Sound effects is awesome.

^---I can't believe you all got to see it before me! And I'm the one that started this thread! Whassup wit dat! :lol: :lol: Anyway, going to the 9:40 showing tonight at the Greene (Director's seating! :-)). I CANNOT wait! Aurgh!

a reviewer said the whole thing is shot via mock handheld cameras? it said they wished that at least one of the filmers was a pro cameraperson.

 

i thought the "shakey camera trend" went out with the 1990's tv shows and commercials (along with saying "it's about" every five minutes, ugh i hated those two trends  :roll: ).

 

a little shakey camera is ok, but i dk if i want to sit through a whole movie of it.

 

^Slight correction: the entire movie was shot with one (1) handicam, and the only edits are turn-the-camera-off, turn-it-back-on-edits and about the most ingenius flashback method you've ever seen. Pure, troubled genius.

ACtaully the way this movie was filmed you would never had gotten the same effect during skyscrapers falling down..lol

Alright since people have seen it now, here's what I didn't like.

 

First off, let me say the special effects were superb.  So good that I feel horrible for the people who had their work spoiled by the hand held camera premise.  They could have showed more news footage, or perhaps a few stable camera shots, but everything was sweeping back and forth, it became obnoxious.

 

I hated the character Hudson, whos obnoxious voice annoyed me through the whole movie.

 

The effects made the movie worthy to see.  If you like to see stuff get blown up, go see it.  Otherwise, it was like watching a youtube video with moderately good acting.  I don't care if that was the point of the movie of it all being based off of what someone filmed.  It was obnoxious. 

Just saw it.

4 out of 5 stars from me.

Totally original monster and plot. I liked it.

The people in the theater that were disappointed with it didn't seem to realize the whole movie was supposed to be what was found on handheld camera. They didn't like the ending, but if you pay attention to the very very beginning, then you can pretty much guess how the movie would end.

 

BTW, if you didn't see the movie yet....pay close attention to the very last flashback at the end. Watch the sky and ocean close to the boat on the right of the screen. It gives some insight as to where the monster came from. I didn't see it, but my wife did and I was kinda pissed that I missed it. It was nothing big but still......

^^I loved the subjective reality aspect; they weedled in just enough cable news coverage to orient the viewer to the bigger (ha ha) context of the events. Any more third-party interference and it would've started to warp the POV that was the film's strongest suit.

 

Sure, the Hud character was a bit irritating, but guy-holding-the-camera banter is ALWAYS irritating (especially when it's me).

 

I'll point out a couple of spoiler-type beefs of mine once the general awareness has spread.

 

I know I've thrown a "masterpiece" and an "awesome" or two, but the first two words out of my mouth after the closing roll were "well done." And it was. Exceptionally well-done.

 

^Cincykidbc1: PM me with what your wife saw; I loved the locale of the final shot for its AI (the film) reference-value.

They did leave some holes in the movie. Like the scene when the bridge was taken out.  There is a bigger monster out there folks.

You can see my review here.  Warning, spoilers, blah blah.

 

http://coldayman.blogspot.com/2008/01/movie-review-cloverfield.html

 

But basically, I thought it was excellent.

Finally got to see it tonight and I have to say all my expectations were met. The monster is freakin awesome and the roar is creepy. For a movie that only had a $30 million budget, I cannot believe how great the effects shots are. I thought the character development was decent. I love the Cloverfield theme music score! There also is a key sound clip at the end of the credits so stick around to the very end, and you get a clue to the future of Cloverfield.

 

 

(Spoiler alert!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no bigger monster in this movie. Abrams has already stated that there is only one. That is it, nothing else. The monster is 25 stories tall walking on all four's. When it stood, it was big enough to knock the helicopter out of the sky that was at least 400+ feet in the air. Any bigger would be totally ludicrous.

 

As for the holes, this is just the start of a much bigger and far deeper story. Instead of explaining it all in a 1 hour 30 minute movie like Godzilla, this will span over sequels and we will learn a little more with each sequel which will probably be in 2 years. I wouldn't expect to see the home video footage anymore. This was just the start to get the story going. Be proud of America's new monster! He's p****d!

