Cloverfield - January 18th, 2008 - Let the speculation begin! [Archive]

Itala Marzullo

Jul 5th, 2007, 08:09:44 AM

The ones who went to see Transformers might have noticed a cam POV trailer with a giant, roaring lion thing rampaging through Manhattan, tossing the statue of liberty's head and throwing missiles. So what is this? No title, no hint from the studio, nothing.

This is the working title from wiki:

In June 2007, J.J. Abrams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.J._Abrams) was reportedly working on a secret project codenamed Cloverfield.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield#_note-0) The teaser trailer for the project, revealing no title in its screening, debuted before Transformers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_%28film%29) in preview screenings, also attached in public release on July 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield#_note-1) The film was reported to be a monster attack on New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City), as seen from home video cameras.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield#_note-2) Paramount Pictures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Pictures) was also reported to be the studio behind the project, but Paramount has not made any official confirmation.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield#_note-3) Matt Reeves (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matt_Reeves&action=edit) (The Pallbearer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pallbearer)) was reported to be the director, with Drew Goddard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Goddard) as the screenwriter

Most rumors point to a Godzilla sequel, Voltron (I really don't think it could be Voltron, the few who wouldhave gone see it have already the Power Rangers to worry about) or a completely new giant monster movie!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PECfkrxE9Bc The trailer in question, this movie's identity is such top secret that they aren't even allowing anyone to host this preview.

Speculate away!

Personally, I think it's an all-new monster movie given the destructive nature and the lion roar, but it could be another Godzilla.

Hartus Kenobi

Jul 5th, 2007, 08:26:15 AM

Hm, if it's just a one-monster movie, I can't see it being anything less than a flop. Maybe an entire zoo of giant monsters?
An animal version of transformers, perhaps?

Loklorien s'Ilancy

Jul 5th, 2007, 08:29:30 AM

Please be Cthulhu please be Cthulhu please please please ^_^;

Itala Marzullo

Jul 5th, 2007, 08:49:52 AM

Hm, if it's just a one-monster movie, I can't see it being anything less than a flop. Maybe an entire zoo of giant monsters?
An animal version of transformers, perhaps?

Nah, they hooked everyone up in the audience with the clever trailer, this movie is already a hit for all we know, 'cause I sure as hell am going to see it, love the effects.

Dasquian Belargic

Jul 5th, 2007, 08:56:33 AM

The quality of that youtube trailer was aaawful. I couldn't even see any lion.

I hope it's Cthulhu too, though :D

Yog

Jul 5th, 2007, 08:59:49 AM

I think it's just Voltron with a shaky handheld video cam :p

Shawn

Jul 5th, 2007, 09:06:11 AM

Nothing about that seems even remotely like Godzilla to me. Still, could be interesting. Not a fan of J.J. Abrams, but Drew Goddard is a pretty decent writer.

Karl Valten

Jul 5th, 2007, 09:09:54 AM

I don't know where you got the lion idea from. There is no place in the trailer that hints at anything being a lion.

Itala Marzullo

Jul 5th, 2007, 09:35:51 AM

Get your ears fixed, man. :D They mention a roaring lion twice, and when the statue of liberty's head rolls down the street you see the fire shape to be a lion. I hope it's not Voltron though, it would be a disaster for the studio, a movie for that concept is just not meant to be. I liked Mission: Impossible III so I have no probs with JJ.

Hartus Kenobi

Jul 5th, 2007, 10:18:41 AM

I think they may have mentioned something sounding like a lion's roar or thunder, but I also don't see anything that screams "giant animals" to me either now that I've seen the trailer. Looks more like Jericho.

Dasquian Belargic

Jul 5th, 2007, 11:15:52 AM

I'd agree with Hart. They said it sounded like a lion, but that doesn't mean it is one - and like I said, I couldn't see a lion anyway o_O

Itala Marzullo

Jul 5th, 2007, 11:27:26 AM

I'd agree with Hart. They said it sounded like a lion, but that doesn't mean it is one - and like I said, I couldn't see a lion anyway o_O

It's probably not a lion, but the roars heard in the trailer sure as hell sounded like one.

Cat X

Jul 5th, 2007, 04:19:11 PM

Didnt you people read the credits?

"A Bad Robot Production"

Vote to Voltron too. And with any luck it'll be about big robots blowing crap up.

Itala Marzullo

Jul 5th, 2007, 04:29:26 PM

Nightmare On Elm Street was produced by Smart Egg pictures.

The movie certainly wasn't about a smart egg.

Ryan Pode

Jul 5th, 2007, 04:36:41 PM

Five bucks says its a romantic comedy.

