Cloverfield

[JoeinAR 1,949]

the monster is not a classic monster and will never be deemed as one, it looked kind of cool, but not enough to be memorable.

I didn't stay till the end becuase I thought I was going to puke.

there are numerous problems with the movie.

1. why is it called Cloverfield? If you must go to a website to find out why then that isn't an answer.

2. I've seen the discussion about the camera but its valid. Yes the camera was running for 7 hours in the film, not 90 minutes and batteries cannot run that long, nor can the camera record that long. Also it survives a nuclear blast, without the memory being wiped, or the camera not being crushed. Also why would anyone go into ground zero of a nuclear blast to retreive a camera that no one knows is there.

3. where did the creature come from, the supposed last scene doesn't answer anything. This film seems to have an enormous word of mouth issue, half seem to like it, few loving it, and half despising it. Im in the later half.

4. The Star Trek teaser teaser was so bad, it sets the bar even lower than Nemesis, which was so low, and yet it was the highlight of the movie going experience.

5. If the little monsters can be killed with an axe, why can't the big one be killed by a bomb. which brings the question

6. Why use the B-2 bombers when B-52's are stationed closer, are faster, carry more bombs and don't cost 2 or 3 billion dollars a piece, obviously because it looks cooler.

7. If these are the filmmakers that the future of movies hands are in, GOD HELP US.

[Rienzi0711 0]

1. why is it called Cloverfield? If you must go to a website to find out why then that isn't an answer.

I haven't seen the movie, but I've read that the monster's footprints look like clovers or cloverleaves, hence the codename "Cloverfield" for the incident. I don't know, it may be apparent only in a one or two scenes.

fsb

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

2. I've seen the discussion about the camera but its valid. Yes the camera was running for 7 hours in the film, not 90 minutes and batteries cannot run that long, nor can the camera record that long. Also it survives a nuclear blast, without the memory being wiped, or the camera not being crushed. Also why would anyone go into ground zero of a nuclear blast to retreive a camera that no one knows is there.

Watch the film. It goes for 90 minutes, not 7 hours. The camera was running for as long as it had been filming. I don't understand why no-one can grasp this simple fact.

As for the nuclear blast - what nuclear blast? I don't recall any indication of the city being nuked. It was only bombed. The retrieval could have come years after the incident, when the are is being cleaned up.

3. where did the creature come from, the supposed last scene doesn't answer anything. This film seems to have an enormous word of mouth issue, half seem to like it, few loving it, and half despising it. Im in the later half.

Where it comes from is not part of the plot. Who cares if we never find out? It gets people talking, and speculating.

4. The Star Trek teaser teaser was so bad, it sets the bar even lower than Nemesis, which was so low, and yet it was the highlight of the movie going experience.

You can judge that from a 30-second trailer? 10 seconds of which was actual footage, which may not be in the film. Oy...

5. If the little monsters can be killed with an axe, why can't the big one be killed by a bomb. which brings the question...

They aren't the same monster, or offspring. Those creatures are "lice"; organisms which live on or inside the main monster.

7. If these are the filmmakers that the future of movies hands are in, GOD HELP US.

If you're the type of audience that the future of movies hands are in, GOD HELP US.

[Red 75]

From my understand it's called Cloverfield because that's the codename the U.S. government gave the New York area after the incident. Or it could be a name for the incident itself. In any case, it's mentioned at the beginning.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

I think "Cloverfield" is the codename for Central Park, more specifically.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

2. I've seen the discussion about the camera but its valid. Yes the camera was running for 7 hours in the film, not 90 minutes and batteries cannot run that long, nor can the camera record that long. Also it survives a nuclear blast, without the memory being wiped, or the camera not being crushed. Also why would anyone go into ground zero of a nuclear blast to retreive a camera that no one knows is there.

Watch the film. It goes for 90 minutes, not 7 hours. The camera was running for as long as it had been filming. I don't understand why no-one can grasp this simple fact.

As for the nuclear blast - what nuclear blast? I don't recall any indication of the city being nuked. It was only bombed. The retrieval could have come years after the incident, when the are is being cleaned up.

3. where did the creature come from, the supposed last scene doesn't answer anything. This film seems to have an enormous word of mouth issue, half seem to like it, few loving it, and half despising it. Im in the later half.

Where it comes from is not part of the plot. Who cares if we never find out? It gets people talking, and speculating.

4. The Star Trek teaser teaser was so bad, it sets the bar even lower than Nemesis, which was so low, and yet it was the highlight of the movie going experience.

You can judge that from a 30-second trailer? 10 seconds of which was actual footage, which may not be in the film. Oy...

