'Cloverfield' backlash?

Dylan Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 07:26 PM EST

I LOVE THIS MOVIE! Cloverfield was AWESOME and the backlash is from mostly the stupid people who bother to place reviews on Fandango.com, the people on there complain about the great art-house and indie flicks. praise the sucky mainstream flicks, and in almost every review, they say exactly this: "Why can't Hollywood come up with something new and original?" Well, here it is people and now you complain you want the same exact sh** you complain about, the regular stuff. I'm asahmed I used to review on that site even after I saw what they had to say about some of my favorite movies(Atonement, Blair Witch, and a million others) Anyway it is a FANTASTIC film, one of my favorites, and Michael Stahl-David, Lizzy Caplan, and Jessica Lucas are already some of my favorite actors, watch out for them in the future. Great movie, not so great movie taste from the people who complained. There should be no backlash on this film AT ALL

NeilV Tue, Feb 5, 2008 at 07:35 PM EST

Absolute Beautiful Movie. 10+ I seen it twice. Those who hated it just missed the point. The point was realism. I believe special effects has finally reached that point. Also the shaking of the camera only added to it's greatness. I just can't wait until they make the next Godzilla movie with this kind of special effects. I assure you they will. This is a start of a new kind of monster movie. I do admit I wish it was longer but what a hell of a ride. I love a movie that keeps you at the edge of your seat. Cloverfield Rules

Lulu Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 05:36 PM EST

This movie had a 10% drop in earnings after the Friday opening as the first bad word of mouth spread. The subsequent 70% drop in sales that followed no longer matters - the movie earned back all productions costs opening day, and moviegoers who fell for the shiny ad campaign are out their hard earned ten bucks. It's a jerky thing to pass of a crum bum movie as a mysterious secret just to lure folks to the theater. But if you fell for the ruse and spent weeks endlessly blogging over this lousy movie then you have nothin' to cry about. Learn from your mistakes and stop falling for gimmicky ad campaigns. And next time you get all a twitter about some mysterious January movie that you swear is just the bestest, do us all a favor and keep the "secret" to yourself.

Nick Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 03:44 PM EST

Jeremy said it all. Thanks, man!

http://thelittlestwinslow.wordpress.com

Fanny Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:52 PM EST

January is a dumping ground for bad movies. The Cloverfield folks created empty buzz to get viewers in the seat opening weekend so the studio can make some of their money back on this dog. And people fell for the media hype, just as they did with "Snakes on a Plane," junking up the net with dimwit blather over an obvious marketing ploy. I hope this is the last of the cheesy, over-hyped "event movies" for a while, at least until next January.

Jay Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 01:32 PM EST

With all the hype it created, my wife and I went to the movie. We could bear the movie for only 40-45 minutes. My wife puked over and I was nauseous. Guess the credit goes to the ugly camera work. I should've read reviews before going to movie.

First person shooting the film with a shaky camera? Doesn't sound a good idea now !

Nathan Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 10:40 AM EST

Just saw Cloverfield last night and it was a lot of fun. I don't expect masterpieces with monster movies. It's funny, it's intense, and it's 80some minutes of a good time. I found it more entertaining than The Host.

Lisa M Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 08:17 PM EST

I'd say there is a big blacklash against, considering that it's Friday total ($4.1 million) is a 75% decrease from it's first Friday total. Box Office Prophets predicts that it will get $12.8 million for this weekend. That's a big drop from $41 million.

Michael Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 02:02 PM EST

C'mon people, it's just a monster movie! It's a GREAT monster movie, but still just a monster movie. No need to get your back up if you didn't like it. Sure, the camera work made my wife sick as hell, but it was fun, a little bit scary and had some great visuals. If you don't like it, fine, but why do people NEED it to fail just because it wasn't their taste in film? Stupid.

Jeremy Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:36 PM EST

What disappoints me is the fact that there are so many movie-goers out there who say they want something NEW and DIFFERENT in their entertainment, but when Hollywood gives it to them, they complain and demand the comfort of a cookie-cutter, seen-it-a-hundred-times, typical, glossy Hollywood flick... come on people, did you REALLY want GODZILLA all over again?

SplitEnz Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:04 AM EST

Nearly every movie these days relies on the first week, even the first weekend, to make its money and the writer of this article would know this. I have seen American Gangster and franly I found Cloverfield a much more engaging movie.

Joe Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 05:24 PM EST

I really enjoyed the movie and also loved the fact there are a bunch of tie-ins on the internet.

Jen + Cloverfeld= BFF Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 03:58 PM EST

I have to say that I really enjoyed this movie from beginning to end. I liked the handheld camera, it something different than other movies. But the general concensus is that people really liked it (which is me) or really hated it...

I would like to see this movie do well in the box office because I love JJ Abrams for the sole fact that he created Alias, and for that he will always have my support!

darrin Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 03:50 PM EST

gary if you thought this movie was terrible than your taste in movies is terrible. really how did you get this job?

Mike in Moncton Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 03:47 PM EST

By the look of all the comments on this thread, I'd say there isn't a real backlash at all. Cloverfield was a big success in its opening weekend, and what does the press love to see more than something rise? To see the same thing fall. EW is guilty of that too.

I've lost all faith in this "Cinemascore" BS.

Brevity Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 03:39 PM EST

I was motion sick for over a day but I still recommend the movie. It's a great piece of film making with effects seemlessly blending into reality. This is the first true you tube movie and perhaps tough to watch on the big screen. I'd guess that this film will be lot more popular on the small screen.

helen Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 03:26 PM EST

I liked it! I would (and have) recommend this movie. It was nice to see a movie that was clasically 'scary' without having resoring to lopping someone's head off or some other bloody unneccesary effect!