Aurelias Kazaar

Jul 5th, 2007, 05:13:12 PM

My vote is This (http://imdb.com/title/tt0064373/)

Shawn

Jul 5th, 2007, 08:44:16 PM

Bad Robot is J.J. Abrams's studio.

Jedieb

Jul 5th, 2007, 09:38:05 PM

I saw the trailer before Transformers and I thought it was awesome. When I heard the roar I didn't think it sounded like a lion. My first thought was 'Godzilla'! I don't think it's Voltron. Why would Voltron be tearing up Manhattan? Voltron takes place in the future anyway, doesn't it? Heck, maybe the black smoke monster from Lost escapes the island and begins tearing up New York City.

Nathanial K'cansce

Jul 5th, 2007, 09:46:40 PM

I thought Godzilla as well. Or one of the monster's Godzilla fights.

Itala Marzullo

Jul 6th, 2007, 02:08:41 PM

Damn, they already took the video down! Down with the corporate machine!

HEre is another one filmed by a cellphone.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=754021873781683081&q=cloverfield&total=36&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Itala Marzullo

Jul 6th, 2007, 04:15:22 PM

Official website:

http://www.1-18-08.com/

Yog

Jul 6th, 2007, 04:51:46 PM

So, apparently, this is some kind of sea monster:

***********
***********
A guy in the pipeline of producer J.J. Abrams, currently vacationing in Maine, informs that Cloverfield, the sea-monster movie, will open on 1.18.07.

Abrams is "very active on this one, as he plans to be on all Bad Robot projects," he says. "The only things he's been involved with which he hasn't really had any creative role were What About Brian and Six Degrees -- both shows that existed before Bad Robot really opened for business (meaning, when he put the team together).

"Cloverfield is an idea Abrams had over a year ago, which he then sold to Paramount. The point-of-view thing (Handicam) is the whole movie. Scenes from the trailer are in the film. Abrams got a really talented guy (Drew Goddard) to write (they'd worked together on Alias and, presently, Lost), and Matt Reeves to direct (they co-created Felicity and he's pretty damn genius-level).

"Bad Robot and Paramount will be announcing the real title shortly."

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2007/07/abrams_on_clove.php

Itala Marzullo

Jul 6th, 2007, 11:56:21 PM

the buzz log

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/my/addtomyyahoo3.gif (http://add.my.yahoo.com/content?.intl=us&url=http%3A//buzz.yahoo.com/feeds/buzzlog.xml) http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/ext/rss.gif (http://buzz.yahoo.com/feeds/buzzlog.xml) http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/my/yt/bn/16/alert.gif (http://alerts.yahoo.com/main.php?view=blogs&url=http://buzz.yahoo.com/feeds/buzzlog.xml)

  The Case of the Mysterious Movie

By Mike Krumboltz
Fri, July 06, 2007, 5:23 pm PDT
< Previous (http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/72669/lacheys-hot-tub-hubbub) | Next >

Every once in a while, an opening act upstages the headliner. "Lost (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=lost&cs=bz&fr=buzz)" creator J.J. Abrams (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=j.j.+abrams&cs=bz&fr=buzz) did exactly that when the trailer for his unnamed horror movie inspired more fanboy excitement than the film it preceded—"Transformers (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=transformers&cs=bz&fr=buzz)."
Not to say "Transformers" is doing poorly in Search. Far from it. But Abrams' mysterious movie has people pumped, confused, and extremely curious. They're turning to Search for more on the flick, despite not knowing what the heck to search on.
Queries on "j.j. abrams movie (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=j.j.+abrams+movie&cs=bz&fr=buzz)" surged 97%, but that's not all. "Bad robot (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=bad+robot&cs=bz&fr=buzz)" (probably the film's production company) jumped 88%, and "cloverfield (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=cloverfield&cs=bz&fr=buzz)" (the movie's code name) spiked 71%. Even its release date, "1/18/08 (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=1/18/08&cs=bz&fr=buzz)," rose an impressive 56%.
So, is the trailer (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=cloverfield+trailer&cs=bz&fr=buzz) worthy of the hype? Yeah, it's pretty cool. The cameras are handheld a la "Blair Witch (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=blair+witch&cs=bz&fr=buzz)," but, if the Statue of Liberty's disembodied head is any indication, it's going to have some rockin' effects, too. All it needs is a name...

Lilaena De'Ville

Jul 9th, 2007, 02:01:58 AM

http://www.dtheatre.com/read.php?sid=4177

Here is an existing link to the trailer. The sound is awful - it was a little better in the theatre.

Droo

Jul 9th, 2007, 05:18:09 PM

Quicktime Trailer, including HD options:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/11808/

And having watched it again in such quality, I have to say that this is easily one of the best teaser trailers I've ever seen. This thing is going to build up such hype.

