*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

Want to see the monster? These are renderings of the monster by people who have seen the film, they vary a bit but you get the idea. The first image is said to be the closest. They're good works by the way, not doodles or anything.

It looks pretty bad ass too.

Cloverfield Update: Fans Draw the Cloverfield Monster! | FilmSchoolRejects.com - Giving Hollywood The Business - Movie News, Reviews and Opinions

Thanks Zack.

If those are pretty close then I have to say that it looks great. Definitely a very different take then other monster films like Knowles states.

Did you happen to read the comments on that page? One person said it is the "stupidest looking monster ever" because it doesn't look like something that could really exist. He then states "when is someone going to make a monster movie with a monster that looks like it could exist." Crazy people I tell yea, it's a fictional movie with a fictional monster... what more do you want?

Can't wait to see this but, I'm not sure if I'm more excited to see the movie or the Star Trek trailer that will be attached to it.

Defintely there this weekend, three day weekend for me and wanting to see this one since the first trailer. Zack, great site if the monster looks like the first picture, then I must say some great imagination was put in place here. Not your typical prehistoric dinosaur, or a take off of any the old time giant monster film, just simply new and original. Can't wait.

I actually had a nightmare the other night inspired by the trailer for this movie, it's nothing I can really describe just a series of random images and visuals but there was a monster in it that started out small and friendly and then grew to gargantuan proportions and became mean.

As much as I want to see this, I'm not over the fact that they kept that damn title. As a fake codename, it was great because it made no sense and kept people guessing. As a real title, it's terrible because it makes no sense and is just plain stupid.

But if the movie's great it doesn't matter what it's called.

Thanks for the shakycam update. I guess I might be able to stand it if I saw it from the back row, but I don't think I'll take the chance... :frowning:

Seems like a very short film, too. My theater is wedging in 6 shows a day on one screen, when they usually only have 4-5. They list the running time at 84 mins.

Malcolm beat me to it. The film is only 85mins long, 73mins sans end credits. Perhaps it's merciful I don't think I could have sat thru 2 hours of shakycam.

Variety has a review up -

Cloverfield Review - Film Reviews-New U.S. Release, Entertainment - Variety

sounds like a solid rental from NetFlix to me. I can almost live with the shaky camera on my 50 inch screen, anything bigger id need some Dramamine.

From the Variety article What about N.J. , sounds like an opportunity for a sequel depending on the success.

I went to last night midnight opening. Saw about half of the movie and left feeling I was going to barf. Thing upset my stomach for a few hours. The only other movie that has made me this sick because of the "shaky-cam" was Bourme Supremacy (I had no problem with Bourne Ultimatum, which is why I thought I'd be OK with this one. But no.). So I'll second the alert for those susceptible to motion sickness.

I saw it last night, row 7 at the Cinerama in Seattle. Not even 5 minutes in I started feeling nauseous. About an hour in, I was in the bathroom puking up my granola bar from earlier. After that, I watched the rest and did ok.

But the movie? Enjoyed it a bunch. Bring earplugs!

I agree. I just read the article that describes how the codename came from a street near the studio, but the street was Cloverdale. But it's just laziness on their part to not rename it.
Sure, the name Cloverfield had plenty of internet buzz, but it makes no sense as the name of this movie. It's like they didn't have the balls to rename it for fear of losing the internet buzz. Remember when there was the rumor it would be "Monstrous". That would have been fine. I bet "Monstrous" was the plan until they realized that the name Cloverfield just had too much buzz to risk it.
Another thought... Since there is some brief talk of a sequel (in an interview by bloody-disgusting), JJ Abrams could just as easily work the word "Cloverfield" into the sequel. As if Cloverfield is relevant to the attack, but just not relevant to our protagonist's point of view therefore it doesn't get into the movie.
Or don't be surprised if the word "Cloverfield" comes to have some strange vague mention in this coming season of Lost. Boy, would that make the fanboys go crazy!

It's funny that a theater patron came in just before the movie started saying it could be nauseating for some and they had barf bags ready in the hallway if we needed them. LOL.

Anyway, I didn't have any problems with the shakycam because I guess I was prepared for it. Unlike in regular movies where it seems distracting, for Cloverfield it just felt natural.

As for the movie itself, I really liked it. It was edge of your seat excitement as soon as the monster attacked NY.

Also, it may be just me, but every time the best friend who was holding the camera had a one liner, I just pictured Seth Rogan in my mind whenever he said them. Of course it was a different actor but it just seemed like Seth Rogan could have delivered them just the same.

yeah, it's my first 2008 release I've seen this year (still catching up on some 2007 releases) and so far it's my favorite.

I hope the Internet crowd (kids mostly) who were so excited to see this but will most likely just "download" it will actually get off the Internet and watch this movie where it was meant to be seen: on the big screen!!!!!!

What's amazing is that, like Patrick said, the entire film is seen from only one point of view yet it manages to be 100 times more involving and thrilling than, say, Godzilla '98, which isn't hard let's face it but still, it shows just how truely pathetic that film was.

I also loved the little touches of "recorded over" footage that occasionally pops up, it contrasted perfectly what was happening in their lives then as opposed to what was happening now, peace mixed with chaos.

I don't know how to rate this. But I'll say this. Whatever Matt Reeves and J.J. Abrams sought to achieve with Cloverfield, they fucking nailed it and then some.

Does anyone know what camera was used for Cloverfield? Image quality was too good to be a regular but expensive standard def camcorder. It did have night vision and a pretty powerful lamp. Definetely 24p.

LOL, I did wonder that, too, but the movie was so good that I just chocked it up to one of those things your not supposed to think about.

It definitely doesn't feel short. By the time the movie ended, I was pretty much exhausted.