Eric Friedmann Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 03:05 PM EST

Kerri, this ridiculous "shaky-cam" method of film making is the whole reason I've stayed away from director Tony Scott's last few movies and why I hated THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM.

Kerri Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:51 PM EST

I really wanted to see this movie until I heard about all the shaky camera work. For someone who was fighting nausea through Babel, and the 2nd & 3rd Bourne movies, that was enough to convince me not to spend my $10. Having to spend half the movie in the hallway or bathroom or with my eyes closed doesn't make for a good movie experience. I know it's an artistic choice, but can't they choose another technique that doesn't make people too sick to watch the movie?

Manuel Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:43 PM EST

The movie represented a different experience and a very entertaining one (if you knew that you couldn't sit in the first 15 rows of the movie theatre). I don't consider it crap, it's certainly a lot more interesting than Godzilla was and it doesn't provide all the answers like I nicely made Hollywood movie. The internet obsession alone was worth the curiosity level and I found the experience awesome.

dsven Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:53 AM EST

I enjoyed "crap" like Cloverfield, and Oscar-worthy flicks like No Country For Old Men, Atonement, etc.

Sometimes you want filet mignon, sometimes you just want a greasy burger. To each his own, I guess.

Michael Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:41 AM EST

The movie was good and entertaining, plain and simple. That was the way you do a monster movie. If you wanted some deep thinking story go see There Will be Blood or Old Country. This was well made, intesnse, and fun.

Eric Friedmann Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:34 AM EST

dsven, life's too short to watch crap!

dsven Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:15 AM EST

Eric, I would value your opinion more if you had actually seen the movie, and not just the trailer.

Pretty hard to intelligently debate the merits (or faults of something) that you haven't seen.

(and "I've seen the trailer, that was enough", doesn't really cut it)

Eric Friedmann Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:11 AM EST

People, for crying out loud, wake up!!! Do you really think something like CLOVERFIELD is real moviemaking? Real cinema! All of you who were stupid enough to pay good money to see this are a victim of a cruel Hollywood joke, as far as I'm concerned. It's Hollywood's job to treat their audiences like they're stupid by making this kind of trash! You pay for it and they get rich! Stop feeding their "cash cow" pockets by paying to see garbage movies like CLOVERFIELD. You want to see a real classic alien invasion/destruction movie? Check out the original 1953 George Pal version of WAR OF THE WORLDS. That, my friends, was a movie!

dsven Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:10 AM EST

I liked it. Not a classic, but it did what it set out to do. I'm guessing the people who didn't enjoy it had no idea what type of movie they were going to see. Do some research people!

For those who want a traditional, big budget, Hollywood-ending style monster movie, go rent the cr*ptastic 1998 Godzilla remake.

Syd Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 05:20 AM EST

Why does Joe Bell even get to have a voice in this matter? He's no special than anyone else. Cloverfield is, however, better than everyone. Well, everyone I know. It is easily the best movie to watch at the theater right now. I agree with the one critic quoted in the commercial: This is what going to the movies is all about. If you can't handle watching it, you don't deserve to see it.

Belle Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 03:10 AM EST

For all the people talking about the way that they stayed to save the girl, bug off. If my fiance or best friend even had called me begging for help I would have turned around. No doubt about it. And I know some of my friends that would have come with me simply because they would not be able to let me go alone in good conscience. Just because you would leave your loved ones alone to die doesn't mean eveyone would.

Paul Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 02:12 AM EST

This is for those who have complaints with the ending of the movie because they can't believe it ended the way that it did. Going into the movie from the opening scene, it said that the footage was found in Central Park. Not given to them. Not that they found people with it. Just the footage, I mean to me and the 70 or so people I saw it with at my theater where I work, knew that was a pretty clear indication that it wasn't going to be a happy ending. And it was realistic, well as much as a rampaging monster movie could be. We knew what they knew and I thought that added to the thrill. Be it a sea-monster or from outer space, I think the movie followed through on its hype. And like Ricky said a few comments down, we all remember "Godzilla". I can honestly say I didn't care who lived or died in that movie. But I was pretty bummed when the characters started dropping in this one. To all the people genuinely interested in seeing it, I say go, its original and you don't get that often.

Alan Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:39 AM EST

I thought it was a great movie--just the perfect popcorn movie, although I popped a Gravol (Dramamine to you americans) before going in as a precaution (had no problem with Blair Witch, but for some reason the handheld camera work in Once made me want to retch). I was amazed at the effects--not of the monsters per se, but of the integration of the realistic "hand-held" cinematography and the explosions, creatures, and a crumbling NYC. I wouldn't be surprised if it got nods for several technical awards at the Oscars next year. I heard they're planning a sequel--I don't know how they'll do it, but if it's as good as this one was, I'm there!

bb6634 Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:39 AM EST

I enjoyed Cloverfield, and admired the film maker's approach. The backlash regrading the hand-held video/ you-are-there perspective doesn't make sense: Isn't that why you went to the movie in the first place? Seeing something new? or, rather, something old (monster rampages through city) done in a completely new way? (A friend of mine dubbed it the YouTube monster, which in many ways, it is.) If I have a problem with the movie it's with the oh so hip vacuous twenty-something characters. Didn't give a flip about any of them.