5. If the little monsters can be killed with an axe, why can't the big one be killed by a bomb. which brings the question...

They aren't the same monster, or offspring. Those creatures are "lice"; organisms which live on or inside the main monster.

7. If these are the filmmakers that the future of movies hands are in, GOD HELP US.

If you're the type of audience that the future of movies hands are in, GOD HELP US.

better me than an undecerning one like yourself. And yes they do nuke the place, its referred to at least once

[QMM 4]

They never said anything about using nukes in the movie. The final explosions are pretty much confirmed to be carpet bombs since one explosion goes off prior to the last lines of the movie followed by more (as well as the name Cloverfield, apart from being the codename for the case is also hinted at as being a military term for carpet bombing)

[JoeinAR 1,949]

they state at one point in the movie they are going to carpet bomb and if that doesn't work...

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

"They'll flatten the city".

Open to interpretation, isn't it?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Dammit Joe, still going into threads with that negative attitude!

Enjoy the movie for what it was. Your arguments are very weak, I had more concern with the running time of the camera rather than the strength of the monster or whether someone in the movie said nuke. Seriously, who cares? Does it really make a difference whether how strong the monster is compared to the smaller ones? No, and the smaller ones are parasites like magical me said. The huge ass monster is the host. This was evident before the movie even came out, with all the viral marketing.

In reference to where it came from, just look at the last shot of the film. Something splashes in the water, it is believed to be a fallen satellite that awoke the dormant beast in the ocean. This hints at a sequel, which will most likely be made considering it's already grossed double it's budget.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Dammit Joe, still going into threads with that negative attitude!

Enjoy the movie for what it was. Your arguments are very weak, I had more concern with the running time of the camera rather than the strength of the monster or whether someone in the movie said nuke. Seriously, who cares? Does it really make a difference whether how strong the monster is compared to the smaller ones? No, and the smaller ones are parasites like magical me said. The huge ass monster is the host. This was evident before the movie even came out, with all the viral marketing.

In reference to where it came from, just look at the last shot of the film. Something splashes in the water, it is believed to be a fallen satellite that awoke the dormant beast in the ocean. This hints at a sequel, which will most likely be made considering it's already grossed double it's budget.

kdog, stfu, who are you to tell me to like a piece of shiite movie, all of you who liked it fine, Im not telling you not to like it so don't tell me I have to like it,

the movie is a flaws piece of crap, and Im not surprised so many of you here like it, especially you newbies

and kdog I don't see your arguments are strong, but then you are weak in everything you do.

[John Crichton 4]

Put me very solidly in the "I liked it" camp. That was the best disater movie I've seen in years. JJ Abrahms and Drew Goddard make a very solid team.

I loved Giacchino's piece at the end too. It honestly could have done without the warbling, but that is more than made up for with all the wonderful low string and brass action.

[Ollie 1,059]

Based on the dialogue one would get the impression they nuked the city. But there were 2 blasts.

I must be blind because I knew something was going to splash in the water and I still couldn't see it.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I didn't know what to look for. My friend told me to pay close attention in the very last shot, but I had no idea what it was going to be. I might see it again this weekend for free just to pay attention to that last shot, and of course to enjoy Giacchino's score. This rip I'm listening to is just terribly aweful.

[Jamesyboy 3]

Well, to hopefully shed some light on the question "why the name Cloverfield", the local newspaper here (North County Times) had a film review on it, and in the review, they said the name "Cloverfield" was the name the movie producers (JJ Abrahms etc) used as a "cover-up" name to keep the project under wraps and unassuming. But the name just stuck, and worked it in. I unfortunately already recycled the paper, so I'm trying find the review on their website. If it's found, I'll post it.

As for my vote, I loved it! Saw it Sunday afternoon (while the Chargers were playing <_< ) and that's all I thought about for 2 days. Just brilliant.

Any new news on Roar!? Must have it!!!

Jamesyboy

Here:

"Originally, "Cloverfield" was reported to be nothing more than an early working title, derived from the name of a street that JJ Abrams has an office on or near."

Jamesyboy

As for what it means in the film:

"More recently, "Cloverfield" director Matt Reeves explained in a USA Today article that - within the context of the story itself - "Cloverfield" is the codename of the military operation dispatched to battle the monster.

(Cloverfield, incidentally, is the name of the military operation to stop the monster, though that's not spelled out in the film.)

(This is - according to one theory - because the three-toed creature left giant clover-shaped footprints all over Manhattan, making it look like a "field of clover," which is as good an explanation as any, although not confirmed. There are many other interesting fan-created theories for the appellation, all with credible reasoning.)"

