First The Star Trek Trailer....NADDA! not a trailer at all...just a dang TEASER! The only good part was some moving shots of the Enterprise under cunstruction while you hear Nimoy's voice give the "Space the final frontier" thing but that was it and I was almost in tears!

It was nice but not enough for even a snack! I want more pudding Mom!

Cloverfield:

A good action packed film...done very well in my opinion. The chatacters where not over the top or not so unbelievable or upper class that we could not relate to. It was also good to find that it was NOT seen through several different young groups cameras...only one group and one camera...man that must have been one LONG tape! That fact that the characters did not have to rely on 'every other word' being Sh__ this and F___ that!...very refreshing as well.

The Monster and its little friends is NOTHING like you have seen on-line from fan sites or what ever...its very original, freaky and just plain scary...the little versions are FAST, UGLY and you will not like them....but what makes it even better is that you do not see them a whole lot! THANK GOD!!

The sound plays a huge part in the films over all effectiveness..very powerful....Nor was it was NOT the Blair Witch eyesore/quality some may have said....it was filmed as if you watched what was going on as if you came across the raw tape. a bit shacky at time but not so much that you just can't stand to watch it.

Over all....I enjoyed I am Legend and Golden Compas more ....but this was an action film and if thats what you want it will fill your cup 3/4 full...with some meat to boot! Not just a mindless action flick...in fact I'm still trying to figure it out.

I liked it! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Also saw it and thought it was excellent! I think those who won't like will base it on the fact that it is very unconventional. Things are not explained, no meteor full of radioactivity, no hero who miraculously knows the answer and everything is not tied up neatly with a bow on top. It is exactly what you would know if these events were actually happening-they just ARE. It is a really fresh slant on an old topic. When it is released on DVD, all I can say is I'm glad I've got a Cerwin-Vega subwoofer! Very well indeed.

One last thing; even though I enjoyed Transformers, that film was basically a live action cartoon. This sucker is played as real as a heart attack. It's tough, it's gritty, it doesn't try to be 'cute', and at times it's actually frightening! And make no mistake, this is well worth seeing. The Trek teaser is merely the icing on the cake, and that cake too appears to be baking nicely!

When it is released on DVD, all I can say is I'm glad I've got a Cerwin-Vega subwoofer!
Absolutely - when that thing walked you could feel it shake through your body. Very effective use of sound effects.

I was not 'in the know' and had no idea that it was a well known fact that the ST trailer was always just a teaser with no secrets.

It's just that I got all excited earlier today when I saw an add that said 'WITH a ST TRAILER!'....yes it said TRAILER not teaser....so I feel a bit sheepish now.

Like thay said....The film is GOOD!!!

Just got back from seeing it myself and the only thing I can say is once things start..... INTENSE!

I was really impressed, like Jeff said, you see it as the raw footage recorded as it happened. I like the creature, it is very original and I love that you know nothing about it and the only thing you learn about it is "It's winning!"

Will definitely get this one on DVD.

Hey! I said BOTH of those things first! :p rasberry city!

Spoiler Warning!!





























You know what that monster reminded me of? The ID monster from Forbidden Planet.

The scene where they are running into the subway and the camera guy looks up at the thing and it roars with those fangs. THAT was surreal.

Great movie. Definitely buying this when it comes out on DVD or HD/Bluray.

Glad you guys liked it. I thought it was terrible. The whole thing is a recycled mess with a handheld. I don't need anything explained to me, what I do need is meat on the bones. I guess I'm a bit spoiled. The last 2 movies I've seen before this were "into the wild" and "No country for old men". Cloverfield reminds me of an Gertrude Stein quote. I shall call the movie "Oaklandfield".
5 minutes into the film I was hoping the Aliens and Predators would show up and start offing these yuppies.

Hey! I said BOTH of those things first! :p rasberry city!

Hey man, never once in your posting did I see the word 'intense'. :p Therefore my post is unique, insightful and extemely well worded. So There! Ha Ha Ha!