Ricky Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 12:29 AM EST

I thought Cloverfield was amazing. It was original, paced well and I think it delivered on all the hype... which is hard to do with a movie that's hyped that much. I think the people who "don't get it" should maybe go rent Godzilla, cause we all know what a great monster flick that was... lame.

Ben Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 12:22 AM EST

I applaud the filmmakers for taking a risk with a formula that certainly has its limitations. Sure, it doesn't have the, "Oooh, this could have really happened" feeling you got from Blair Witch, but I thought it did a great job of putting you in the thick of things, filling you with the dread that consumes one who is face to face with their mortality. Maybe not 100%realistic as far as character decisions go, but still, it was fun to watch. Anyone suffering from motion sickness is a big effin sissy, by the way.

Ben Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 12:22 AM EST

I applaud the filmmakers for taking a risk with a formula that certainly has its limitations. Sure, it doesn't have the, "Oooh, this could have really happened" feeling you got from Blair Witch, but I thought it did a great job of putting you in the thick of things, filling you with the dread that consumes one who is face to face with their mortality. Maybe not 100%realistic as far as character decisions go, but still, it was fun to watch. Anyone suffering from motion sickness is a big effin sissy, by the way.

labrat Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:02 PM EST

Very well said, April! I kind of liked the fact that we didn't know anything that the characters didn't know. It was almost like you were in their group. As for the queasiness, yes I was one of those people with motion sickness. Even reading in a car gets me sick. It didn't detract from the movie for me though. It's my own fault since I should have learned from Blair Witch Project to take the ginger pills first.

April Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:50 PM EST

I enjoyed the movie -- it was quite fun. That said, it was quite obvious that not everyone in the theater shared my feelings for it. There were a bunch of "that's it??!!" at the end.

As for most complaints, I thought the previews did fairly well showing audiences what to expect in terms of video quality and whatnot. As for the complaints about the ending and lack of information, well...the very beginning of the movie should have clued you in about that. The movie is supposed to be footage that was on a tape found on the location of the incident site. Right then you should know it's not a "normal" movie. The audience never experiences the movie outside of the main characters' perspectives. We only know what the characters know -- and unfortunately, when they don't know, we don't know either. Why does every single movie element have to be handed to you on a plate? And yes, some parts of the movie are unrealistic (saving the girl)-- but so is a giant monster, so get over it.

aa Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:37 PM EST

saw it today at a matinee and i liked it. the monster was scary and the camera action made it seem like you were watching footage not a movie. my only complaint would be with the acting. the focus was on boring and wooden rob & beth when it should have been on slightly less wooden jason & lily or marlena & hyde who were kinda fun.

Joe in Philly Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:43 PM EST

Well, the jittery camerawork didn't make me nauseous. The acting did. The characters did. The plot -- or lack of one -- did.

But what I found really distasteful was: one building crumbles straight down and a massive dust/debris cloud poured down the street -- just like the Twin Towers, except on 9/11 planes crashed into the towers, and the jet fuel-powered fires weakened them, causing them to fall. In this movie they showed nothing that the monster could do that could have caused a similar collapse. As far as I could tell all it did was smash things (such as the trapped woman's apartment building, pushed sideways and leaning against the other). Having a copy of a 9/11 collapse and debris cloud was gratuitous. Perhaps it was because of Abrams' belief (as stated in the EW article) that "a monster movie could be a 'safe and fanciful way' to process post-9/11 jitters" -- ummmm, no. Not remotely.

BJohnson Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:08 PM EST

I am old..all 32 years of me. I didn't pay to see it. I see money. $25-30 (movie plus refreshments) for 2 hours of something I may like, in a theater that maybe filled with the generation after me, just said no. I love spoiler websites that save me the hassle. For a movie that sounded like a hit or miss hoping for the internet hype that worked, I'd rather put that money in my gas tank.

Lisa M Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:24 PM EST

I was really excited about this one, but I was really let down. The big problem was the secondary plot, about rescuing the ex-girlfriend. In the movie The Host, a far superior monster movie (which actually had interesting characters, unlike this movie), things happened. It wasn't just that the daughter was captured by the monster and the family just headed straight for the sewers (where she was being held). Everyone gets put in decontainment, a call comes on the dad's cell phone from the daughter, the family escapes to rescue daughter, the uncle tries to locate where the daughter cell phone signal is, etc. It wasn't like in Cloverfield, where the characters tried to rescue the main character's ex-girlfriend and that was the only thing that happened in the movie. Not to mention the ending. I feared it would end that way and everyone in the audience at the theater felt ripped off.

Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:15 PM EST

Get a grip Phil. It is only a movie.

Kyle Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:11 PM EST

I enjoyed Cloverfield. I thought the introduction gave plenty of time to get used to the camera work. Then again, I've had plenty of experience working with a camera, so I definitely understood the shakiness and thought it was pretty accurate given the catastrophic setting. I also think that the comparison of "Blair Witch Project meets Godzilla" is a bit demeaning, it was better than both of them.

k.gschwind Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 07:59 PM EST

I don't think this is the second coming of Star Wars, but Cloverfield hit the nail right on the head. The camera work is annoying when someone falls down a stairs (duh), but this movie gets an A+ from me.

Bernard Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 07:55 PM EST

A) Count me in the "loved Cloverfield" column.

B) Do anyone in their right minds think that Paramount and Bad Robot give a rats arse about a 2nd week drop given that Cloverfield made close to DOUBLE it's production budget in its first weekend? Puhleeeeeese. LOL

Bernard Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 07:55 PM EST

A) Count me in the "loved Cloverfield" column.

