say that is you were getting poked at too and wondered if it's someone just clowing around....never know.... Thought I'd just let you know. I am the guy that left probably upwards of 7-8 posts on this thread and got shelled on one sentence in my final post....anyway...not me that posted in 183.....People tend to read into things too much so I left this forum completely since I was taken out and beaten to death. Those folks apparently haven't been to a comedy club lately. Anyway, it's all good. Cloverfield was fine for me. I saw it twice. Only to see if I could find any "easter eggs" or whatnot. No dice. The one thing I noticed the second viewing was how quickly it flew by. I didn't keep up with the viral campaign but had a decent idea what the movie would be like. I was not disappointed by any of the choices the director made. I thought it was nice attempt to put a "spin" on the monster movie genre. I'm interested to see George Romero's "Diary of The Dead" now. Too bad for him that Cloverfield was released first. That's gonna sting him a bit. I just wonder to what degree that movie will have hand-held. Completely or just partially?? Thoughts....
Different Matt on Feb 6, 2008
What a rippoff. a combination of Godzilla the Movie and Blaire Witch. Absolutely no original thought was involved. Both Godz and Clover take place in the same city , also had big monster baby monster threat.
Jeff Leibig on Feb 6, 2008
I absolutely adored this film. Some of my friends were disappointed, but I loved it, as it was so artistic and lifelike. Even the shakiness of the camera was well-done. Only thing I have to say is that Ryan Key was in the trailers and yet nowhere to be seen in the movie itself. That saddened me to a ridiculous extent.
Alex on Feb 6, 2008
Different Matt #194 - You're probably right. It would make sense that it be someone clowing around, especially since they requested a post from me. We both said we liked it early on, and got trashed for it. I'm pretty sure I know which previous poster would have did it. It got pretty ugly early on in the posts, and we both took some pretty heavy hits. I apologize for anything I said directed at you. In retrospect, it's all kinda funny. I agree with how the movie felt "quick" the second time around. Without the suspense, it moves fast. The first time felt watching it felt like I had been in the theater for more than a 80 minutes. The second time doesn't. I've seen the trailer for "Diary of the Dead", and I have to say that it doesn't look very good. If "Land of the Dead" is any indication of what quality this film will be, then I'll pass.
TCox on Feb 6, 2008
Stuart: Speaking as a media professional there's a lot to pick apart about this movie. Using pro-sumer or consumer cameras (or professional cameras dialed up to look consumer...) is not new. Read up on DOGMA. Also, "...bringing life back into cinema..." is a fanboy cliche. It tells me either you have not seen many films or you are stuck in a genre. Cloverfield basically disappeared off the excitement meter after its' opening. Most will agree the original Frankenstein is a "classic" horror movie. See if you can find some reviews of it from newspapers when it was first released. Lots more hoopla! Lots more word of mouth! Lots more bang for the buck! (A major special effect was featured but was lost in the reprints.) Ditto Bladerunner. It got bad reviews but people were writing to the Los Angeles Times Calender for a year following its' release debating its' merits. Cloverfield? Please...
Spike-the-Poet on Feb 8, 2008
me and my girlfriend to see Cloverfield & personally i'm more of a fan than someone who did not like this film. what i hated was the "roller-coaster" filming and the beginning which is almost put me to sleep but what kept my eyes open was the anticipation of what was this destroying NYC.... i had to know. but if anything, Cloverfield taught us that you're not always gonna have a happy ending... i.e. Hitchcock films, Terminator 2 (we wanted the big lug to live but he had to go) Cloverfield, umcomfortably to say, left me wanting to know more. Did that monster die? Where exactly did it come from? and jus what the hell was that thing? but either way, in my opinion, this movie has sequel written all over it... hopefully
theTruth on Feb 12, 2008
My brothers kept asking me if I liked "Cloverfield" when I saw it. I only told them that this film is very controversial and before I could answer the question, I would have to see the dvd of "Cloverfield" when it comes out. One of my brothers saw Cloverfield Sunday and he texted me to tell me that he and his friend loved it! My brother is 40 yrs old. I didn't know whether the monster in Cloverfield came from the sky (outer space) or from the water. It would be more plausible if the monster came from outer space. Like maybe had it hatched from some eggs stuck on a passing comet, or maybe some alien craft that accidentally dropped their "payload" over our heads. I honestly didn't like the way the monster looked. It wasn't scary, it looked ho hum, and like other monsters we've all seen before. It sure as heck didn't look like it was invunerable. "Tsk"!
