buckee1

Absolutely loved this film!!!! Saw it on last week and am ready to watch it all over again!

IDrinkMolson

I haven't got to see this yet, but my brother-in-law saw it yesterday and he started getting sick!

LOL, he's such a wuss.

JumpCutz

Saw it today. It was beautifully realized despite the obvious constraints. Some of the 'amateur' camera work contained some pretty stellar shot compositions.

The sound blew me away as did the special effects.


I was also lucky enough to see this in an almost empty theater.

3.5/4

B5Erik

Surprisingly, my wife wanted to see this one as much as I did. We both liked it a lot, but the shaky hand cam thing got to her a bit.

The monster was freaky - I don't know that I actually like the design, but it is one of the freakiest things I've ever seen in a movie, so props to the guys who came up with that one.

The movie had some genuine scares in it, and it was a little more intense than I expected. I'd love to see a straight sequel to it (not POV camcorder stuff) just to show the rest of the story.

Lara Means

I watched Cloverfield this evening and pretty much hated it. I don't see how anyone can call this movie "incredible." Cloverfield isn't about a giant monster destroying New York. It's not even about a bunch of people trying to escape the city while it's being burned to the ground. It's about a bunch of characters, that I didn't give a shit about, run around the city to rescue Rob's girlfriend. The party scenes were some of the most obviously scripted and poorly acted moments in the entire movie. It's hard to care for them when they're annoying the living piss outta you.

I was really excited about this movie when the trailer came out. The premise definately got my interest. Unfortunately, it did not execute well at all. The horrible characters ruined this movie for me.

lotsofdvds

Wow...

B5Erik

Well, I thought that the party sequence at the beginning could have been better scripted (I agree that most of the characters were annoying), and should have been about 5 minutes shorter.

But that wasn't a deal breaker for me. The rest of the movie was one hell of a roller coaster ride, and had some pretty cool visuals - and the characters kind of grew up quick (and got a little more sympathetic) as the situation got worse.

I'd rate it a 3 1/2 out of 5 (and I'd give it another half point/star if they could have steadied the camera just a little more - not a lot, but just a little).

Lara Means

Wow what?

You're supposed to experience these events with this group of four as if you were there with them. If you don't have a connection with these characters or give a shit about them then it doesn't really matter what the hell they are going through. I understand people are going to say "It's just a movie. Have fun." I don't recall anyone saying that about Street Fighter.

Brack

^^^ Did you not like the type of people that we were around? would you have liked it better if the people were with Greenpeace, or people that "mattered?"

Draven

Couldn't that be said about any movie?

I liked the characters. I felt for them. Their experiences made me think about what I would do in the face of a similar disaster. I was nervous and scared and freaked out right alongside them.

To me, it worked extremely well. So yes, I would say the movie was incredible.

mike2

In concur completely. I finally made it out to Cinemark today. I was excited to see this from all the reviews etc. Well Like Lara, I hated it. I gave it 3 stars out a 10 on imdb. The first 30 mins were boring character developments that really did nothing for the movie. The whole hand-held camera scheme I agree added to the realism of an event like that taking place but surprisingly made me sick. I felt like shit after the movie got out. A few people had to leave the theater. I've heard on other boards that some people experienced seizures.

Don't get me wrong the visual effects were terrific. I'm just surprised this movie did so well @ the box office. I guess because of the misleading trailer?? I won't be watching this movie again that's for sure. I'm sure many of you will disagree but I just felt this movie was horrible in almost every way.

Not to mention the ambiguous ending made it even worse. My .02

Draven

Why are you surprised? Most of us really liked it. 76% on RT means the critics liked it too. And there was absolutely nothing "misleading" about the trailer - something attacks NY and is documented by someone on the street.

Maybe it's you

Trevor

??

CKMorpheus

^^

Yeah... misleading trailer? Huh?

Ambiguous ending? Wha...?

Neil M.

He must have thought it was going to be a comedy.


There's nothing ambiguous about this film. Sure, we don't know anything about the monster's origin but that's sort of the point. We don't need to. It's a rollercoaster ride.

hapgilmore

Good summary, the characters sucked and I didn't care about them at all either. Not to mention the unintentional comedy that came from their "acting"

lotsofdvds

Roller coasters make me sick. I don't blame the roller coaster.

mike2

Odd thing is roller coasters don't make me sick.

I said it was ambiguous because it just ended. That's it. It appeared they were blown up. Ambiguous because well how did the camera survive? And they leave it up to your interpretation of what happened to the monster etc.

Giantrobo

I think many assume the the city/monster was nuked but, and I could be wrong here, I'm not sure that it was. I think they probably used some heavy duty conventional weapons in their "hammer" solution or whatever it was called.

Also, they were under a bridge so maybe the camera was saved under the rubble in a nice pocket of space. you know, when you think about it, all they needed was the tape intact so even if the camera body was trashed the tape could've possibly survived.

All speculation of course...

H8nXTC

I thought they mention somewhere in the movie that it was retrieved from the memory stick of the video camera, so all that needed to survive is the memory stick which is very plausible if nukes weren't used, which they obviously weren't...

Neil M.

To truly enjoy these types of movies, you need to throw logic out the window. Who cares about how the camera survived? You don't need an answer to that question in order to enjoy the film. The characters weren't meant to be fully developed. They were there to give us a reason why we should go into the heart of the city when a monster is attacking. Plus, I think it's more realistic the way they acted. Put a camera in your hands and see how much acting you really do. I didn't once feel as if they were reciting lines from a script. Everything seemed natural to me. The film ends the way it does because that's the end of the tape. There wasn't going to be any closure as to what happened. The camera just stops.

I think you either buy into the gimmick from the beginning or you don't at all. This was a well made film for the type of film that it is. I didn't go in thinking I was going to see a Scorsese masterpiece. I knew exactly what I was going to see and thought it was one of the best popcorn movies in recent memory. The special effects were well done. Suspending my logic, I didn't once feel as if I was looking at a special effect. Everything seemed realistic.

I can completely understand that not everyone will like the film for various reasons. To each his or her own.

Draven

Plus the filmmakers (I believe) made a point to show rubble burying the camera prior to the explosion.

And yes, the DoD info at the beginning claimed the item was a memory card. Which I actually think is a dumb thing for them to include. They wouldn't have gotten the "taped over previous footage" effect from a card. And there is no reason to think that a tape inside a camera covered in rubble couldn't possibly survive an explosion nearby, so it was an unnecessary detail. My one gripe with the film, actually.

RichC2

Just because it was archived onto an SD card doesn't mean it was originally filmed on one... having transferred many a tape/mini-dv to dvds and SDs/MicroDrives. SDs just so happen to be convenient for storage.

Draven

That's a fair point. However, I can't remember the exact verbiage but I want to say the DoD slate indicated that this was a "recovered SD card" or something like that.

If it didn't, I'm going with your theory.

bub2000

The camera shown in the movies is a Panasonic HVX-200. It uses P2 cards, which wikipedia says is a RAID array of SD cards on a PCMCIA card.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P2_%28storage_media%29
Oh, and the camera is about $6000. Must be nice to be a VP.