CLOVERFEILD

[Kooshmeister]

It is a bit like the pathetic attempt in the first Jurassic Park to create an air of mystery, when we all knew that the dinosaurs were on the loose.

Erm, the dinosaurs get loose long after we've learned about them, and there's no beating around the bush about it in the script.

I think you mean, "when we all know InGen is breeding dinosaurs."

And anyway, if that is what you mean, I fail to see what's pathetic about it. Admittedly in hindsight, Jurassic Park hasn't got much dinosaur action compared to more recent films (especially the two sequels), but I rather liked the slow buildup in the first act. It works because the story hops to and from different locales introducing different characters, as opposed to, say, staying at the same party with the same characters for twenty minutes straight.

[Stabby Joe]

Looking around on the net, I'm confused why everyone is so "high" on this film.

For a monster movie lover such as myself I am very interested by everyone else? Puh...

[Mr. DS]

They're actually going to make toys of the creature I hear.  I'll probably go out and buy that over the DVD.

[Shadow]

They're actually going to make toys of the creature I hear.  I'll probably go out and buy that over the DVD.

http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/ProductsByCategory.htm?CD=2&ST=SO&ID=21030&PG=1

It took them forever to release the toy's image.

[KYGOTC]

They're actually going to make toys of the creature I hear.  I'll probably go out and buy that over the DVD.

http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/ProductsByCategory.htm?CD=2&ST=SO&ID=21030&PG=1

It took them forever to release the toy's image.

HOLY CRAP DEMONS! they're asking A HUNDRED BUCKS  for it?! No way!

[hdjanks]

wait till they get overstocked, and notice no one buying them, there be super cheap. 

[KYGOTC]

wait till they get overstocked, and notice no one buying them, there be super cheap. 

Good point...Lets cross our fingers.

[Mr. DS]

Yes indeed...I think perhaps waiting a year will see a 75% mark down.

[Patient Zero]

Sorry I'm late (by 2 months) but I think it's time I gave my opinion on the film.
When a project as excessively hyped as Cloverfield appears on my radar, I approach it with enthusiasm, but a nagging voice always appears in the back of my mind that this movie may not be all it claims to be, and it may end up just like Spiderman 3 (a competent but ultimately dissapointing film) or I Am Legend (a movie that wouldn't be so bad if it hadn't completely missed the point of Richard Matheson's excellent novel).
Twenty minutes into the movie, and those voices shut up.
Cloverfield is a masterpiece. However, it is a very different sort of masterpiece than one usually comes to associate with the term. It tears down the rules of how to make a film, and builds its own. Some people may not be comfortable with...
#1: the wobbly camera,
#2: the lack of explanation for the monster, or
#3: the seeming banality of the acting.
These elements, in my opinion, actually add to the experience because...
#1: The unstable camera increases the sense of chaos, the feeling that a steady world is falling apart before our very eyes. Also, If you were there, trying to record the entire city of Manhattan crumbling under the siege of a giant monster, would you be able to keep the camera steady?
#2: The lack of explanation for the monster is also realistic, because if you were among the throngs of panicked New Yorkers, seeking a way out of the city (or, in the case of our protagonists, a trapped loved one) you probably wouldn't come across a scientist saying "Okay, people! This is what happened!" Furthermore, leaving such a question open to the viewer will keep people talking about the movie long after it has left theaters, much like the unknown contents of the suitcase in Pulp Fiction.
#3: The acting reinforces the notion that these are regular people, of the sort you might meet at a prom or college campus. You can't come in expecting the sonnets of Shakespeare from those people.
I feel that if Cloverfield was shot in a traditional (third-person) perspective, it would have diminished the film considerably because it would set up a barrier between the viewer and the events occurring onscreen. The viewer would be secure in his/her knowledge that he/she was stitting in a perfectly secure movie theater where the worst thing that could happen to you would be to step in something sticky. By shooting the film from a ground-level, first-person perspective, that barrier crumbles, and as death comes steamrolling down Times Square, every "Holy crap!!!" shouted by the characters becomes our own.
The only reason I am giving this movie a 9 instead of a 10 is because, as I said before, Cloverfield is not for everyone. Not every filmgoer (or said filmgoer's stomach) will be confortable with the unconventional direction Cloverfield takes in the making a movie. If you fall in that category, that's okay. There'll be plenty of other good movies coming out this year for you to watch. As for me, I give major Kudos to J.J. Abrams and Matt Reeves for making the film Godzilla (1998) fervently wanted to be.