B) Do anyone in their right minds think that Paramount and Bad Robot give a rats arse about a 2nd week drop given that Clovierfield made close to DOUBLE it's production budget in its first weekend? Puhleeeeeese. LOL

Jeff M. Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 07:18 PM EST

The movie was great. Incredibly original.

J. Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 06:29 PM EST

It was a decent 3-star movie. I'd watch it again. The only time I had motion sickness was in the beginning, but you should be able to acclimate to it after awhile.

Matt Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 06:18 PM EST

I really loved Cloverfield, but can't help feeling a little unsettled by the blatant use of 9/11 imagery. But there's just something about it that I just can't put my finger on at the moment. I don't know if it was the lack of information or what. The ending was a real downer, almost nihilistic. I haven't felt this strongly about a film in a long time. As for the film taking a sharp drop this weekend, I wouldn't bet on it. There are gonna be so many people going back to catch the things that they missed or look to confirm all these conspiracy theories that the film should come close to matching last week's amount.

As for the shaky camera complaints? I don't get it. I saw the film twice last weekend and wasn't affected at all.

Sean Collins-Smith Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 06:17 PM EST

I thought Cloverfield was pretty great. If you didn't know it was going to be shot with a camcorder, then you must've been living under a rock for the last 5 months. Seriously, read an article people. Great movie that learned from "Jaws" by showing the monster in limited amounts up until the end. And the humor was excellent.

Todd Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 06:12 PM EST

I think the CinemaScore grade might be a bit overblown and maybe in large part to the motion sickness factor. If CinemaScore is what I think it is and gets people's opinions as they leave the theater, those slightly seasick patrons may give it a worse grade because they dont feel too good. But when they start feeling better and reflect on the movie, they'll realize it was a lot better than they might have said it was directly afterward

Devin Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 05:38 PM EST

I thought it was entertaining enough, even though I did feel a little queasy at the end. It knew what it was and it didn't try to be anything more. It's certainly not the greatest movie of the year, but it was fun.

Mike in Moncton Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 05:30 PM EST

K, I actually saw this film with my wife last week. I went into it knowing about the shaky-cam, homemade feel kind of thing and that there was no score, it took tips from the likes of Blair Witch and that it is basically the antidote to I Am Legend, which is another great show.

I don't give a crap how much money this movie makes, I enjoyed it and I think people knowing what they're going to be seeing would too. If you're looking for a finesse Spielberg film, forget it. Though the plot (YES THERE IS ONE...pay attention) sure makes me think of Saving Private Ryan. And that's a good thing.

This is a film built on unconventional methods, and if you don't sit far enough from the screen knowing about the shaky cam thing, then blame yourself for the motion sickness. Other than that, pop a Gravol and get over it.

That subway scene gave me the heebie jeebies and it still does!

And YOU describe the monster. No one sees it long enough to give a very detailed description.

LadyTiger Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 04:57 PM EST

I'm 36 and so is my husband. He liked the movie a lot. It gave me a headache and made me feel old! The obnoxious teens sitting behind us (see, I AM old) seemed disappointed as well, because right when the movie ended, the girl said very loudly "SERIOUSLY? That's the end? What a load of *#bleep#@!"

Robbie Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 04:36 PM EST

Whether you loved it or hated it, the producers and the studio just made back their investment and then some in the first weekend. They will continue to make profit in the next few weeks, and then DVD sales...They got people talking and debating it, so I think they accomplished their goal. I personally thought it was good, though I found I appreciated it more once I started reading other people's comments and reviews bashing it and over-analyzing the movie. Remember, it's a MONSTER movie, not Atonement.

R.C. Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 04:34 PM EST

I loved what I saw of the movie. But I did have to leave because I was so nauseated. I wish they did a version that was less motion-sickness inducing.

Susie Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 04:19 PM EST

I think the stylistic choice was what made the movie so effectively terrifying (as well as nauseating). The previews clearly showed what the quality of the film was going to be, so unless you managed to miss the previews, don't complain about the hand-held camera, please. I think the movie was awesome and my only dissatisfaction with it was that there was so little information about what was happening. However, I'm willing to forgive that in leu of artistic choice.

bmer2k Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 04:19 PM EST

this is a good movie. a not typical hollywood film that you know it's always a happy ending. from my own point of view, i think the film was exqusitely put together.

Phil Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 04:18 PM EST

Matthew thank you for providing the links, but I'm not a registered user. So I can't actually see what you're referring to, and I GUESS I could register and sign up but again thats work I shouldn't have to put in for ANSWERS I already wasn't provided. I'm not being grumpy. Usually I'd have no problem going Oooh OKAY! Let me see whats going on! But I am trying to speak as a voice of many out there, that I shouldn't have to ask u or ANYONE to direct me to answers that weren't provided. And I'm sorry I didn't make myself clearer to you earlier. That is the (MY) problem with CloverField. GREAT concept, horrible execution.

Dave Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 04:01 PM EST

I really liked this film, and I hope that they are just as innovative in creating a sequel. Perhaps they could take footage from another group and tell another story, with or without some reference to the characters in this movie. They could even relate the same event from different points of view--police/military, political, etc. I found the movie more involving than most of the movies I have seen in the past 3 years.

Matthew Cruz Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 03:52 PM EST

Phil:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/board/nest/95620607?p=1

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/board/thread/95403747

Consider yourself schooled.