The most talked about movie in urbanohio history. .;)

 

30 million to make? That seems cheap to what all we saw in the movie. I mean the scene where the Statue of Liberty head rolls down the street and then every one comes out, out of the wood work to look at it and take pictures was amazing to be show on a cam like that.

$30 million? Yes: they got their money's worth, especially considering the quality--and in my book quantity--of monster shots. I'm interested in the actual dollars spent on promo; the viral efforts sucked monster-sized bang out of buck, but bucks were spent. Cloverfield will be studied relentlessly in both film and business schools.

A lot of news this morning already on Cloverfield. Cloverfield brought in over 18 million on Friday. Director Matt Reeves has pretty much stated a sequel is on the way and hinted that some filming may have already taken place for the sequel. This follows right in the shoes of Lord of the Rings in filming multiple sequels at once. And last but not least...and this confuses the hell outta me...is that the monster may not have anything to do with Tagruato at all! Matt  Reeves stated that there is an easter egg in the movie of the monster's origin and Cincykidbc1s wife may have already discovered that ;-)

 

 

 

Spoiler alert!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you did not stay to the end of the credits, the sound clip at the end which no one could really understand says "Help us, it's still alive"!

 

Auuuuggggghhhh! The producers sure not what they are doing on this movie. Now I need to see the sequel!

30 million to make? That seems cheap to what all we saw in the movie.

 

This is what happens when you keep Tom Cruise or Will Smith out of a movie. Higher a bunch of no names that will do the film for nothing and you can spend most of the budget on the film :-)

Ahh man i left as soon as the credits went on the screen.  Was there a trailer whit the monster destroying an oil platform somewhere? I didn't see that in the movie.

^---that was part of the viral marketing. The Tagruato oil platform off the coast was destroyed and then a couple oil tankers. Also the oil tanker that was burning in the movie if you were quick enough to catch it had the Tagruato logo on the stack. I have no idea what Tagruato and Slusho have to do with this thing, especially after the easter egg in the movie. Guess we will have to wait and see ;-)

 

There is also a new pic of something that was beached which apperas to have been eaten on 1-18-08.com. Kinda gross, but check it out. Another clue?

 

 

I have no idea what rating this movie was but Marlena's death was gruesome.

Just bought 2 tix in the directors hall with digital projection. Reserved seats (near the back) at the Cinema De Lux/Showcase Cinemas!

 

I'm pumped!

^^PG-13. And the shooting style was tailor-made to avoiding R-level gore shots. Good for the budget on many fronts.

 

I'm sure I'm the only one picking up on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_from_20,000_Fathoms

 

Check out the plot line from 1953's "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms." Another reference to be found in Cloverfield's final locale. You've had your fun, Japan, but we're taking back the beast.

 

EDIT:

 

Self-discovered unintentional easter egg. Typing "1-18-09" into Firefox turns up a page on the Ohio law for transporting sheep for exhibition.

 

 

Man i thought this movie was awesome. Unfortunately I left half way through the credits so i didn't hear the sound clip. Yahoo had 5 facts about Cloverfield on their homepage today. According to them the director said that if they do a sequel, it might take place during the same monster attack but seen through a different camera.

We just got back from seeing it ... FREAKIN GENIUS!!!

 

 

(Spoiler?)

 

 

 

We loved it! We both kept an eye out for the boat at the end, but didn't see anything. A friend of mine saw it last night and said he saw something fall from the sky and noticed a small splash.

 

He also said that he heard the "it's still alive" part after the credits. Him and us both stayed and couldn't make it out. He told me that it was because it was played backwards.

yea me and the bf saw it today.  We both liked it and recommend it.