Nathanial K'cansce

Jul 9th, 2007, 06:06:16 PM

Man, that's what a teaser trailer should be like. I can almost say without a doubt I dislike movies like this where monster destroys city, but this trailer has got me on the edge of my seat waiting in anticipation for this movie.

Dasquian Belargic

Jul 9th, 2007, 06:08:14 PM

This is very intriguing. :thumbup

Liam Jinn

Jul 9th, 2007, 06:24:57 PM

I'm in for this one :)

Itala Marzullo

Jul 10th, 2007, 06:27:37 AM

I love giant monsters, so I won't be missing this for sure.

Lilaena De'Ville

Jul 27th, 2007, 04:47:17 PM

There is now a poster for this movie. Apparently an early version of this had the word MONSTROUS across the top of it, but none of the surviving images of the poster have that on it.

Droo

Jul 27th, 2007, 05:25:16 PM

It's not called Monstrous. That was a manip, because when Abrams unveiled the poster at Comic Con, he asked "Who hear thinks it's called Monstrous?"

There were cheers, to which he responded, "Well, it's not." And I'm glad!

Lilaena De'Ville

Jul 27th, 2007, 07:02:05 PM

Ah. Well, I was merely reporting what I'd heard.

Droo

Jul 27th, 2007, 07:20:27 PM

Clearly, you were just trying to mislead us all and bait us into a cruel anti-climax, you cold-hearted fiend.

Lilaena De'Ville

Jul 27th, 2007, 10:46:22 PM

:mneh I just said it had the word on it, reportedly, not that Monstrous was going to be the title.

That's it.

You're goin' down!

:duel

Darth McBain

Nov 20th, 2007, 10:29:44 AM

New trailer up...

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/11808/

Loklorien s'Ilancy

Nov 20th, 2007, 10:58:14 AM

I'm absolutely loving how they aren't showing the monster :D

Yog

Nov 20th, 2007, 11:50:58 AM

Actually, you can sort of see it briefly 2/3 in the trailer as the soldiers are shooting at it. It is very huge (like a tall building), walking around, as is probably bipedal.

Loklorien s'Ilancy

Nov 20th, 2007, 12:01:24 PM

Must be my monitor settings then; plus I could only play it on small. It was choppy and had static-y sound on medium.

Yog

Nov 20th, 2007, 01:24:08 PM

It is 1 minute 29 seconds in, after the soldiers shoot at it, only shown for about a second.

Converting the 1080p quicktime file to AVI. Maybe possible to do some frame dissection in virtual dub and applying some filters so it is easier to see what it is.

Here are the direct download links for the HD files, for those interested:

<a href=http://images.apple.com/movies/paramount/1-18-08/1-18-08-tlr_h1080p.mov>1080p</a>
<a href=http://images.apple.com/movies/paramount/1-18-08/1-18-08-tlr_h720p.mov>720p</a>
<a href=http://images.apple.com/movies/paramount/1-18-08/1-18-08-tlr_h480p.mov>480p</a>

Nathanial K'cansce

Nov 20th, 2007, 04:37:25 PM

This must come now.

Lilaena De'Ville

Nov 20th, 2007, 06:06:37 PM

CMJ

Nov 21st, 2007, 11:50:38 AM

One of the best teasers I've ever seen. Let's just hope the film doesn't suck.

Loklorien s'Ilancy

Nov 21st, 2007, 12:06:39 PM

Thanks Holly :hug

Man, this is almost maddening, only having such a tiny glimpse of whatever this thing is.

Mu Satach

Dec 20th, 2007, 01:04:18 PM

CMJ

Dec 20th, 2007, 01:11:08 PM

I know that bothers some people, but thankfully the "shakey cam" has no effect on me.

Sudoku

Jan 3rd, 2008, 01:08:56 AM

*bump*

Getting a bit closer so I thought I would bump it. Especially since I'm a sucker for a good monster flick... though I'm a bit worried about the shaky hand held cam. When I saw Blair Witch I almost hurled in the theater from motion sickness.

This totally made me think BWP, which was HORRIBLE. Although, if the monster is something from this <a href="http://www.yesbutnobutyes.com/archives/2008/01/ten_things_we_h.html">list</a>, it might make it's way into my dvd player eventually.

stevenvdb

Jan 8th, 2008, 01:27:37 AM

But doesn't everybody, when no one is looking, put their camera up to their face and talk to themselves?

I used to think it was a view of the critter from the side. Now I think we actually see it from the front for a moment, taking a swivel step away from the camera. In my wildest imagination, I see what looks like a (bug-like?) dino body, with a head - that isn't smooth- seems to have lumps (tendrals?). Or a guy in a Gojira - like suit. Hmmm....i've been watching too long.

C'mon...not long now..