AA Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 03:51 PM EST

Hey Seth, loved your posts. Me, I liked it despite my stomach disliking it. The ending was personally my favourite part. It's nice to have a non-"Hollywood" ending every now and then.

Seth-Continued Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 03:30 PM EST

4. and you need to believe in the people that are getting checked off by a giant monster that's destroying Manhattan--then you needed to see a different film. I went for an experience: what would it be like if this happened to me? (oh, look... I'm being self-absorbed, like a twenty-something)
5. If you wanted a traditional movie with monster-sized reveals about the monster, then you need to go and start a blog about how much you hated "Godzilla" (yes, the 1998 version!).
6. But my general point is: not everyone has to like and/or love Cloverfield. But because I knew what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish, I left fully satisfied. Escpecially with "ROAR!" But people will gripe when they don't get what they want. I only wished they had the decency of not liking a film for a legitimate reason--like the stomach issued. But I guess I won't get what I want. And that's all right.

BassSinger Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 03:28 PM EST

I did get motion sick and could watch most of the movie and eventually had to walk out. Then I went to see the end of 27 Dresses instead. It felt like a quiet happy lake in comparison.

Seth Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 03:11 PM EST

Okay. I've read a lot of these comments and I'd like to chime in:

1. J.J. Abrams went to Japan to promote MI:3 and noticed how much Godzilla is imprinted in the Japanese culture even though there's not a movie coming out or anything and wondered why America didn't have any such persisting creatures--so he called his childhood friends (Matt and Drew--the writer and director) and asked them to tackle this idea--so he does deserve credit. and i found this info on an interview on comingsoon.net
2. People have a right to feel queasy at the film. A friend of mine who was ill after Blair Witch Project didn't feel too bad after Cloverfield. However, he is allowed to get dizzy.
3. Addressing BWP issues: what makes Cloverfield "better" is not that it's innovative, it's that it expands the ideas in BWP. We see the the effects on a grander scale through the eyes of someone who lived it.
4. It doesn't matter if you think the characters are believeable if you went to see a monster movie

Jonathan F. Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 03:04 PM EST

I'd give the movie a B or a B-. I'm a big fan of the hand-held camera action. I'd have rated it better had they not shown the damn monster a la Blair Witch, because that is truly what made the latter extremely terrifying - the not knowing what you're seeing. All-in-all though I enjoyed the experience.

Ep Sato Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 03:03 PM EST

Once I heard it was "blair witch meets godzilla" I lost all interest. That said, the talk of potential motion sickness will probably draw in the teen crowd. At most I'll give this movie one more big weekend, but by week three my guess is that this movie'll be long gone.

Jim Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 03:03 PM EST

Why does everyone have to be one extreme or the other. People who don't like it should realize that just because they don't like it doesn't mean the movie shouldn't be seen by anyone. And vice versa (but less vice versa, because it was amazing and you should definitely see it).

Becky Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:59 PM EST

For all those who can't understand how some people can get sick from handheld camerawork, this is for you: many people like me, prone to more headaches than the average person, cannot watch the shaky handiwork in Cloverfield, the last two Bourne movies, etc. They give us an instant migraine plus severe nausea--it has something to do with us being stationery but the screen moving so much we might as well be on a ship in the middle of a hurricane. We're not imagining things--the pain is TERRIBLE.

amah Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:53 PM EST

Oh, man. Double post. Sorry guys.

amah Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:52 PM EST

I actually viewed Rob's phone call from Beth on the bridge as the reason he was still alive, as well as Lily, Hud, and Marlena. His brother had already run ahead for a better look and the others started to turn back once he started shouting about Beth. Jason (his brother)started to turn back too, but just not in enough time. Without that phone call *poof* movie over in 20 minutes.

Also, I kind of let a sarcastic "Oh FANTASTIC" slip out when Hud died because I knew Rob or Beth would pick up the camera and they weren't as experienced with this running-from-terror-while-filming business (though it was Rob's camera). Hud's camera skills actually got better throughout the film.

amah Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:50 PM EST

I accidentally saw Rob's phone call from Beth on the bridge as the reason he was still alive, as well as Lily, Hud, and Marlena. His brother had already run ahead for a better look and the others started to turn back once he started shouting about Beth. Jason (his brother)started to turn back too, but just not in enough time. Without that phone call *poof* movie over in 20 minutes.

Also, I kind of let a sarcastic "Oh FANTASTIC" slip out when Hud died because I knew Rob or Beth would pick up the camera and they weren't as experienced with this running-from-terror-while-filming business (though it was Rob's camera). Hud's camera skills actually got better throughout the film.

djgreghaus Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:50 PM EST

I thought it was great... even better than the Korean monster-mash "The Host". The audience I saw it with applauded at the end. I don't see a major backlash happening.

Thad Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:43 PM EST

not impressed. if you saw the trailer, don't bother.

Phil Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:36 PM EST

By all means Matthew please SCHOOL us uninformed people who have seen the movie. You claim to KNOW where the monster came from and how it got there. PLEASE share. I'm sure I'm not the only person who wants to know!