I did explain to my date that when all the rats are running away from something for no obvious reason, it's never a good thing.

I thought the film was disturbing. The use of nothing but footage from a single camcorder( recording to an SD card) and the shaky way that it was filmed could truly make some people nervous. Apparently people are getting sick from this film, we had an ambulance and two fire trucks in front of our local AMC yesterday after the film got to one patron. And a buddy of mine got a slight case of motion sickness from it, the camera always moving is not an easy thing to deal with.

I know that the whole story of a giant monster attacking has been done many times before. But not in this well done fashion. The fact that you never get a perfect shot at any of the monsters(except for that one face shot of the main monster) is perfect. It added to the reality and tension of the story, and the fear felt by people after the first explosion was palpable and not centered on a monster attack. The first reaction is realistic in this post-9/11 world. You actually hear someone ask about a terrorist attack. That would be the first aasumption from anyone seeing what they see in the first 30 minutes.

I need to find out what camcorder model they used because it has superior battery life and can take shock/abuse amazingly!

Yep, very realistic! And what kind of a badass John Wayne type character films through all of that carnage? Chuck Norris would have peed his pants, threw the camera down and ran like a little girl.

I need to find out what camcorder model they used because it has superior battery life and can take shock/abuse amazingly!

I thoiught the effects were excellent... but as a film... I think it sucked. The hand helf camera metaphor kind borke down... I wanted them to break out of it and move to a conventional film after the first 20 minutes or so. I talked a friend into going with me for the midnight show... and he's not a SciFi guy. My original opinion was to recomend seeing it on rental, but in hindsight... any SciFi fan should see it on the big screen... but IMHO... I give it a C.

innocent question...
don't most batteries have a 2hr battery life? and the recording card...wouldn't that last two hours?

a lot people are assuming that since the events took place over 6 hours, that Hud was recording the whole 6 hrs. He wasn't. That's what RAW footage means. Now the shock absorbing feature? Very Handy!

Maybe if he had left the time stamp on it would have more clear.

I echo Fluke's statement that it was very refreshing to not hear a stream of obscenities for the whole movie.

I think the characters were very real and in the short time you saw them, you still felt for their plights.

Definately going in the collection when it comes out.

I need to find out what camcorder model they used because it has superior battery life

C'mon guys.

Although events depicted in the film took place over a seven hour period, the running time clocks in at less then two hours. Based on this, I think we can assume the camera wasn't recording the whole time.

I'll grant you it's no No Country for Old Men ( :freak: ) but for a movie about a giant monster I thought it was pretty smart, fairly original, and a lot of fun. And so did the audience I saw it with.


a lot people are assuming that since the events took place over 6 hours, that Hud was recording the whole 6 hrs.

Looks like Lou beat me to the punch, lol.

Wow, you guys are hard core! Your arguing over how unrealistic it is that this camcorder could run for that long. It's a freakin MONSTER MOVIE!!!!!

"Wait, wait, no way that camcorder could run for 7 hours....the batteries not big enough, the sd card doesn't have enough memory, but that monster was believable!" :confused:

I love how people go back and forth over stuff like this, like it was real. Just enjoy it. :wave:

Thank you! Once you wrap your head around the giant monster thing, the camcorder issues are a pretty moot point! At the end of the day, it's still just a movie. Suspension of disbelief to a degree is still a requirement.

There are plenty of moments in the film where we get a gap in time because Rob or Hud turned the camera off. These are times when Hud could have replaced the battery or something. They did go into an electronics store at one point, so why couldn't Hud have gotten a battery for the camera then?

An SD card could easily hold the recording. I have a 4 and an 8 Gigabyte SD card that could easily hold all of the film, as long as the cameras resolution was set to the right levels.

Plus, it was an enjoyable movie without having to ruin it with questions about how the camera kept working. They didn't tell us where the monsters were from either, but I enjoyed the movie anyway.

Things are not explained, no meteor full of radioactivity, no hero who miraculously knows the answer and everything is not tied up neatly with a bow on top.