Darth Binky

Jan 8th, 2008, 02:21:17 AM

This totally made me think BWP, which was HORRIBLE. Although, if the monster is something from this list (http://www.yesbutnobutyes.com/archives/2008/01/ten_things_we_h.html), it might make it's way into my dvd player eventually.

Whats BWP?

stevenvdb

Jan 8th, 2008, 04:00:55 AM

Blair Witch Project.... "I am soooo scared..."

Darth Binky

Jan 8th, 2008, 10:27:23 AM

Blair Witch was terrible...

Mu Satach

Jan 8th, 2008, 11:35:05 AM

I've decided the only sane thing for me to do is, *sigh* see this thing opening night. So I can see it without too many expectations of what it is or isn't.

Darth Binky

Jan 9th, 2008, 02:46:10 AM

I've seen the Cloverfield monster now, and sadly, I'm not impressed.

Droo

Jan 9th, 2008, 08:13:46 AM

First of all, the Blair Witch Project, while not a particularly re-watchable film more than once or twice, was ingenius and remains still the scariest film I've ever seen. A true horror film.

Secondly, the picture of the monster currently circulating the internet is apparently a fake, or at least nothing to do with the film. Unless you've seen a different picture to me.

Turbogeek

Jan 17th, 2008, 06:12:14 AM

First of all, the Blair Witch Project, while not a particularly re-watchable film more than once or twice, was ingenius and remains still the scariest film I've ever seen. A true horror film.

Ingenious? No. It was utter garbage and made me ill trying to focus.

My brother saw Cloverfield tongiht - it's okay for CGI destruction, not very good if you cant stand shakeycam. Basically his word was dont bother.

Rod Stafford

Jan 17th, 2008, 06:41:30 AM

CMJ

Jan 17th, 2008, 08:43:28 AM

The Blair Witch Project went from being overrated initially to incredibly underrated. I thought it was a very good film. Alot of people are genuinely bothered by shakey-cam, but it's really never bothered me at all.

I'm still anticipating Cloverfield.

Yog

Jan 17th, 2008, 10:25:05 AM

While I generally dislike shakey cam as cinematic technique, Blair Witch Project was great because they actually tried to do something innovative for a change, as mentioned before through "marketing and execution". What made the movie great for me, I actually knew very little about BWP beforehand, except looking at the movie posters outside the theater and knowing that it was popular. I also read some marketing stuff on the web that it was based on filmrolls found in the woods by some lost teenagers.

"Wow, I thought to myself. That is an interesting concept! Handheld amateur video cam footage of someone getting lost in the woods. Very creepy and different. Heck, I will buy a ticket and see what the fuzz is about. I wonder why no one starts a lawsuit against the studio for making such a thing entertainment. How do they get away with that? I wonder what the missing teenagers parents think of this?"

So I actually went into the theater, with a great deal of curiosity thinking it was real video footage, documentary style. Well, it went about 3/4 of the movie before I felt sure, wait a minute, this MUST be fiction. But even so, it had developed to be one of the most creepiest and scariest moments of film I ever experienced. If I read upon the movie on beforehand, my experience and perspective would have been very different. It would just been "a horror movie with a different approach". Instead it went to being genuinly frightening. That's why I feel sad for the vast majority of the people who completely missed the point about this movie. They will never understand why it only made 5% the impact to them, because they missed the opportunity.

Turbogeek

Jan 17th, 2008, 04:07:20 PM

Ingenious? No. It was utter garbage and made me ill trying to focus.

Absolute nonsense. The motion sickness remarks really show when someone is scraping the barrel for criticism.

The Blair Witch Project was ingenius in its marketing and execution. As far as horror films go, or tales for that matter, it epitomises the less is more mantra. And it does so with originality and flair. Your imagination should do the work if you let it. The last frame and its implications still stick with me to this day. And this is coming from quite a fan of the horror genre.

What on earth are you smoking?. BWP was contemptable in every single bloody way and frankly I've had more scares or more imagination bumps watching the Wiggles. This is a terrible movie all round. And the marketing..... oh I would love to take a meat axe to that.

However if you say that "Shakey cam critique" is scraping the bottom of the barrel, may I introduce you to my foot against your bum, hard. This utterly disgusting technique serves no purpose whatsoever and all it does is breaks the veiewer away from the focus of the movie. Now I dont get motion sick in the slightest, but shakey cam breaks my concentration and gives me a case of "Huh? WTF just happened there?" If I cant follow what is going on, then you better believe that it's a completely valid and important critisim. How the hell am I supposed to enjoy wasting $20 bucks for a movie if I have no idea what the blazes is going on?

I marked Shakey Cam as a big problem in Transformers, which otherwise is a favorite of mine. I still dont know what is happening in some places because the blasted camera is being operated by a epileptic. It breaks me from OOOOHHH PRETTY to AGGGGGHHHH STOP IT!!!! and my Lord, do I hate when a movie does that.