Angel Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:31 PM EST

This whole "sick from the camerawork" thing is just like Blair Witch Project. Nothing new- some people can take it, some can't.

tia77 Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:26 PM EST

SPOILERS:
Beth wasn't just a one night stand, they said at the party that he had loved her since college (that's years of pent up feelings to dwell on). He had just lost his brother and he wasn't going to lose the Love of his Life as well.
Also, I loved that this was all in First Person. We only got to see what the characters saw... If you let go of your preconceived notions you can be right there with them, as scared as they are. You also leave the theater knowing exactly what they knew. No more, no less. I thought it brilliant.
And to those who say the monster shrinks, the last shot of it was from directly below and scale is much harder to judge at that angle, not to mention the monster was leaning down on his front legs.

jlegend369 Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:26 PM EST

This movie was one of my top three movies of all time...and I've seen thousands!!!! I LOVED IT!

Matthew Cruz Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:20 PM EST

Phil...
1) Rob took a long time in the subway to consider his brother's death. He even had to tell his mom it happened. And, come on, he loved Beth! It was obvious and nailed into our heads (the flashbacks). These are supposed to be people - and in disasters, people only think about those who matter. At the moment, Beth mattered most.
2) This film CAN be enjoyed by everyone; but it's really for those who followed the marketing. I personally have been since July and I know where the monster came from and how it got there, etc. That's great for me - and hearing Abrams confirm it is a satellite (for us, again, because most people didn't even seen the splash) was a nice touch, I think, on what I already knew.

Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:16 PM EST

Uh, for everyone crying about the self-absorption of the characters- have you ever even been to NYC? Look around mid-town, downtown, anywhere and notice just how self-absorbed the young people indeed are. All the neo-yuppies living in NYC need to be so in order to survive professionally. Duh. The characters' lack of personalities in the movies made it incredibly realistic to me!

And why are so many people sick from this type of camera work? I think the people complaining may possibly be a bunch of googly-eyed pansies.

Joey Jo Jo Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:03 PM EST

This is why I always check rottentomatoes.com before watching a movie. One reviewer said, "Don't bother to watch it if you're over 30." That was enough for me. Glad I didn't waste the money or the time.

Dan (continued) Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:01 PM EST

...iot.

Amelia Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:59 PM EST

I need to add:
I don't understand how this movie can make so many people feel sick. My mom is 53 and did not get any sick feelings (and she can get bad headaches). Whatever, I guess some people are just uber sensitive.

Dan Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:59 PM EST

at the very beginning, the titlecard says this footage was found. not given, no confiscated, but found, so i knew right at the beginning that they were all going to die, but that in no way spoiled my love for this film. sure, Hud was annoying at times and i started to get pissed when the camera wouldn't stay on the monster, but after a while, you just have to go with it. otherwise, if it bothers you that much,leave and ask for your money. it gets annoying to read everyone on this talkback discuss what they would have done differently as a character (or writer)or the shakey camera. do the producers of every film that comes out now need to hand out a synopsis of what they're about to see to prepare as they enter the movie or can we, as educated, media-savvy consumers just get in, sit down, shut up & watch and take away from it what we can? if you can't handle a movie like this, then stay at home, watch American Idol and quit your bitching, cause it just makes you sound like an id

Phil Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:58 PM EST

Matthew Cruz....

1.The movie is 84 minutes in length with the credits rolled! The 72/73 minute mark is when the camcorder ends.
2.*SPOLIER* The characters are pathetic. Rob stops to talk on his cell on the Brooklyn Bridge cause his 1 night stand, who he didn't call back & showed up at his going away party earlier in the night WITH ANOTHER MAN (who btw looked REALLY GAY) who he didn't care nough about in the past month suddenly has a change of heart & has to go back for her? And cause he stops his OWN brother DIES. He doesn't EVEN care his brother is dead. he wants to go back for the sudden-love-of-his life? UNFATHOMABLE.
3. The splash is seen on the film, but thats the point, Abrams confirmed its a satellite?? WHO CARES!!! WHY SHOULD HE HAVE TO CONFIRM THAT IF PEOPLE PAID $10 TO SEE HIS MASTERPIECE? If you pay you shouldn't have to read something somewhere ELSE other than in the alotted movie time for an answer. Thats my point.

Amelia Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:57 PM EST

I loved it! It was a great popcorn flick to have in mid-January. I liked the hand-held camera, which made everything seem all the more real. I also liked how there was nothing 'added' to the video, such as music, which would make it seem fake. Rock on "Cloverfield"!

Nathan Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:53 PM EST

I loved it! Thought it was very authentic because of the 'amateur' style filming. The effects were also a lot better than I expected. It was the fun I expected to have at Transformers and didn't. I also sat close to the front and felt no sickness at all.

Lee Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:50 PM EST

The movie was all right--there were some points where I felt the characters were being a little too stupid. The atmosphere and pacing to build up suspense were really good. I read a review that said the movie would have been better if it compiled "found" footage from multiple sources instead of focusing on just these characters and I have to say I agree--that would have really made the movie a lot more revolutionary. Mostly, I felt I like I was watching "The Godzilla Project"

Matthew Cruz Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:38 PM EST

Why is everyone whining about 9/11 with this film? I didn't hear complaints when New York was blown up in "Heroes" or completely wasting away in "I Am Legend."

I feel badly for people like Eric F. This movie was fun - and that's saying a lot when you look at what else is playing.

Matthew Cruz Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:35 PM EST

Uhhh Phil...just a couple of notes:

1) The movie itself was only 84 minutes. Hud turns off the camera several times. A video cam can last 84 minutes. Batteries nowadays can last almost three hours.
2) I've had plenty of calls in Spring stations...don't know where you live.
3) Self-absorbed characters are unbelievable? I wouldn't expect anything else from twentysomethings. Besides, they even had that nice line: "Forget the world and hang on to those you care about."
4) The "splash" at the end was confirmed by Abrams to be a satellite - not the monster.
5) JJ produced the movie; it was his ideas. He deserves credit, too.