The ol' Fred Ward flick Tremors was the first monster movie I can remember that felt no need to explain where or how the monster(s) came from. The more recent Feast did the same thing.

Guys, I wasn't criticizing the camera as being an unbelievable element. I know the recording wasn't continuous, it stopped and started time and again (as evidenced by the clips of the Coney Island excursion). I was merely being humorous at the fact that there were some pretty significant events that happened TO the camera that would preclude perfect operation. It was dropped several times, it survived a helicopter accident intact.... granted all very survivable for equipment, but not most consumer equipment. Lastly I do feel the use of the light in the subway would have been a rather heavy drain on any battery.

Did it bother me enough that it took away from my enjoying the movie?, Heck No! I think this is one of the best portrayed monster movies I've seen in ages. It didn't follow the standard monster movie formula.....

but my point... I can't write any spoilers... but there were NUMEROUS events in the film where MY suspension of disbelief was severely challenged due to the fact that any sane person... even Hud... would have stopped filming to get the hell out of there.

It's been my (real life) experience that even sane human beings seldom behave rationally in times of crisis. We see evidence of this all the time, and it's why I don't find it too much of a stretch to grant genre filmmakers a degree of dramatic license in this area. Especially those filmmakers working in the horror genre. Particularly when they're working as hard to entertain me as the makers of Cloverfield were.

BTW, if you start counting the illogical and implausible beats in the first two Alien movies (for example) you'll reach the double-digit mark real soon. And those pictures are widely regarded as classics.

Twenty years from now, I've no doubt Cloverfield will be considered a horror classic too.

I'll take that bet. Cloverfield will be remembered as the film that gave you very little story, threw in a "gimmick" and rested on that. Seriously, it's not entertaining to me to go to a movie and not be able to see what I came to see. OK, it's a giant monster movie? Show me the F'n monster. It's basically a remake of the "Beast from 50,000 Fathoms", but it mostly ignores the Beast in favor of how our yuppie heroes deal with it. Who cares?

We loved it! Maybe not a great movie, but a very good one! Great creature designs and let me be the first to say: Intense! :p

Yeah, I want one of those camcorders too! Takes a beating, has night vision and can record 5.1 Surround Sound!

but it mostly ignores the Beast in favor of how our yuppie heroes deal with it. Who cares?

Since that was what the film was based on..what happens to them.. I'd say everybody from the producers on down to the transportation captain cared.

Cloverfield will be remembered as the film that gave you very little story, threw in a "gimmick" and rested on that. Seriously, it's not entertaining to me to go to a movie and not be able to see what I came to see. OK, it's a giant monster movie? Show me the F'n monster.

Critics leveled the EXACT same charges at Alien -- a film which shows even less of its monster than Cloverfield does, and is all the more effective because of it. And, hello, Jaws?... tell me that film would've been better if we'd seen more of the shark.

I just got back from seeing this film 20 minutes ago. Yes, all the hype got me to see it. I am a sucker.

I hated the jiggling camera. I don't mind some jiggling, but this jiggled too much for me. At least a few moments where the camera stopped jiggling for me to get my bearings straight. I never got sick, but, there were some moments early in the film where I came close to sleeping because it felt good to close my eyes.

The monsters were done well. I wish there were some more normal camera work tyoe scenes showing more clearly what happend. Some scenes went too fast for my brain to process what happened.

Yeah, the light in the tunnel probably would have drained the batteries. But, the camera case would have had spare batteries. But hey, it's a movie, not reality.

I thought the cellular radio/telephone calls were unrealistic. If this event happened in real life, communications would have completely broken down. But, it's a movie, niot reality.

I watched all the credits. It sounded like a voice whispered somthing at the end there, but, I couldn't hear what was said because the ushers were talking loudly at the time while they were cleaning the theater. Did anyone else hear it? Also, the Cloverdale Monster theme song at the end, I think it was called Roaring, was in the style of large monster films and sci fi films. I enjoyed listening to the song.