Rod Stafford

Jan 17th, 2008, 04:29:43 PM

Oh please, if you want to kick my bum in this discussion, you're going to have to remove your foot from your mouth first.

It serves no purpose? Well, the entire premise of the film is that it is footage found which was recorded by students using simple equipment. In this it serves two purposes: one, authenticity, thus making the film more immersive in terms of story, and two, economy. BWP was filmed on a tiny budget and made an incredible profit by comparison. I'd say that pretty much validates the pat on the back for marketing and the shakiness of the camera.

I found the film easy to follow and had no problem with the "shakey cam". Just for future reference, the term for what is used in Transformers, and films like the Bourne Ultimatum, is loose-in-the-bowl. It's completely different from using simple home video recording equipment such as in the Blair Witch Project.

And why do I say it is scraping the barrel? Because it is the only constructive criticism you've brought to the plate regarding the film and have failed to elaborate on why it is "contemptable in every single bloody way". At least those who have spoke in its favour have fleshed out their argument with constructive points as opposed to drug-smoking and hyperbole.

I digress, this thread is about Cloverfield, and I'm sure I'll have no problem with the camera work but I'm quite eager to see whether or not it will deliver on the promise of something thrilling and different.

Cat X

Jan 17th, 2008, 05:34:25 PM

Oh please, if you want to kick my bum in this discussion, you're going to have to remove your foot from your mouth first.

So "I cant watch it because it breaks my abilty to follw the discourse" isnt a valid critique? Well how about the nonsensical script? Or the terrible acting that didnt give me a seconds worth of suspension of belief? The compete crap that was the marketing campain? Oh there's more, are they vaild enough or am I supposed to bow down to every film snob because my opinion somehow is less valid as I'm only a casual film viewer and cant follow shaky cam like millions of others?

It serves no purpose? Well, the entire premise of the film is that it is footage found which was recorded by students using simple equipment. In this it serves two purposes: one, authenticity, thus making the film more immersive in terms of story, and two, economy. BWP was filmed on a tiny budget and made an incredible profit by comparison. I'd say that pretty much validates the pat on the back for marketing and the shakiness of the camera.

It still was to me an unwatchable trainwreck. Just becuase a movie is commerically successful does not make it good.

I found the film easy to follow and had no problem with the "shakey cam". Just for future reference, the term for what is used in Transformers, and films like the Bourne Ultimatum, is loose-in-the-bowl. It's completely different from using simple home video recording equipment such as in the Blair Witch Project.

And why do I say it is scraping the barrel? Because it is the only constructive criticism you've brought to the plate regarding the film and have failed to elaborate on why it is "contemptable in every single bloody way". At least those who have spoke in its favour have fleshed out their argument with constructive points as opposed to drug-smoking and hyperbole.

Basically, read my post again and read the part about "Okay, WTF happened?"

Movies are about a suspension of reality, the immersion effect. Whether you care to admit it or not (and frankly you have to realise quite a lot of people cant focus when the camera is moving around) if the immersion effect is broken, then all your watching is a badly shot pretense in reality that makes not a lick of sense. If that is the case the movie doesnt not and can not work. If in the case of BWP it has no real script, no real quality of action or art direction. where it is just no more than marketing hype, then there are no other redeeming features to fall back on and is indeed worthless.

Where you really miss the point is that I have a problem with this in every movie where the camera bounces around and you lose focus of what is going on. The suspension of belief is broken, your left wondering what is going on and you have to fall back on other things to make a movie worth anything. In Transformers, there are explosions and robots beatign the hell out each other. Even if the script is awful, the effects are awesome and quite enjoyable. This leads back to.....

I digress, this thread is about Cloverfield, and I'm sure I'll have no problem with the camera work but I'm quite eager to see whether or not it will deliver on the promise of something thrilling and different.

Again, if your thrown out of the movie because you cant follow it, you are left with what my brother had - pretty CGI going boom.

You dont seem to get this, but it is competely and totally valid. If you cant follow a movie because your eyes wont let you (and bluntly put, a big blurry screen is not what the eyes are supposed to be used for, it is quite understandable a lot of people simply cant do that) then you have lost the viewer unless you have somethign else to back it up.

Do you get why I have such a big problem with shakey cam now? Or do you need to re-read this post, but instead of sitting in front of the screen, pick it up and try to read while your on a trampoline to get the point?

Park Kraken

Jan 18th, 2008, 01:06:27 AM

I'm going to see this movie today. Will post a spoiler report later today on whether or not the movie is any good.

Yog

Jan 18th, 2008, 07:51:27 AM

I'm going to see this movie today. Will post a spoiler report later today on whether or not the movie is any good.