TanziTwo Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:34 PM EST

Overall, "C" is about right.

- B average - for plot, innovative aspects, terror development.

- D average - for excessive jiggle cam, lack of monster, too short in length.

ABC's "NYPD Blue" had the jiggle cam too and told their camera peeps to deliberately swing, shake, dart in-out, zoom in-out, to make more drama for the show, I avoided that program because of that. Seems like C-Field is in the same category. I don't mind that the camera bounces and is out of focus when the cam-man is running in terror. What I hate is when the camera unnecessarily zooms in and out and left and right to "ADD DRAMA", particularly when nothing of note is happening on screen and cam-man is not out of breathe, etc....

Sean O'Heir Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:28 PM EST

Brooklyn Bridge scene - scariest part of the movie.

Eric Friedmann Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:24 PM EST

LOL! I almost feel bad for anyone stupid enough to waste their time and money to experience nothing more than a sick feeling in their stomachs. I wish you could all take your money back and put a dent in Paramount's grosses. For me, it only took one look at the trailer to convince me to stay far away from this kind of sh*t! Why is it, only seven years after 9/11, that Hollywood still wants to make movies where our American cities are destroyed and people are killed? Is this kind of cheap, second-rate-special-effects-no-story-whatsoever moviemaking all that is left in the cinema today? Apparently, yes!

Renee Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:17 PM EST

All other monster movies are from the perspective of the major people involved in the crisis; such as the president, an army general etc. I like how this movie shows the crisis from the perspective of the extras. I thought the movie was great but then again I am biased because I am a huge JJ Abrams fan.

ellejaygee Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:17 PM EST

Um, Nix, regarding "i'm 31, a little too old for these things."

I'm 36, and I LOVED it! Speak for yourself.

RightNextToMars Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:15 PM EST

All my friends like it, but I think a C sounds pretty accurate. It was a brilliant concept that was completely wasted with (purposefully? can't tell) vapid characters and an annoyingly stupid plot. I think the movie is a feat of marketing more than anything.

Been there done that Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:14 PM EST

Can someone please explain to me what's so new and inventive about this film? I seem to recall a film a couple years back. It was about a couple of twenty somethings being chased in the woods by some mysterious monster/witch/ghost/force. It was shot with a hand held camera, and the film had no real resolution. In other words the audience doesn't know what really happened to the characters. Huh - sounds a lot like this film. Twenty somethings chased through city by a mysterious monster. Not the same local but young people being chased. Shot with a hand held camera. Yep just like the other film. Abrupt ending with no real resolution. Yeah that's just like the other film too. Even the low budgets are alike. So please what's new and revolutionary about this film again? Because I could swear I've already seen it and it was called The Blair Witch Project. Oh wait I know it’s new and revolutionary because this time there’s a real physical monster.

Rick Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:12 PM EST

Well I was happy to be entertained for 98 minutes. If I don't want to be entertained, then I would have stayed home and watched TLC. Yes a few scenes with camera moving around can make you a little sick. Here is a test. Go rent and or get out your video camera. Take it to a party. Give to someone. Now watch that tape. Well asside from the lack of quality. You will see some of the same quirks that you saw in the film. Bad shots, stupid shots, etc. The problem with people who get paid for the opinion on movie is they get paid. They don't know how to be entertained. If the critic would learn to simple go on the ride an not worry about the number of sets or how long it is, then they would get more respect. That's said, the last Godzilla movie sucked.

Rebekah Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:57 PM EST

I really liked the movie. Granted the shakey camera can make it hard to watch in some parts. I loved the whole concept of the movie though. I thought the filming of it was great, if you were a person in that situation you would have cell phone video coverage of it or a cam corder. The film was meant to give you the sense that you were there, that you were the one running for your life. I have heard people complain that they didn't explain anything at the end. I loved that. If you had experienced that event, and died, you wouldn't know anything either. I thought it was a real step forward in the film industry. It gave movie goers something different, something more than just your average romantic comedy or teenage horror movie where a person gets an e-mail then they die. It was a reinventing of the King Kong monster movie genre. I guess you just have to appreciate all movie styles to really appreciate the film.

Gringo Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:53 PM EST

most of the people i've seen/heard complaints from seem to only be complaining about the motion sickness. if they saw the advertisements and/or read the reviews, then they should have known about this going in.

Granted, it isn't the best or even most believable (not that it was aspiring to be...and monster aside, obviously) movie i've seen. but i think people are too far hung up on the motion sickness to get into the film. I'll admit to having felt really dizzy at the start, but i quickly adapted and was able to sit back and enjoy.

i recommend the movie to anyone that doesn't suffer from motion sickness and that has been too emotionally scarred by 9/11

PicklePancakes Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:43 PM EST

I liked it an thought the monster was pretty cool looking. It wasn't the greatest film, but I was entertained. I didn't really have any expectations, though, so that may have been the difference. I also knew that the entire thing was from the point of view of a camcorder--I thought the promos and description of the film made that pretty apparent.

strickens_girl Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:42 PM EST

I don't think age has anything to do with liking this movie or not. My 16 year old daughter saw it with her friends on Saturday and they all hated it. My daughter was sick for the rest of the night and she said the monster looked like a hairless gorilla that was significantly shorter by the end of the movie. And when a 16 year old girl is complaining about continuity issues, you know it's obvious!