Jamesyboy

Here's more:

"The producer J.J. Abrams says, "The concept for the monster is simple. He's a baby. He's brand-new. He's confused, disoriented and irritable. And he's been down there in the water for thousands and thousands of years."

And where is he from? "We don't say deliberately," notes the writer, Drew Goddard. "Our movie doesn't have the scientist in the white lab coat who shows up and explains things like that. We don't have that scene."

The film does give us clues. You can clearly see an object flying into the ocean behind Rob and Beth in the closing shot, though Abrams has stated that this is a satellite, which was part of the marketing campaign for the film"

Jamesyboy - who should've saved all this up for one post...

Here is something for all us figure freaks:

"http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41117"

...but no photo...even the toy is elusive...

Jamesyboy - $99.99...is someone gonna pay that?!?!?

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Wow, you never heard of the "edit" button?

Thanks for the info nonetheless.

[Ollie 1,059]

Here is something for all us figure freaks:

"http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41117"

...but no photo...even the toy is elusive...

Jamesyboy - $99.99...is someone gonna pay that?!?!?

I've paid more for some of my Godzilla figures. So yes I can see myself buying this figure if it looks good.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

but Mark, Godzilla looks cool, this thing doesn't have a look that will make it one of the classic monsters

[Ollie 1,059]

That's why I wanna see the picture of the figure before I decide anything...<_<

Couldn't see enough of it in the film to get a really clear picture.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

but Mark, Godzilla looks cool, this thing doesn't have a look that will make it one of the classic monsters

And what exactly is the look that would make it a classic monster? Godzilla was a giant lizard, King Kong was a giant ape, this is actually detailed and unique.

[Ollie 1,059]

but Mark, Godzilla looks cool, this thing doesn't have a look that will make it one of the classic monsters

And what exactly is the look that would make it a classic monster? Godzilla was a giant lizard, King Kong was a giant ape, this is actually detailed and unique.

Godzilla is not a giant lizard and has a very unique look to him.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yeah that is true, but I was just trying to prove a point. I just don't see why this isn't original enough to become classic.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Probably because no-one can remember what it looks like. Not because it's not memorable, but because we don't see enough of it in the film. Also, with its various biological functions such as the air sacks, it may be too detailed to become an iconic figure.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I like your point about it being too detailed. Seems the most iconic are the most simple. I mean everyone will eventually know what it looks like in it's entirety. A detailed model is being made and sold for $99. So my guess everyone will know what it looks like in due time.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Yeah that is true, but I was just trying to prove a point. I just don't see why this isn't original enough to become classic.

no you posted a mistake, call it what it was.

I suppose you could be given a break seeing as you may be more familiar with Godzilla with Matthew Broderick, Godzilla was an iguana in that masterpiece

[Ollie 1,059]

This is no iguanna.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

no he's not, but this one was

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

kdog, stfu, who are you to tell me to like a piece of shiite movie, all of you who liked it fine, Im not telling you not to like it so don't tell me I have to like it,

the movie is a flaws piece of crap, and Im not surprised so many of you here like it, especially you newbies

and kdog I don't see your arguments are strong, but then you are weak in everything you do.

[David Coscina 3]

I like the Cloverfield monster. It looks neat. My feeling is that Abrams and co. wanted to completely get away from the lumbering Godzilla or even Nick Tatopoulous' bastardization to avoid lawsuits.

[Ollie 1,059]

True, any type of walking upright creature would be too close to monsters already created.

This is something completely different.

[Red 75]

I always thought the original Godzilla looked more like a dragon of sorts (without wings of course).

[That_Bloke 115]

I liked Cloverfield. kept the suspense up real well. Was really truly ruly scared, and concerned for the plight of our protagonists (um.. the humans, not the beasties). the lack of both explanation and resolution at the end made the film that much more chilling and effective for me. I saw the monster at times as a 9/11 metaphor. I didn't get the impression that the "hammer down" was a nuclear thing - I thought it was a massive use of non-nuclear arsenal. and at least our two lovers were able to declare their love for each other before they carked it at the end.

I was impressed by the monster and its parasites. I thought the parasites looked like mini versions of those foot-soldier beaties from Starship Troopers. I missed the satellite falling in the background of the last shot so will have to check the film out again - I'd happily pay to see it again (on which I suspect the makers are counting). Now that JJ Abrams has said the monster is a baby I understand why it hovers over Hud just before it chomps him: it behaved like some curious baby checking out some new discovery.. and one of the things babies/toddlers tend to do is stick things in their mouths.

And I really liked the homage of the end credits music.

As for those of you who disagree: well vive la difference!

