SOUND OFF

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!

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.

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.

I absolutely LOVED this movie... http://nick-reinhart.com/2008/01/18/cloverfield-rocked/

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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

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!!!

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.

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.

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

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++

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

(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-

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!!

Monster Looks like Joe Dirt

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.

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

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 - 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

Whats a fecophiliac ?

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-

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.

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!!!

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!

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.

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.

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. :]

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.

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!!!!

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.

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.

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!...

Chuckle.... is some funny posts. lol

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.

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

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.

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.

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, 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......

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

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"....

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.

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.

Sorry. Sorry for the poor choice of words in my post. It was overboard. It was wrong. I'm done. Sorry again.

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 (#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 (#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).

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?

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.

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.

Guess it hyperlinks in post 147...didn't know if it would. Anyway, check it out...interesting stuff on there.

RH post 149: See link I posted in post 147. Scroll to second question...WHAT DOES CLOVERFIELD MEAN? See ya!

cloverfield made me extremely nauseous. don't see if if you get motion sick easily

Greatest movie I have seen in a long time, enough said. P.S. some people need to learn english

this movie sucked, was godzilla 2000 part 2, THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE VOLTRON

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.

got a headahe from this dumd movie didnt hollywood learn from blairwitch hand held movies suxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.

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???

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

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...

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.

this movie has elements in it that no other movie does thats why this is my favorite movie

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.

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.

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.

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-

This is a bad film and with it coming in at 1hr 10mins long, bit of a rip for your money.

I hate it!!!

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.

Failed attempt. Monsters been done. Setups been done. About the only good spot for me is that some of the acting was quite decent.

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!".

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.

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....

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.

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...

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"!

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.

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.

the movie was AWESOME, 5 stars! ***** WE WANT CLOVER TWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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