 

*SPOILER*

 

The movie was incredibly entertaining but I guess I have 1 complaint: how the hell did they survive that helicopter crash?  Also, did the Lilly character survive or did her chopper get taken down?  If it did, I didn't see it.  I didnt pay any attention to any of these hidden things in it but I think I am going to stay out of the fray and just wait for the sequel.  Probably the best thing of this movie was the fact that I didnt know ANYTHING going in and didnt get sucked into forums talking about it.  If I do that for the sequel, I have a feeling it will get built up so much that it wont live up to my expectations.  Anywho....yea it was good. 

 

Ok, I went and seen it for a second time today...lol. Sorry, but I've been following this for almost 5 months and I needed to answer some of my questions.

 

First and foremost. I went to Taco Bell and got a Pizza Hut pizza combo. BIG mistake! I got a stomach ache and got pretty queezy on the second showing! So if you have not seen it yet, watch what you eat before you go! LOL

 

MAJOR SPOILERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unusualfire, I am starting to wonder as well if there is a second monster! I noticed something very different in the tail that smashed the Brooklyn bridge and another full shot of the monster's tail walking through Manhattan. The tail that hit the bridge was fully round and came to a point at the end. The monster walking the street had almost an eel type tail and was flat on the end. Could be more than one? Hmmm

 

I seen the Easter egg and it was plain as day! I cannot believe I didn't see it before. It happens in the distance just behind the cruise ship to the right of the screen on the horizon. It is a white smoke streak traveling about the speed of a meteorite and has a pretty big splash down. I now think this thing came from space. So what attacked the oil platform in the viral marketing? Read up above to my response to Unusualfire.

 

If you have been following Jamie and Teddy on the viral marketing, you get a shot of Jamie passed out at Rob's party on the couch.

 

Jason (Rob's brother) is wearing a Slusho t-shirt which is a subsidiary of the Tagruato Corp. Interesting...

 

The end sound clip distinctly says "Help Us" with static afterwards. I do not know how that would say "It's still alive" if played in reverse, but I think that may be fake. But it does say "Help us" for sure.

 

Overall, I liked the movie even better on the second time around as it allowed me to focus more on the movie this time. I knew when to look for the monster this time and it was pretty badass!

 

Can't wait to see how all the viral marketing ties in with this story!

Someone has recorded the ending "help us" and played it backwards on youtube... It clearly sounds like "It's (or it is) alive".

 

I cannot believe that I missed the easter egg, especially after I knew to look for it!?

yea me and the bf saw it today.  We both liked it and recommend it.

 

*SPOILER*

 

The movie was incredibly entertaining but I guess I have 1 complaint: how the hell did they survive that helicopter crash?  Also, did the Lilly character survive or did her chopper get taken down?  If it did, I didn't see it.  I didnt pay any attention to any of these hidden things in it but I think I am going to stay out of the fray and just wait for the sequel.  Probably the best thing of this movie was the fact that I didnt know ANYTHING going in and didnt get sucked into forums talking about it.  If I do that for the sequel, I have a feeling it will get built up so much that it wont live up to my expectations.  Anywho....yea it was good. 

 

 

JOINING IN ON THE SPOILERDOM (Highlight to reveal):

 

I think Lilly makes it, though our other protagonists surviving the helicopter crash was a bit much. But considering it was knocked out of the sky by a 25 story-tall monster, I don't know why I'm spitting hairs.

 

Being almost completely isolated from the pre-release fan-boy wankfest, and knowing/caring nothing about the Slusho/Taraugato/Lost BS, I agree: the movie was immensely enjoyable on its own merits. 

 

Again: Well done!

 

 

Did i see right? Did Beth have a iron rod through her neck? She should have bleed to death. Maybe adrenaline kept her alive.

I just read a bunch of spoilers :( You guys sure know how to build up the suspense though. I haven't heard much about this flick but I have to go see it now.

Did i see right? Did Beth have a iron rod through her neck? She should have bleed to death. Maybe adrenaline kept her alive.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that was her sholder.