[Taikomochi 1,136]

I'm pretty sure no one has posted about the viral marketing. I did a search for the word "Tagruato" so I assume not.

Here's my summary of the info given in the viral sites(it's very helpful!)

In the movie, they never tell you where this monster comes from. Well, the production notes tell us it was born millions of years ago in a deep sea trench and has been feeding off a special chemical, growing bigger. Now, this chemical has also been discovered by japanese company, Tagruato, never mentioned in the film. They put it in their drink, "Slusho" which gives it addictive properties. The drilling for this chemical is what pissed off this monster making it come to the surface in the first place. Now, strangely enough, a character, Jamie, who is seen once in the movie, has a boyfriend who works for Tagruato. He randomly disappeared and left her a gift saying that he must have been captured by Tagruato and leaves her the chemical labeling it "Primary Evidence". Thinking it all a farce, Jamie eats the chemical. Through a series of video blogs, you can see how, whilst eating the chemical, Jamie slowly becomes incredibly stupid. This all happens before the film.

All at cloverfieldclues.com

[QMM 4]

The chemical is called seabed's nectar

[JoeinAR 1,949]

if you have to go to a website to understand a movie then the movie obviously failed

[Taikomochi 1,136]

nah. I thought the movie was awesome(especially Roar!), even before I knew this.

[Saxman717 22]

Joe, didn't you absolutely LOVE the Star Wars prequels? Especially the ones with Hayden Christensen in them?

It's pretty clear your movie tastes are quite different from many other people's on here, so don't be surprised when people challenge your opinions.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Joe, didn't you absolutely LOVE the Star Wars prequels? Especially the ones with Hayden Christensen in them?

It's pretty clear your movie tastes are quite different from many other people's on here, so don't be surprised when people challenge your opinions.

no I didn't, and Im not debating peoples like for this movie, but the movie must and should stand alone, without the benefit of a website to explain its problems away. That goes for all movies.

people can challange my opinion all they want, I encourage it.

[John Crichton 4]

I think the movie works just fine on its own. It's about those people in the video, the monster is just what happens to them. I'm certainly interested in both the background of the monster and what happens after the video runs out (which would be a great DVD extra), but that's just curiosity on my part and you don't have to know that to enjoy what the movie's trying to do.

[Saxman717 22]

Joe, didn't you absolutely LOVE the Star Wars prequels? Especially the ones with Hayden Christensen in them?

It's pretty clear your movie tastes are quite different from many other people's on here, so don't be surprised when people challenge your opinions.

no I didn't, and Im not debating peoples like for this movie, but the movie must and should stand alone, without the benefit of a website to explain its problems away. That goes for all movies.

people can challange my opinion all they want, I encourage it.

Oh, sorry --- I guess I am thinking of some other posters on here --- if you don't like the prequels much too, we're on the same page there

Not with Cloverfield, though I had a small headache afterwards, but the next day, I reflected on the film and realized that I REALLY liked it and wanted to see it again.

[Ollie 1,059]

The film worked as a stand alone piece of entertainment.

[Rienzi0711 0]

if you have to go to a website to understand a movie then the movie obviously failed

It's not like the prequels where you have to go to the EU to find out why Grevious coughs all the time, or why Anakin is all mad at Obi-wan in AotC and then he's all happy to work with him in RotS.

And to the poster who first brought up the viral marketing... Jamie is a stupid whore.

"I've been captured by this company called Tagruato--"

"OMG your cheating!!!" (that's how it would look online)

fsb

[QMM 4]

The film worked as a stand alone piece of entertainment.

Yeah I'm not really understanding Joe's argument here.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

I think the movie works just fine on its own. It's about those people in the video, the monster is just what happens to them. I'm certainly interested in both the background of the monster and what happens after the video runs out (which would be a great DVD extra), but that's just curiosity on my part and you don't have to know that to enjoy what the movie's trying to do.

well, the credits provide some clues, which I'm sure you watched. The little static noise at the end says "help us" and if you play it backwards it says "it's still alive".

[King Mark 3,631]

I was wondering what they said

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Just saw it today, and liked it. It was pretty consistently suspenseful once things got going. And no, you don't have to know any backstory to enjoy the film, it's just something extra to have fun discovering if you liked the movie. Oh, and Giacchino's end credits piece was pretty cool.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Indeed it was, I'm still waiting for Erik to bring us some good news.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Yeah, and I don't understand the criticism of the female vocals; did people not understand that it's supposed to be akin to the over-the-top theremin effect from old monster/sci-fi films?

[John Crichton 4]

If so it would've been better with an actual theremin.

[King Mark 3,631]

The shaky cam was annoying the first 10 minutes.I got used to it after a while