Awesome. Looking forward to read your thoughts about it :)

Lilaena De'Ville

Jan 18th, 2008, 06:21:39 PM

We're also planning on seeing this tonight. Before everyone can spoil it for us. ^_^;

I have a feeling this is the sort of movie that will attract the noisy and annoying moviegoers to opening night though. :x This means we'll have to literally drive across town to a theatre in a nicer area in order to have a pleasant moviegoing experience.

Hate. Stupid. People. And. Their. Cell. Phones. :shakefist

Park Kraken

Jan 18th, 2008, 07:40:47 PM

Okay, I saw it, and I loved it. I would definitly recommend everybody to go see it, except for those who have a problem with motion sickness. I've seen a lot of suspense movies, but this is probably the most suspenseful movie I've ever seen.

Now then, onto the spoilers, which I will divide into three categories. Category 1 will be about the monster. Category 2 will be about the movie in general, and Category 3 will be about what happens at the end.

Category 1

Ok, after seeing the movie, and seeing plenty of views of the monster, I still don't know what the heck it is. I would say it definitly is not of this planet. Unless, it was like a genetic mutation research project thingy gone wrong. But, in some respects, it kind of resembles a giant turtle, without the shell (although it takes one heck of a pounding from the U.S. Military, so it has a tough body). In other respects, as far as the face goes and everything, it kind of looks like a spider. It has little hatchling monsters, and the little ones definitly have the appearance of spiders. Now, there are scenes that led me to believe that either A) it reproduces via the Aliens method where newbies are injected into a hosts body and then eat their way out, or B) It has a toxic venom of some kind that causes the victims to explode. Thats about it for the monster for now. Oh wait, one more thing. The monster is about 50 stories tall, is gray in color, and is very heavy, as it knocks the tallest of buildings down and pancakes a Bradley fighting vehicle with one of it's feet.

Category 2

The movie overall was good. There was one scene which made me look away every so often. Being afraid of heights, there is a scene in which they try to rescue a girl from a skyscraper, but it is leaning up against another building. So they go up the building, and head over from roof to roof, and its just a shuddery scene. Not for the faint of heart. But other than that, its just a very good movie.

Category 3

Ok, how do they kill this monster, you ask? Well, I don't know persay. They have a cliffy of sort at the end of the movie. You can guess, by the fact that they evacuated everyone they could, and the sounds of the various alarms, that they are nuking manhatten. But the camera obviously survives. My guess is that they used a low yield non-EMP Tac nuke to kill the monster. Providing that it was killed in the blast. Like I said, Cliffy sort of ending, and really about the only thing I didn't like about the movie was the ending.

And there ya go. I give it about 8.5 or 9.0 rating, with 0 being the worst and 10 being the best.

Wyl Staedtler

Jan 18th, 2008, 10:07:47 PM

Oh God, if it's suspenseful I'll die watching it. I still haven't gotten over E.T. :uhoh

Xanatos Etanial

Jan 18th, 2008, 11:32:55 PM

Ok, how do they kill this monster, you ask? Well, I don't know persay. They have a cliffy of sort at the end of the movie. You can guess, by the fact that they evacuated everyone they could, and the sounds of the various alarms, that they are nuking manhatten. But the camera obviously survives. My guess is that they used a low yield non-EMP Tac nuke to kill the monster. Providing that it was killed in the blast. Like I said, Cliffy sort of ending, and really about the only thing I didn't like about the movie was the ending.

And there ya go. I give it about 8.5 or 9.0 rating, with 0 being the worst and 10 being the best.

I'd agree with most of your analysis, I saw it today, and it's VERY good. If you're easily made motion sick, you will get sick though. My roommate had that happen to her, and had to close her eyes for nearly half the movie and STILL came out saying she enjoyed it.

The reason I quoted your spoiler however:

Is that if you sit through the credits there is a staticy sound at the end, like something being said. People have already (of course) recorded it and fiddled with it, and when played backwards it says very clealy; "It is still alive." Heh.

Park Kraken

Jan 19th, 2008, 03:39:28 PM

I know I know.

Yeah I sat through the credits as well, and I thought, was that it? I thought it was a teaser end note. Interesting.

Nathanial K'cansce

Jan 19th, 2008, 04:05:20 PM

I couldn't sit through the credits - I took my dad and he got motion sickness and had to leave about 15 minutes from the ending. Poor guy.

Though, I did enjoy it. Ugly thing.

At the end, one girl shouted "That was it?"

She seemed to be about 15 or so, and apparently doesn't realize when you get a bomb dropped on you, everything kinda stops abruptly. And that not everything has a happy ending. Though people were commenting how they really didn't like how it just ended.

