comment #1

actionman says ...

The usher at the Grove announced that if by the 30 min mark you felt sick, you could leave and get your money back

I will NEVER understand the whole anti "shaky-cam" stance...it has never bothered me and I actually prefer this style of filmmaking in many instances

comment #2

Walter Sobchak says ...

Yeah, I saw it. Over the weekend. What of it? Jealous much?

Actually it was quite a ride. I hated those vacuous Gen-Facebook people and I wish the guy working the camera had spent more time trying to get shots of the monster and less time getting shots of his friends freaking out and saying things like "Dude, I've gotta text my MySpace page and post this!" and "Oh my god Oh my god Oh my god, no way, what the fuck?!" (I know, I know...it's not real)

But the chaos was pretty creepy and cool and rather startling. It did work for me, (that is, when the cast wasn't trying their best to pull me out of it).

The great irony is, the audience that they're aiming for, (that is, the audience in their teens and early twenties who are reflected by the pretty, CW-ready cast), are the ones who seem to like it the least. I heard several people that age at the Chinese Theater post-viewing saying things like, "that fucking sucked, bra!", and "what a piece of shit".

It seemed like people (granted, many sci-fi geeks) in their 30's or older enjoyed it more. They seemed to mind less that it didn't rap up in a tidy bundle with the hero saying "see you in hell, slime-boy!" and blowing the monster to a zillion pieces while walking away with his back to explosion.

Also....... LOUDEST MOVIE EVER. Which was a good thing.

The film is a visceral experience, ("you are there!"), so if you do plan on seeing it at all, see it in a theater where you can't turn the sound down.

Bottom line, I fell for it... annoying cast and all. But then again I fell for Blair Witch and the first half hour of War of the Worlds.

It's pretty scary if you put yourself into the mind-set of "okay, this would, of course, never happen but if it did this is what it would be like.....shit! Run!"

comment #3

Movie fan09 says ...

The great irony is, the audience that they're aiming for, (that is, the audience in their teens and early twenties who are reflected by the pretty, CW-ready cast), are the ones who seem to like it the least.

yep.
I work at a movie theater and after we got there to clean up, a guy actually said "is it over?"
and you got the feeling that the majority of the public isn't used to having to use their imagination anymore.
they're more involved when they're just given all of the information.
..which makes me think that the movie from Idiocracy-"ASS" isn't too far off.

you could probably play it today as a late show and probably make a decent profit.

comment #4

carla kolchak says ...

That blurry, wavering sign in the photo makes me feel more woozy than the movie did.

comment #5

christian says ...

What Walter said.

There's such an amazing sense of dread and suspense for a good thirty minutes, but those charaters are straight outta The OC framed by a cinematic style striving for realism. Compare the absolute intensity of the BLAIR WITCH characters to the LA teens in this who still find time to crack wiseacre in the midst of massive detruction.

Whie Manohla Dargis review is harsh, she's got some excellent points about the 9/11 parallels.

comment #6

rocco says ...

"Due to the filming method used for 'Cloverfield,' guests viewing this film may experience side effects...such as disappointment and lack of empathy

Just too much hype...I liked it, it could have been great, but I thought it was undone by SPOILERS~~~SPOILERS~~~SPOILERS FROM HERE~~~the impaled chick being alive when they finally reach her and the unnecessary helicopter crash which then necessitated them to unbelievably survive the crash.

In a non-traditional movie, those were two very traditional elements.

And Wells...I'm sure you've read, but it is explained...I didn't notice, but apparently in final shot at Coney Island, the monster is seen falling from the sky into Raritan Bay.

comment #7

Jonathan Nail says ...

Rocco, was it falling from the sky? I saw the splash (was looking for it, actually) over on the right side of the frame, near the end, but I didn't see it actually fall. More of a spout.

comment #8

rocco says ...

Trained Actor -- Unfortunately I didn't see it first-hand...I had to race like a piss-horse so didn't even stick around through the credits like I usually do...I've been searching in vane for a screenshot or clip online everyone seems to accept an alien origin...

comment #9

btwnproductions says ...

There's a sign up at the AMC Loews Village in NY, too, to the effect that "the camerawork is like a rollercoaster ride," or something. It didn't seem to bother the audience.

You definitely see something capsule-size fall into the water. And I dug Giacchino's Ifukube-like music. The rest, not bad, but like a rollercoaster ride the sensation wears off pretty quickly. I'd put it above the crap ALIENS VS. PREDATOR redux but below THE MIST where nihilistic monster movies go.

comment #10

Edward Havens says ...