In my humle, 44 year old, opinion, I rate this film as 3 stars (out of 5). I originally gave it two stars, but later decided to up it to three stars.

First The Star Trek TEASER!

Stick welding in the 23rd century?

Fascinating.

/raised brow

Yes, but the audience is supposed to care.
Since that was what the film was based on..what happens to them.. I'd say everybody from the producers on down to the transportation captain cared.

Critics leveled the EXACT same charges at Alien -- a film which shows even less of its monster than Cloverfield does, and is all the more effective because of it. And, hello, Jaws?... tell me that film would've been better if we'd seen more of the shark.

Completely agree with that and I haven't even seen Cloverfield yet.
:p

If thats all one can do is keep thinking about that damn camera and its battery life and how tough it must be etc etc through out the film...your not getting it, your not enjoying it.... so why not walk out?....I have left more than a few films that I simply did not like.

The idea is not to tear apart a film while watching it....gheeesh!

In Sixth Sense....I had a notion about Dr. Malcolm's charactor and all...but I shuved it away, forgot about it and enjoyed the STORY.

Why screw up a chance to enjoy a movie?....sometimes its better to let the inner child take over and be swept away from our day to day crap for just a little while.

There are plenty of films that SHOW more of the monsters....the video store has RACKS full of them....go rent those if you want 'Monsters'

It's OK not to like a movie....but to nit pick over small details?

Troy, Aren't you the guy who obsesses over the finest detail on a model that you build? Why not just sit back and enjoy the build. Stop criticizing it while you build it. Let your inner child take over....etc....

Which leads me to a certain bunch of Trek modelers who have gone ape-excrement over a 30 second teaser that may or may not show the actual ship from an upcoming movie. That's OK?

I think this thread might be giving some folks the wrong idea.....you do see the Monster a bit more than you saw the Alien in the first film.....plus its little friends but what you do see really counts!

.....and the sound! :eek:

I do agree about the video camera approach...I would rather see it in the 'normal' fashion....but they played it off very well and it wasn't fuzzy and out of focus 90% of the time ....only when it seemed neccessary.

Troy, You bring up an interesting point. The sound does add a lot to the film, but the video takes away from it. That just seems like a movie going in two different directions.
I also trust that you have an exceptional eye. I challenge you to make a full body sketch of the creature.

Thats a pretty good thought there Rich....but I only add what I feel 'needs' adding ....I can't help it. I do not build to 'studio' standards and specs...only what I can see in a few screen grabs and stills.

Plus I think that letting loose and enjoying a Movie and comparing that idea to model building techniques are not the same thing.

I go to the movies because I expect to enjoy it. I model because I expect to enjoy it. BTW- Where's my picture!!!!:p

Saw it at the midnight movie tonight, it's definately a fun film with an audience! I liked it, though a few scenes and ideas seemed to be lifted directly from other horror movies,The Descent and The Host specifically. But all and all I bought it, like MI3 it doesn't really revolutionize the genre, but it does it more competantly than most.

After some of the complaints I've read, I was sort of surprised how much you saw of the monster, and how clearly. And boy, most of the "insider information" posted all over the internet sure got it wrong.

a few scenes and ideas seemed to be lifted directly from other horror movies,The Descent and The Host specifically.

Spider/lice parasites = Godzilla '85

I, as a paying member of the audience, fully enjoyed it. There wasn't enough 'issues' to distract me from what was going on. My kids want to see it, so more than likely I'll be going back. A few posts back mentioned a voice at the end of the credits. It is a static filled transmission where somebody says "It's still alive..." Leaves you open to wondering if we'll see a part 2 or if they just want to emphasize that the good guys don't always win?

That's what I like the best about this, there was no winner.. No uber-smart scientist that comes in and figures out what to do and saves the day. No metrosexual guys bonding and forming a resistance to "Kick this things A**!" The military threw all it had and apparently it didn't work.......