RSH on Feb 12, 2008
By now ,the ones who "believe" know this movies was brilliant, however I do not like calling it a movie. More of a horrific situation that was caught on a handcam. The sub-plots and hidden messages, who have been built on the web for over a year are dramatic and exciting....almost like a video game looking for clues....myspace-cloverfield de-spoiler, utube,etc.....OK, just google Slusho and see what you get. This has been building for years and Abrams used it again in the film....looks like to me 23 sub-plots. The sequel should be killer......all who were involved in respect to directing and producing and writing are back. $143,000,000.00 World wide. Not bad for a January release
Tim Cloverfield on Mar 6, 2008
I think its hilarious that people can read this far into a movie, i read a comment talking about 26 subplots, and it just annoys me that people will spend their time trying to find meaning when there is none. Maybe its just me but i kinda doubt abrams put that much thought and effort into these little "signs", in fact i can say with confidence that he is laughing his ass off , knowing that dumbass viewers like some of the people on this site, would spend their time watching and rewatching the movie till they found something that is so obscure that there is no way it is on purpose. So next time in a movie when u see a piece of paper falling down, try to ignore the people saying that it represents the timeless struggle of humanity, and think about the fact thats its probably just a piece of paper. p.s. there has to be something better that u can do with your time than finding and differentiating between 26 subplots that dont actually exist, do yourself a favor and find something more interesting to do.
wrstexperienceever on Mar 9, 2008
Didn't care for the movie. The hand-held cam was shaking more than was necessary. The effect still could have been achieved with a lot more stable filming. Also, how did we keep getting these 30 second blurbs of the old footage? Was Hud just being an idiot and fastforwarding between shots? Only way the old shtos would have stayed. I was of the opinion that we saw too much of the monster. The shot at the end was definitely unnecessary. Did anyone else wonder how the camera fell back to the ground if Hud was holding it when the monster ate him? Characters were empty with no on-screen chemistry and relationships that just didn't seem to justify their actions. I didn't expect an Oscar-caliber performance but a little warmth would have been nice. The story took place over a long period of time so in 6 hours with a piece of steel sticking through her, how was Beth still concious? Even with the offending item in the wound, she would have bled out long before they rescued her, and after removing the item, 20 minutes tops before she bled to death from a wound that size. I know it's "just a movie" but in this day and age if you want to present a show as a "real experience," I don't want to be treated like an idiot. In all, waste of my money and I hope there will be no more movies of this type made again.
tinman369 on May 19, 2008
Eh. Rented it. The "experience" probably would have been better on a theater screen (ooh, IMAX 3D....) But from what I saw, I wouldn't have wanted to pay out for the ticket (thus second-guessing the past). Frankly, I wish I'd waited until it was on the cheap list before renting. First problem I noticed (other posters' complaints regarding realism) is that the camera is unrealistic. They want to say it's like some amateur with a simple digital camera doing a home-movie feel, but the first problem I saw was the zoom. You saw how far Hud was standing from that building when he first saw the monster? But he zoomed WAAAY in to get a real good close-up of the monster just as it went back there. No camera available to anyone but a professional (like the Hollywood movie makers) is going to zoom in that far...unless the non-professional is willing to spend unrealistic big bucks. (Well, unrealistic in my mind; I think the $300 cameras I've seen are pricey investments, and they don't zoom like that.) Second problem, the night-vision in the tunnel. Same non-realism for a non-professional camera. Other than that, I didn't really care one way or the other about how "realistic" the movie was supposed to be, though my mother pointed out that the girl was pretty good at running for having been impaled on rhebarb. (Even including adrenaline, which certainly COULD improve her ability to run in spite of wounds.) And what's with the 20 minutes the going-away party? Okay, fine, "get to know the characters". But there were only four people at that party we should have cared about enough, and 20 minutes in a movie that lasted less