Every show so far this weekend, at least one person has upchucked in my theatre during the movie. Every. Show.

comment #11

Jonathan Nail says ...

Ah, did a little googlin' and found the director saying "falling into the water". So, there's that. And evidently there is a raspy voice-message at the end of the credits (we knew there was going to be something at the end of the credits, just didn't hang around). Looks like we may have a sequel someday... Who knows.

comment #12

carla kolchak says ...

You can see the splashdown just to the left of the ship out on the water. And it is a splashdown, not a water spout--you can see the object fall through the frame.

Seeing as this is from the same guy who gives us "L O S T"--and who has said that the monster has been living deep in the ocean for the past 100 years--my theory is that the thing that falls from the sky into the ocean is... the world's biggest red herring. ;-)

comment #13

carla kolchak says ...

The past 1000 years. Not 100. My typo. :-)

comment #14

Walter Sobchak says ...

****SPOILERS*****

DISCUSSION FOR THOSE WHO'VE SEEN IT....

I love how the main guy acts all pissed off at the military because they won't drop everything to go look for his ex-girlfriend who was trapped in a knocked-over building down right next to where this giant pissed-off monster is... I mean, it's not like they have anything else on their hands...

And the dumb-ass in the helicopter HAD to start talking smack, didn't he? "In your face, shithead monster! How's that taste, beeaatch!? Sucks to be you!....... AAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!" (don't ever do that until you're a safe distance)

And wouldn't you think that once the chopper takes off, it won't haul ass in the opposite direction of the monster? It looks like it's taking a sight-seeing tour of the creature and lower Manhattan...

And per my point earlier.... a giant, 400 foot tall sea monster is chewing the Woolworth building in half, WHY THE FUCK are you filming your buddy scrounging around in a looted drug store trying to find a cel phone battery so he can call his old girlfriend!?!.... Get your ass outside and film the fucking creature!

Again, the experience worked on me, though. I was physically exhausted by the end of it and my buddy and I got noticeably anxious and heebie-jeepied as we got stuck in the underground parking garage at the Chinese Theater. We went to Trader Joe's afterword and I walked around the store all jumpy and nervous as if it had all actually happened. And I wasn't even high.

comment #15

christian says ...

Yes, the nicest military guys in the world.

The fact that Rob expects the commander to listen to him for more than ten seconds about one person trapped miles away while new york falls is part of what I didn't like about the film. Unless the commander would have said, "Hey Facebook jr., maybe you haven't noticed but about 10000 people are already dead out there."

comment #16

carla kolchak says ...

Well, the so-called Facebook generation is, by its very nature, self-absorbed, isn't it? So why be surprised that Rob would expect the military to go rescue his beloved one-night-stand?

For me, yeah, the characters were the weak element. I just couldn't find one to identify with, so I didn't really care if they got stomped to shit by Clover.

comment #17

christian says ...

"So why be surprised that Rob would expect the military to go rescue his beloved one-night-stand?"

I'm not surprised, but the script shouldn't be either.

comment #18

carla kolchak says ...

I think Rob's surprise was natural (as a member of that aforementioned self-absorbed generation).

comment #19

Edward Havens says ...

I love how they were able to make it from Lower Manhattan to Hell's Kitchen to Grand Central to near the UN Building and back over to Central Park, all in less than six hours, almost always on foot. I also love how the monster always seemed to be going exactly where this one group of people was going, as if it had some kind of symbiotic connection to them.

The monster probably died just after Rob did, because it had nothing left to accomplish. I'll bet the monster took one of those rocket launchers, put it in its mouth and pulled the trigger.

comment #20

Walter Sobchak says ...

That visual made me crack up, Edward... Too funny.

I like that they didn't try to offer an rhyme or reason to the attack.. no shots of Scientists conferring or anything like that.... but in hindsight it does seem rather comically random.... the next morning when they're in the helicopter taking the sight-seeing tour and the stealth bomber flies over (good thing they used the B-2, lest the giant sea squid is equipped with infrared imaging radar), the monster looks cool and scary but slightly hilarious, too....

so for the past six hours this ill-tempered beast has done nothing more than howl and shed spiders and smash things up in lower Manhattan... "We don't know where it came from or why it's here, but goddamn is that thing pissed off about something!"

comment #21

jeffmcm says ...

Not only was it unbelieveable that Rob would expect the Army guys to drop everything and look for his f*&(buddy - It was unbelieveable that the Army guys would stand there and let Douchebag Jr. talk to them for more then half a second in the middle of an extreme crisis.

comment #22

carla kolchak says ...