Well, if you like the jiggling camera in Cloverfield, I guess you'll like it in Diary of the Dead as well.

There seemed to be a mix of steady and jiggle (S & J ?) in the Dead movie preview.

Heh, reading all of these posts about the battery life made me laugh. My friends and I wondered the same thing, but that was not the most unrealistic portion of the movie. You're telling me that chick ran all over the place in high heels? She didn't discard them until shortly after they arrived at Beth's building. Also, you're presuming

*SPOILER*











the they nuked Manhattan. Wouldn't the heat and the EMP pulse obliterate the contents of the camera?

Having said all that, I didn't care about those questions. It was effective and intense. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It's not a gimmick but a different way of doing a monster flick. You felt that you were there, and you also know why Hud kept filming: so that people will know what went down.

Anyone catch the neat little references on the video monitors? They showed "Them," "King Kong" and "Beast from 20,000 Fathoms."

According to the BBC:



Monster movie tops US box office

Cloverfield, a film about a giant lizard attacking New York, opened in North America with a January record of $41m (£21m), studio estimates showed.

It beat the $35.9m (£18.4m) achieved when the first Star Wars movie was reissued in January 1997.

Cloverfield, which does not feature any big-name stars, is seen through the lens of a party-goer's hand-held video camera.

It captures the lizard creature causing chaos as it rips through the city.

It was produced by JJ Abrams, creator of Alias and Lost and director of Mission: Impossible III.

The film was aimed at the youth market, with a cryptic campaign which featured intriguing clues for a scavenger hunt to discover the production's plot, images and title.

I at first thought they were going to nuke the creature, but when that point arrived, instead of the bright flash I expected, there was one 'conventional' explosion and then several follow on's that presumably killed the last two characters. I changed my mind from nuke to something along the lines of a MOAB, guessing the military would be loathe to nuke an American city. Add the "It's still alive" transmission at the end of the credits, I would discount a nuke.

Not sure what the BBC saw, but I would classify the creature as a 'lizard' by any means.

Did you mean to sayI would 'NOT' classify the the creature as lizard?

I would agree...its more than just a big Lizard....what ever it is...its just creepy!

The head kind of reminded me of the rancor.

I'm in the camp of saying it was definitely an alien creature. I think they tagged it as lizard, becaue of it's amphibious nature.

In a perverse way, I liked that the "lice/spiders" weren't either super strong or invincible, it just took a bit to kill 'em.

since the movie was so purposely vague about it, do y'all think there might have been more than one beastie? (besides the little guys) wasn't the bridge getting whacked at the same time as #1 was tearing up some buildings? or is it just really fast?

If you have sharp eyes (or have someone point it out to you) there is a hint at the end of the movie as to where the creature comes from.

In the final Coney Island "flashback"

You can see something plunge into the sea in the distance.

And for those people who wish the movie was shot in a more conventional style, that movie was made a few years ago. It was called WAR OF THE WORLDS. But then, a lot of people seem to have trouble with that movie too.

A few posts back mentioned a voice at the end of the credits. It is a static filled transmission where somebody says "It's still alive..." Leaves you open to wondering if we'll see a part 2 or if they just want to emphasize that the good guys don't always win?
Dammit - the usher at the cinema told us there wasn't anything after the credits so we left part-way through them instead of hanging around as we normally do in case there's an easter egg.
I feel robbed... :(

In a perverse way, I liked that the "lice/spiders" weren't either super strong or invincible, it just took a bit to kill 'em.?

I've heard a lot of people refer to these as parasites, but to me, the shot of the dead one on the stretcher looked enough like the big one to just be a baby one. Which would seem to make more sense, big as it was, how many parasites could it carry?

since the movie was so purposely vague about it, do y'all think there might have been more than one beastie? (besides the little guys) wasn't the bridge getting whacked at the same time as #1 was tearing up some buildings? or is it just really fast?

I wondered that too,especially since the head of the one outside the subway station looked bigger than the head of the last one Hud encounters.