At least we know who Godzilla has to fight next. :D

Oh, and the whole shaky camera motion sickness thing IS a valid critique - you aren't going to enjoy the movie if you cannot sit through it. My dad doesn't recommend this at all.

I, however, do.

Lilaena De'Ville

Jan 19th, 2008, 07:32:02 PM

I really enjoyed it! It scared me to the point of clutching at my husband's arm (but that's what he's there for), and the subway scenes in the dark were terrifying. You sort of know what's going to happen in that part of the movie, but it still managed to be surprising and ... icky. :p

I liked how original the monster design was. That's all I'm going to say about it... ok its not all I'm going to say. I thought its method of ambulation was really original - it seemed to have hoof-like 'hands' at first - walking on all fours, but was clearly able to stand up taller and reach up with those forefeet. And no actual hooves - it was walking on its wrists or something, with those long three fingered hands folded up.

More monster talk: I was not prepared for tiny monsters to come along with this big beast, and so that made it more intense for me. Its one thing to have a big monster that can't sneak up on you loose in the city, its another thing to have tiny ones that can and do sneak up on you. *shudder* The effects of the bite of the little ones was equally scary.

I know some people won't enjoy the fact that there is little to no explaination for the events of the movie. There's no one dissecting the 'found' tape at the end, and telling us what happens to... anything.

The movie is presented as a found item with actual footage in it, and there you have it. Take it or leave it. I found the open-endedness of the movie refreshing and although we may never know what happens after the tape is over, it was still a great movie.

Oh, and I never saw BWP. *shrug* The shakey-cam made me a little sick to my stomach, but it wasn't too bad.

I really liked the characters in the movie. They were really believable to me, and Hud was definitely my favorite. He provided great nervous chatter to the movie. ;)

Rutabaga

Jan 20th, 2008, 05:05:19 PM

As a Godzilla freak, I knew I just had to see this movie. And to me, it was, quite simply, the best Godzilla movie ever made. :clap

I loved this movie, just loved it. I usually don't react to things going on on screen a lot of the time, but I kept moving in my seat, putting my hands to my face, gripping the armrests...whee, what a freakin' ride. The point where the monster came up out of the smoke and slammed into the helicopter that Rob, Hud, and Lily were on was probably when I jumped the most. I was sitting there thinking that they said in the beginning that the camera was found in what was once known as Central Park, so I knew for some reason the helicopter wasn't going to make it out. But being taken down by the monster itself wasn't necessarily what I was expecting, and it was pretty darn freaky.

And then when Hud turned around and there it was...eek! :eek

The monster design was just awesome. I've already told a couple of family members that I just can't describe the thing, it's just so freaking weird. And the little parasite/baby crab-things...yikes. When you first saw them on the newscast and they started attacking the soldiers, people near me in the theater were like, "Eeeewww!"

I know there are some people out there who like things cut and dried, with a clean beginning, middle, and end, and with clear explanations for everything...if you're one of those people, you won't like this movie. But I don't object to that kind of story-telling at all...a little mystery and incompleteness never hurt anyone, you know? ;)

And if you do have any problems with motion sickness, you'll have trouble sitting through it. I was curious to see how I would do, since I have a tendency towards getting seasick, but I did fine.

I had a great time at Cloverfield and thoroughly enjoyed it, and I really recommend it to anyone who's interested...go, and you'll have a great time too :).

Now I just hope that I never have to see the trailer for Step Up 2 again...I've been to the movies a lot since Thanksgiving, and I swear I've seen that trailer every single time I've gone. Enough already! :shakefist

Yog

Jan 20th, 2008, 05:32:27 PM

This is how it looks like..

***MAJOR SPOILER Clicky (http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/93/85569b54c1f901b516f1cb4rz7.jpg) MAJOR SPOILER***

Rutabaga

Jan 20th, 2008, 05:34:57 PM

This is how it looks like..

***MAJOR SPOILER Clicky (http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/93/85569b54c1f901b516f1cb4rz7.jpg) MAJOR SPOILER***

It's even more freaking bizarre when you see it in action. :eek

Rutabaga

Jan 21st, 2008, 07:57:44 AM

The reason I quoted your spoiler however:

Is that if you sit through the credits there is a staticy sound at the end, like something being said. People have already (of course) recorded it and fiddled with it, and when played backwards it says very clealy; "It is still alive." Heh.

Sounds like a very JJ Abrams-eque moment :D. Hey, I just checked the comments from viewers at Cloverfield's official MySpace page, and besides talking about the "It's still alive" thing, some people have also said that in that final, very poignant scene with Beth and Rob at Coney Island, you can see something like a meteor fall into the ocean in the background. I totally did NOT see that, so that's another nice detail to know about.

Oh, and all of the characters have MySpace pages too :).