^---yup

So with all this viral marketing and teasers... do any of you think that this movie might just be another take on whatever this "Cloverfield" project is, and another marketing technique for the real movie?? I'm thinking it's just another longer video, but with a first person account of what's going on.. I am hooked now.. thanks a lot guys haha. The movie was amazing. I saw it last night and now I am going to be paying a lot more attention because I know that this is just the beginning of a great movie. :clap:

Oh, I've been hooked! :lol:

Matt Reeve's is talking about the sequel and stated that there's a possibility that more than 1 camera may have viewed the monster attack on New York. That's an interesting premise...the sequel is the same attack, but from a different group of people's perspective? I wonder if that will work...sounds interesting.

That would be interesting, but if there isn't more explanation to what is going on, then I think people might get bored.  That would be cool though if they could pull something that again and make it as good as the first one.  I am definitely keeping up with this now haha.

^--- Imagine if the sequel involves the filming of a second monster ;-)

Oh, I've been hooked! :lol:

Matt Reeve's is talking about the sequel and stated that there's a possibility that more than 1 camera may have viewed the monster attack on New York. That's an interesting premise...the sequel is the same attack, but from a different group of people's perspective? I wonder if that will work...sounds interesting.

 

Yet another layer of Japaniana: Kurosawa's Rashomon, anyone?

The people and the camera surviving the helicopter crash was so dumb and incredibly unrealistic, the rebar sticking through Beth's shoulder and how she survived sucked, the camera work made me sick, the fact that they were able to climb 57 stories in...30 minutes was dumb, and Marlena's little explosion scene was a little much.  Interesting hype and premise, but I did not enjoy the movie.

Sorry that you didn't like the movie. But this is the thing that kills me. I'm sure a lot of people that pick this movie apart probably like movies like the Matrix or Star Wars. So the force or a computer simulation of life is ok, but someone surviving a helicopter wreck is ridiculous? The fact is I have seen video of BRUTAL helicopter crashes where the pilots just walk right out. They are not a jet hitting the ground at 400 mph or more. That helicopter probably hit the ground about 30-40 mph. That is VERY survivable. As for the building, I can climb 15 stories downtown in 4 minutes. I do it all the time for exercise. I think 30 minutes is very plausible (I'm pretty sure she was on floor 39, where did you get 57 stories? Did I miss the floor number?).

 

But anyway, enjoy the movie for what it is, a science fiction monster movie. Not a documentary. ;-)

i dont go to many movies and for the record we debated cloverfield, but in the end went to see a new print of the 1961 foreign art film classic 'last year at marienbad' instead. heh. i may still go check cloverfield out sometime.

 

btw - if you don't know 'marienbad' well its the complete opposite of cloverfield, it's dry and mannered, but lots of stuff is inspired by it, like those old calvin klein obsession commercials and even more directly this blur video:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvCIPpWFo7Y

 

however, today when i was walking along macdougal street in the village (to do a new thread about it) i saw this card lying on the sidewalk  :-D

 

 

Sorry that you didn't like the movie. But this is the thing that kills me. I'm sure a lot of people that pick this movie apart probably like movies like the Matrix or Star Wars. So the force or a computer simulation of life is ok, but someone surviving a helicopter wreck is ridiculous? The fact is I have seen video of BRUTAL helicopter crashes where the pilots just walk right out. They are not a jet hitting the ground at 400 mph or more. That helicopter probably hit the ground about 30-40 mph. That is VERY survivable. As for the building, I can climb 15 stories downtown in 4 minutes. I do it all the time for exercise. I think 30 minutes is very plausible (I'm pretty sure she was on floor 39, where did you get 57 stories? Did I miss the floor number?).

 

But anyway, enjoy the movie for what it is, a science fiction monster movie. Not a documentary. ;-)

 

They climbed to the 57th floor of the standing building, crossed over, and went down to the 39th floor of the toppled building.  Also, I wouldn't have a problem with things being unrealistic if it wasn't for the nature of the movie.  The whole premise is that it is real and that you are seeing a home video, so the things that happen should be more real than the matrix or Star Wars.