[indianasmith]

Great Comments, PZ!!!!!

[CheezeFlixz]

Yeah I'm late to the thread, but I just saw the film.

Spoilers follow ... be warned.

In short it was OK, that's what I said it was just OK. My wife heard people left the the theater terrified, some people puked and it was just that scary and I said I've got to see it. So with great excitement I found one un-rented copy in my town after hitting 3 rental stores, so I grabbed it and with my prize I ran home and waited until late and popped it in, snack and drinks at the ready. So there I sat in front of the electric glow of the big screen with glorious 7.1 surround sound and began watching it. WHAT? 20 minutes into the film I watching a going away party ... WTF? Then finally some action and the entire premise of this film and some guy so tore up over and piece of tail he had to go find her, never mind the fact there is a 300 monster dropping killer babies everywhere destroying everything and every one in it's path ... are you kidding me? I've had some nice tail in my day, but nothing worth running into a 300 monster for, none. Sorry been nice knowing you, but there is a 300 foot monster on the loose, good luck. Now if you've seen it you know it's filmed in a Blair Witch style ... sorry for an entire film it's annoying. I little is ok to convey action, movement etc... but a entire movie is to much for me.

I think the opening scene went on way to long and the character development of the monster was nil. Where did it come from and what happened to it? (Yes, I saw the thing go into the ocean at the end.) Nor was ever really explained why someone will blow up if bitten by a parasite. (Ok maybe they didn't know.) But I didn't see anything worth all the HYPE. As I've said it was OK, it wasn't everything that it was hyped to be. Nothing in the film was that scary, that terrifying, that groundbreaking, that nail biting that it deserved that much hype, it built some pretty big shoes and failed to fill them.

What I found interesting was that the director said that he was in Japan an said we (America) had nothing like Godzilla, and we needed a monster of our own. I think he was having visions of marketing and the royalties that come with it. Well Mr Director we, U.S. Americans (a la Ms SC) don't have a monster of our own? Hello, King Kong, Frankenstein (ok not our book but we gave him life), Alien, Predator, Rosie O'Donell and many more? What he means to say HE doesn't have a monster HE can market and sell little Cloverfield monsters to the masses.

Overall it was OK, worth watching again but I'm not sure it will become a icon of American cinema. Maybe I'm being to hard on it.

I'll give it 3 out of 5, I just don't think it lived up to all the hype, with less hype it would have been a better film. I just don't like HYPE that fails to deliver. 

[AndyC]

Tough to judge this one. I just saw it myself, and I have to say that it probably wouldn't have been nearly as good without the documentaries on the DVD to expand on the filmmakers' intentions.

The hard thing is that the style of this movie precludes any of the sort of plot development and exposition we expect. It's a monster movie from the point of view of the people on the street, who are traditionally just seen running away. That is an interesting take on it, but it leaves out so much, and it made for a pretty disappointing ending. I almost want to see a sequel done as a more traditional monster movie.

The impression I got was of a theme park ride, and I suspect that is where they've been intending it to lead all along.

What seemed weird to me though, was that the monster always seemed to be wandering around wherever the main characters happened to be. Thirty storeys or not, he should have been easier to avoid than that.

[The Burgomaster]

I bought the DVD and watched it a few nights ago.  I liked it, but didn't love it.  I think they could have cut down about 10 - 15% on the shaking camera stuff and it would have been easier to watch without losing much of the "you are there" apsect.  But it did have its share of creepy moments and "did I just see what I thought I saw" chills.  So, I guess this gets a "pretty good" . . . maybe 2 1/2 to 3 stars out of 4.

[KYGOTC]

I bought the DVD and watched it a few nights ago.  I liked it, but didn't love it.  I think they could have cut down about 10 - 15% on the shaking camera stuff and it would have been easier to watch without losing much of the "you are there" apsect.  But it did have its share of creepy moments and "did I just see what I thought I saw" chills.  So, I guess this gets a "pretty good" . . . maybe 2 1/2 to 3 stars out of 4.

I'm tellin' ya man! Shoulda seen it in theaters!

[The Burgomaster]

I'm tellin' ya man! Shoulda seen it in theaters!

I know.  I wanted to, but I never got around to it.  I'm sure it was better on the big screen (as most movies usually are).