'Not only was it unbelieveable that Rob would expect the Army guys to drop everything and look for his f*&(buddy - It was unbelieveable that the Army guys would stand there and let Douchebag Jr. talk to them for more then half a second in the middle of an extreme crisis.'

And how does the level of unbelievability of those instances compare to the level of unbelievability of a huge freakin' sea monster coming ashore and trashing Manhattan? ...Just for argument's sake. ;-)

comment #23

jeffmcm says ...

The answer to that is, the monster is part of the essential premise of the movie. You accept that going in, just like you accept that Luke Skywalker lives long ago in a galaxy far, far away, or that there could be such a thing as mutant turtles who are also teenagers and ninjas.

After that point, the behavior of the characters has to conform to the reality level established by the style of the film, the dialogue and camerawork, etc. Since Cloverfield established itself as taking place in a more 'real' world than, say, the very Hollywood worlds of The Day After Tomorrow or Independence Day, it had to live up to higher expectations of behavioral realism than those movies did.

comment #24

Craig Kennedy says ...

So...the head of the statue of liberty has just landed at your feet. Are you going to stand around takin' pictures of it with your cell phone so you can post it on your Myspace page (oh wait, the cool kids are on Facebook now?) or are you going to turn around and run like hell in the exact opposite direction from which said head flew?

It's kind of pointless to nitpick, though. Yeah the characters were annoying as hell, the pre-monster sequence was interminable and the shaky camera nonsense is absolutely the worst cure for your first hangover in ages, but it all boils down to whether you enjoyed the visceral "you are there and you don't know what the fuck is going on" experience.

I think I did. Not as much as some of you, but I did. However, I think it has zero repeat viewability.

comment #25

jeffmcm says ...

"it all boils down to whether you enjoyed the visceral "you are there and you don't know what the fuck is going on" experience."

I can agree with that, CJK. I just wish the movie had offered more of that experience than it did, uncontaminated by melodramatic filler.

comment #26

GlassFamily says ...

They were warning people at the AMC Burbank yesterday as well, and with good reason: my wife had to leave the screening about 45-60 minutes in. For what it's worth, she loved what she saw and is pissed that she didn't get to finish it. I stuck around through the whole thing and loved the shit out of the movie. Very visceral, obviously, and a great-ish concept and stylish as fuck outweigh any of the problems I might have had with it.

Afterwards, I went to the restroom. In one of the stalls, there was sawdust not only on the floor, but also on the outside door of the stall. I'm guessing my wife isn't the only one who suffered from a bit of motion sickness.

**SPOILER**

Discussing a few things here that other commenters have left. Rocco, I agree with you on the unbelievability of them surviving the chopper crash. I realize that the only reason that they did it was so that we could see a close-up of the monster, but still this was the one moment that felt like an absolute cheat. I think the haunting image of the inside of the wrecked chopper playing out for a little while longer and then cutting back to the Coney Island stuff (which I saw coming from the first minute of the film) might have been a better way to go. Anyways...

If you stuck around through the credits, there was a bit of a whisper at the end of the film that sounded a bit like "Help us." Of course, when played backwards, it says "It's Still Alive." A good breakdown of it is here: http://cloverfieldmessage.ytmnd.com/ . Shit like this makes me go a big stiff one, so this excited me. It's also worth sticking around for Michael Giacchino's bigger than life "overture" (entitled Roar!) that plays over the credits. It's awesome.

Also, regarding the thing falling into the water at the end of the Coney Island footage, from what I've read in director interviews, it is a Japanese satellite falling into the water, which is what awakens the monster from its slumber. There is an entire ARG involved with this game (fake websites, myspace pages, etc.) that all have clues to the monster and the films backstory. They really don't resonate that much in terms of emotional payoff of the film, just stupid crap for people like me to geek out on...

Sorry this is entirely too long...

**END SPOILER**

comment #27

carla kolchak says ...

1. I guess I was more willing than you were to suspend my disbelief. If I'm gonna accept a monster, I reckon I can accept other illogical things within the film's narrative. Especially in a film of this genre.

2. I thoroughly enjoyed 'the visceral "you are there and you don't know what the fuck is going on" experience', too, but I also didn't mind that the pace slowed from time to time. (Did I care about the 'melodrama' of the characters? Not one whit. Didn't care if they all got squershed like bugs.) For me, the monster sequences worked great because he wasn't onscreen all the time. When he did show back up again--whoop--adrenaline would lift me right outta my chair.

3. I thought it stood up just fine in a repeat screening.

comment #28

Craig Kennedy says ...

Like I said Carla, it's pretty useless to nitpick (even though I was doing just that).