Lilaena De'Ville

Jan 21st, 2008, 05:07:49 PM

^^^ your spoiler I just heard about from a co-worker who caught it. I'm mad I didn't see it! :p Guess I have something to look for next time. :)

Alpha

Jan 21st, 2008, 05:24:28 PM

I never noticed that either. Oh well. :) I'll go see it again with a couple friends. I loved the movie.

Lilaena De'Ville

Jan 21st, 2008, 05:54:48 PM

Incidentally, there's a great article about Cloverfield in Entertainment Weekly this week. I found out they made the movie for a whopping $25 million.

In movie making terms I think this is the equivelant of me making a movie with the loose change lost in my couch. Paramount execs should be thrilled as Cloverfield won the weekend box office with $41 million!

And, with the weak January line-up that opposed it, who really is surprised? Word of mouth will probably continue to make this a, ahem, monster hit. ;)

Rutabaga

Jan 21st, 2008, 06:52:40 PM

I know, this is a MAJOR hit, with the budget being only $25 million. I would love to see it again, although I don't know if I'll get around to it. And it's not my parents' kind of thing...my mother, in particular, would probably throw up within 5 minutes because of the motion sickness.

I told everyone at work about it today and really encouraged anyone who's interested to go see it...seeing it on the big screen with a good sound system is the only way to see it!

Alpha

Jan 21st, 2008, 08:01:45 PM

Yog

Jan 21st, 2008, 08:58:19 PM

And it's not my parents' kind of thing...my mother, in particular, would probably throw up within 5 minutes because of the motion sickness.

I keep hearing how many people people getting motion sicknesses and headaches after watching it. That sort of thing does not scare me though, I love rollercoasters and similar torture devices :)

Lilaena De'Ville

Jan 21st, 2008, 08:59:06 PM

:whip You know you liked it!

Alpha

Jan 21st, 2008, 09:04:52 PM

Maybe a little bit! :D

Lilaena De'Ville

Jan 21st, 2008, 10:51:34 PM

Incidentally, Wil Wheaton's blog includes a review of the movie - http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2008/01/cloverfield.html and I found it to be great. There are spoilers in the comments portion of this blog entry.

Rutabaga

Jan 22nd, 2008, 07:53:16 AM

Thank you for posting that...I agree with him 99%, the only thing I disagree with is the motion sickness issue. But overall, I really really applaud him on his viewpoint about people who are mad because everything wasn't wrapped up in a neat package with a beautiful happy bow at the end. Very well-said. And I also liked him pointing out how we're shown the juxtaposition between The Best Day Ever and The Worst Night Ever...I think that's why I found the final scene so heart-breaking (and probably why I missed the meteor falling into the ocean).

I also liked his aside about The Blair Witch Project...I didn't see that until it was out on video, but overall I thought it was boring and completely overhyped. Like Wil said, it really doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Cloverfield :clap.

Lilaena De'Ville

Jan 22nd, 2008, 02:44:55 PM

I thought the Best Day Ever and the Worst Night Ever and how they compared... just heart wrenching. I loved how the filmmakers figured out how to juxtapose these two days against each other in a way that made sense in terms of a single 'found' video tape!

Alpha

Jan 22nd, 2008, 02:57:55 PM

Apparently that thing that dropped into the ocean was a satellite...Lemme see if I can find the link...

http://www.cloverfieldendingcredits.com/

Park Kraken

Jan 22nd, 2008, 04:07:35 PM

I did see the thing dropping into the ocean, it landed like to the left and slightly below where the cruise ship was, but I didn't think anything of it at the time. But considering the thing like came up out of the ocean, or so it appears from the capsizing of the supertanker and the statue's head being torn off, it could be how it got there

Lilaena De'Ville

Jan 30th, 2008, 04:59:09 PM

Empire Online has an interview with Matt Reeves, the director - THIS CONTAINS MOVIE SPOILERS.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1391584980/bctid1395583109

:) I like his explainations and non-explainations. :)

Nathanial K'cansce

Jan 30th, 2008, 09:30:53 PM

Cloverfield is a baby!?

Please let that be a metaphor.

Rutabaga

Feb 1st, 2008, 07:59:46 AM

I wasn't surprised to see that they showed a commercial for Cloverfield during Lost last night, and I also wasn't surprised to see that they're now showing the monster during ads. Seems safe enough at this point to let some of the secret go.

I'm just kind of bummed that the BO dropped off so severely this past weekend, but all in all, this is definitely a cult movie that isn't going to appeal to everyone in the general population. And with a budget of only $25 million, it's still turning out to be a very profitable movie.

They are talking sequel, but I don't know if I want them to try that. Although I loved this movie immensely and consider it to be one of the best monster movies ever made, I'm afraid this is one of those "lightning in a bottle" kind of movies that simply can't be recaptured or live up to the first movie. But who knows?