Didn't like it at all.  The filming style gave me nausea starting in the first two minutes that never subsided.  I barely made it through without having to leave.  I appreciate the artistic intent but it made the movie practically impossible for me to enjoy.  I wasn't particularly impressed by the monster.  It was certainly big, ugly, and scary, but not really iconic in the way that Godzilla or King Kong are.  Also I'm tired of the "big monster/little monster" dual attack thing.  Must everyone do that since Jurassic Park's veloceraptors?  Hud was annoying, and the love story was schmalzy.  It overworked the 9/11 imagery- the building collapsing in on itself, the clouds of dust, the falling papers all felt like they were really trying to provoke that comparison.  I could take a chance on the sequel if it isn't filmed first person like this.  That is the #1 thing, as it is hard to appreciate anything else when you're desperately trying not to hurl.

My thoughts to a T^

I had no problem with the camera technique, which is odd considering I can't even take 10-seconds on a swingset.

I didn't go see it because I heard about the first person camera thing. I'm not a fan of the Blair Witch style.

The Blair Witch...stupid and is nothing like the technique used in Cloverfield. All you see in Blair Witch is an hour and a half of trees blurring past the camera...and screaming. Cloverfield at least utilizes a lot of visual elements and 30 million dollars worth of effects...and screaming.

 

As for the wheeziness, the warnings that have been stated many many times says that if you are prone to motion sickness, the take appropriate steps such as Dramamine. Most people felt fine watching the movie, but if you are susceptible to motion sickness, then take appropriate steps so that you can enjoy the movie without feeling ill.

 

Now if anyone can think of a way for a 25 story pissed off monster to walk through Manhattan without knocking down a building, would you please make a movie and show us how? Seriously, this is supposed to be as realistic as possible from a POV and it does it quite well. That's the whole point of the movie. But if people are going to complain about it because a falling building looks too much like 9/11, then I sure hope hope you don't go see the next building demolition scheduled in your area because it looks a hell of a lot more real.

 

I appreciate opinions, but please, this is a sci-fi movie...doing something that the Japanese have been doing aver 50 years...destroying cities with a fictional monster. I don't see the relevance to 9/11. It was not made to be that intention and if 9/11 would have never happened, this movie would probably still have been made. Lighten up a little earthlings! ;-)

OFFS, yeah the Japanese have been doing it for 50 years, but have they been showing buildings collapsing straight down into a cloud of their own debris, or people running from onrushing clouds of dust and then standing dazed in the aftermath while paper floats down around them?  Whoever did the special effects on this film obviously spent alot of time studying 9/11 footage and then tried to replicate that atmosphere with a monster substituting for terrorists.  I'm not offended per se, I just thought it was tacky.

OFFS, yeah the Japanese have been doing it for 50 years, but have they been showing buildings collapsing straight down into a cloud of their own debris, or people running from onrushing clouds of dust and then standing dazed in the aftermath while paper floats down around them?  Whoever did the special effects on this film obviously spent alot of time studying 9/11 footage and then tried to replicate that atmosphere with a monster substituting for terrorists.  I'm not offended per se, I just thought it was tacky.

 

Cloverfield is not the first to depict such scenes. These were already done in Spielberg's War of the Worlds 3 years ago which was intended to reflect 9/11 and was also done in the Siege with Denzel Washington in 1998 which was molded after the 1993 WTC bombings.

^The rushing debris cloud is present in about every urban building demo I've ever seen. But here in the post 9/11 world, everything reminds us of 9/11.

 

Did anybody else make the King Kong connection regarding the knocked-down building in question?

^---No, actually I didn't. Oh do tell!  :-o

^Empire State Building.

 

I read an interview with the producers, and Abrams or Reeves or the special effects guys were saying that essentially the monster is a baby, fresh as a daisy, new to the world, and confused as all get out. At one point, I guess, we see him stopping to scratch his back against a building to get those itchy itchy parasites off, and he can't figure out why all these little creatures with cameras and popguns and tanks are bothering him. The rest is digicam movie history.

Yea, I cant wait to see where they take this movie. I guess reviews and opinions are mixed, but I for one think this can be a good franchise. J.J. Abrams has done wonders with Lost and Alias. I think there's lots of directions this can go.