I do wish the characters had been slightly less irritating (barring that I wish we could've seen them suffer more) and I do wish I didn't have a hangover.

comment #29

carla kolchak says ...

Well, God knows there's bound to me at least one sequel, so they'll get another chance to come up with some characters we'll actually care about.

And you were insane to go to that movie with a hangover, hahaha!

comment #30

Craig Kennedy says ...

It's not so much that I didn't care about the characters, this wasn't a European arthouse character driven drama after all, but not actually hating them would've been helpful.

Once the monster showed up, it didn't matter anyway, but those first 20 minutes would've been nicer.

I know Christian's answer to this question, but did anyone else really dig Michael Giacchino's "Roar" theme that played over the closing credits?

Did I just use the word 'dig' in a sentence without a trace of irony?

comment #31

T. Holly says ...

I wasn't scared, nauseous or amazed, and it'll look great on your computer via Netflix... (I'm so confused by Inland Empire right now). Let's not take JJ "Lost" Abrams too seriously; he's larfing his arse off (at us).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/17/AR2008011703554.html

comment #32

jeffmcm says ...

Carla, I had absolutely no problem with the fantastical, monster-oriented elements of the film. The things that I had a problem with believing were the realism of the conceit of the movie (handheld home video etc) intersected with Hollywood cliche/contrivance (love triangles, monsters showing up whereever the characters are etc) resulting in a movie that was unbalanced and violated its own internal logic.

Ironically if it had been cheesier, like Godzilla 2000, I would have enjoyed it much more, but there was also an unfortunate pretentious streak to the movie involving its desire to make a statement about the meaning of life and love through its annoying characters.

comment #33

carla kolchak says ...

'The things that I had a problem with believing were the realism of the conceit of the movie (handheld home video etc) intersected with Hollywood cliche/contrivance (love triangles, monsters showing up whereever the characters are etc) resulting in a movie that was unbalanced and violated its own internal logic.'

As far as the 'cliche/contrivance' of the monsters showing up wherever the characters are, seems to me there wouldn't be much of a movie if they didn't. ;-) But I'll certainly agree that Rob's determination to rescue Beth and Hud's dogged pursuit of the affections of Marlena despite, ummmm, MONSTERS TRASHING THEIR WORLD, was painful to watch. I think I do understand what you mean about the violation of the film's internal logic, though: if this is supposed to be "real", then the characters should behave in a more "realistic" way. And I'd've preferred that too. Frankly, that is exactly where I think Blair Witch succeeds and Cloverfield fails.

comment #34

T. Holly says ...

The way news about Rob and Beth circulated the party, was the audience's cue to route for whatever shit was going to happen to them. The monster was a cute, chubby legged, wobbly walking, crying baby, probably looking for its mommy. 3 steps and it had Manhattan covered side to side, and it had nowhere to go but north, so it wasn't following the kids, it was coincidence that they traveled as the same rate of speed. Hmmm, if Rob, Lily, Hud and Marlena get to Central Park in X hours... which dinosaur.... Did you care about anyone in Jurassic Park?

Cloverfield feeds off of affluent 20 somethings self-importance and their budding love/hate relationships, anti-governmentism and a love the sinner soldier, hate the war internal logic.

comment #35

christian says ...

Dead on, Holly.

I just get less impressed the more I think about the screenplay. The need to relive the tension with inapropos tv-style jokes while under post 9/11 attack ("there's some serious shit going down"). The film's biggest potential theme about the disconnect from media to experience is lost, possibly because even the filmmakers don't get it. BLAIR WITCH sure did.

Yet there are awesome cinematic moments in CLOVERFIELD that will live in my genre film mind forever. And I'm happy to see a big studio film embrace a style/marketing subtlety not usually seen.

comment #36

T. Holly says ...

How many times can I say "better?"

It was probably as long as a Shane Black script, and if it were any better, it would need bigger-buck actors. To revisit the Spill review, was it better than sex? The characters in the movie thought so. If they were old enough to know better, they'd have run. The big sex scene was when the four of them were hyperventilating (was it on the subway platform?) Since they weren't and didn't, it needed a Romeo and Juliette through-line. And, the government?, it went to war with the wrong monster and had no plan.

comment #37

rocco says ...

Interesting how the flaws of 'Cloverfield' have seemed to revitalize the reputation of 'Blair Witch,' which had been written off as a gimicky flash in the pan. People now recognize some true innovation and creativity there.

comment #38

kily2008 says ...

Oh, so nice discussion, and so reasonable comments Everyone should check out my upcoming show with my fabulous friends!. Check out my website! http://multiraciallove.com for interracial love and relationship