than an hour and a half? You want to wait 20 minutes before showing any action in a four-hour-plus-long movie, great, but in Cloverfield, I was so bored that I'd stopped paying attention to the party, or to the characters I was SUPPOSED to be "getting to know," and was just looking for the guy supposed to be wearing the Slusho shirt. (Think I saw him, but I'm not sure.) Truthfully, my biggest interest in seeing the movie was in finding out what the monster was, once and for all. I'd figured it'd be like a Godzilla movie or something, where there'd be an actual investigation into what the monster was, where it came from, that sort of thing. Still haven't the foggiest idea what it is. I mean, what was the point of that "history" in the Slusho tie-in site, if they weren't going to give any explanation for the monster in the movie? Sheesh. Maybe the viral sites were meant to do all the explaining, but that means they confused almost anyone who didn't feel like doing a scavenger hunt just to go see a movie. And finally: the mystery involved in their viral marketing campaign may have been a great way to gather interest...but it's a sucky way to gather customers, if those customers want to be assured that the movie's worth watching BEFORE they pay for a ticket. Which is why I waited until it was on video. P.S. "Realism" aside, I'll agree that the camera shaking was a bit much (don't watch if you get motion sickness), and the "glitches" or goofs where other video was showing was distracting, and the only purpose I can see for it is to show that Hud doesn't know how to use a camera. Now, the movie's good points.... some of Hud's dialogue in the subway tunnels. Morbid, but funny. Had my mom and me laughing. For all my complaints, I'd see a sequel if they made one, but only because I really want to find out more about the monster (the questions that this movie left unanswered). However, environmental experience aside, this time I WOULD wait until it hits the dollar shelves in the video store.
Tamie on May 21, 2008
Gah...I don't see how anyone would wanna say that this movie was great. Shit if you want a rollacoaster go to a theme park. I wanted to actually what a movie but couldn't b/c of motion of the camera during filming. I understand the plot of the whole thing but REALLY who would keep a camera when running for you life, you would be scared shitless? Stupid! Worst movie I have ever seen. And a waste of $20 and now I have a piece of crap that will prolly go into a garage sale sometime.
Rebekah on May 23, 2008
the movie was AWESOME, 5 stars! ***** WE WANT CLOVER TWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steve on Jun 2, 2008
First off: To everyone who thinks that those who did not like this are "unintelligent" or what have you, fuck you, because everyone is entitled to their own opinion and there was nothing intellectual about this movie. Second off: My personal opinions aside, I work at a movie theater. We had this movie exactly two weeks. We put it in our biggest theater because of all the hype and after only three days, we moved it to the smallest. (We normally don't move movies for a week, when new prints arrive.) As a comparison, we STILL have Iron Man, which is coasting on 9 weeks, I believe, and we're still consistently selling over half the theater. I, personally, think this movie sucks. I've seen other movies that had this same "amateur" shooting style, and they were great. But this starts, and ends, abruptly, is disjointed and there are so many plot holes. The whole chivalrous "I HAVE to save the girl!!!!" sub-plot was irritatingly predictable, and as has been said, if you were running for your life, you wouldn't continue to film. I wouldn't even give this half a star and I think it would have performed better as a straight to dvd.
Shellie on Jul 2, 2008
Way to go Shellie! After all these months, I still have not come to a conclusion, as to whether or not I liked "Cloverfield". I bought the DVD to look at sometime in the future, hoping that another looksee will help me form an opinion about this film.
RSH on Jul 2, 2008
This movie absolutely blew my mind. I have to admit, it stays with you for a while. The movie is very haunting, and it's kind of disturbing. I loved the shaky cam effect, and the creatures are pretty cool. Plus, it was long enough to be good, but short enough for me not to get bored, or get a migraine headache. (I am a frequent sufferer)
Nick on Sep 19, 2008
i didnt like it because the movie made me feal realli sick like i was going to puke and WTF! happend to the monster ok im onlii 12 plz tell me otherwise ill die lol onli jokeing about the die bit any ways xxx but plz replii xxx
helayna on Mar 1, 2009
Sorry, no commenting is allowed at this time.