I'll be giving this movie a pass since I got sick watching the last Bourne movie. At least that one was worth the headache.

CarrieKat Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:42 PM EST

Cloverfield is a love it or hate it type movie, so I'm not surprised about the backlash. I loved it! I knew about the hand-held camera and the single point of view, so I knew what to expect and really enjoyed the movie. I think it has several "stabilizing" shots that help alleviate the motion sickness thing, and the beginning scenes not only help to establish the characters but also help to get you used to the camera work BEFORE the real action starts. I'm giving good word-of-mouth reviews - "I laughed, I cried, I soiled my pants," meaning I managed to get into the characters' plight, was sad when I was supposed to be, laughed when I was supposed to, and was scared when I was supposed to be. In this day of cell-phone cameras and person-on-the-street film-makers, a REAL monster attack would only be caught this way - a single point of view with a hand-held camera. If it were real, we'd be eating it up on YouTube.

to phil Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:41 PM EST

So JJ and the director accomplished their goal. Youtotally identified with the characters, who wanted answers.
Just cause you want them does not mean you always get them.
THe person who went to see it withme said the same thing, "I want to know where it came from, and what it is?"
I asked him why? How would that add to any enjoyment of the film?
After much searching he realized it is becuase that is what he expected of the movie....cause all of his other experiences at movies gave him answers.
If ther is one thing JJ and crew do well, it is reinvent things. If we as American movie goers were not so pre-programed as to what a movie is...we would not be so reluctant when something new comes along.
So sit back and enjoy, if the shaking becomes too much look at the floor, but cloverfield is something new and exciting to add to the Monster genre.

Lindsey Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:38 PM EST

Does anyone else think that the monster was the lamest thing ever when they showed it up close? Would've been better if they never showed the thing up close, just mysterious blurry shots from far away

Leslie Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:36 PM EST

I liked it, and despite any "backlash" I think it'll still be #1 next weekend. I did get really nauseous, however. Near about halfway through I ended up staring at a spot above the screen so I'd have something stationary to look at, but could "see" the film in my vision. Nevertheless, I think it was a really interesting way to do a monster movie. And, no, I didn't care that I didn't LOVE the characters or know more about the monster. That wasn't the point of the movie. The point was how it would feel to be in their situation, and, boy, did you feel it. I'll be mega-happy when it comes out on DVD, so I can really watch it to see what I might've missed (Especially the scene at the end where apparently you see something coming from the sky).

Kevin Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:35 PM EST

I haven't seen it yet, but it can't possibly be as bad as last year's biggest hyped movie, 300, can it?

Tessa Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:33 PM EST

I was so nauseated from this movie that I had my eyes closed for half of it ... and honestly didn't feel like I missed anything. If I knew that 81 minutes of hand-held camera action, and updated "Gozilla"-type monster, and bad reality-TV dialogue was all I was going to get, I could've Sweded this movie to greater effect.

Phil Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:32 PM EST

And for everyone raving about J J Abrams, I am NOT a LOST fan, have never watched the show, but I don't hate on it. JJ ABRAMS did NOT DIRECT THIS MOVIE, HE PRODUCED IT. THE DIRECTOR hasn't directed a movie in almost a decade, hence why the shaky camcorder angle is not only sloppy but tacky. So stop giving JJ all this undue praise. And finally, I admit, that in some sense I haven't had to actually think about a movie so much in a while, but that in & of itself also leads to many people HATING this film. Most people paid $10 to see a film that even if they knew it was about a monster & told from a hand held camera perspective, THEY WANTED SOME ANSWERS! Regardless of how much the film drops this weekend, there will be a sequel, since many are saying the SPLASH in the ocean at the end of the film is supposed to be the significance of watching the movie then 72 minutes in at that point. So the army can verify that the 'alien/monster' landed 1 month prior to the NYC destruction on May 22nd

Phil Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:27 PM EST

I was so hyped & excited after seeing the trailer back before Transformers & everyone I was with was blown away. I heard about the web-sites & such, but didn't follow them to any real regard. I didn't get all into the online marketing scavanger hunt for things such as the last NIN album, but I heard of the clever gimmick, but ultimately it didn't do much to raise the awareness of that disc, so I figured why would that matter to my knowledge of enjoying CloverField & I also think trailers SHOW way too much anymore, so I try & work under the auspices that LESS is better. So with that being said, in this case, I was particularly let down that 1. we never learn WHERE the monster came from other than people now chattering about the splash in the ocean at the movie's end. 2. The characters were so self-absorbed that their story is beyond unbelievable. 3. The camera's battery life-span & the call coming in the NYC subway when most phone lines were down was ASTRONOMICALLY far-fetched. (contin)

garciamomma Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:24 PM EST

i liked this movie, it was exactly what I was expecting. Hubby was ill, but he cant handle roller coasters in his old age (almost 50) either.

Considering what was spent to make the movie, I felt it was well done.

It was certainly more enjoyable than the zillionth installment of the "Saw" series. I would recommend it to to others with a warning about the camera work.

DalGal Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:22 PM EST

I bought into "Blair Witch Project" and thought that was garbage. So I think I will stay away from this one too.

Phil Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:21 PM EST

I commented last week about my feelings towards CloverField. And I gave the movie a C & said as in SEE IT FOR YOURSELF. I went to the Philly premiere last Tuesday & I never admitted this, but about 20 minutes into the movie almost the entire front 2 rows got up & walked out. At first I thought maybe they're all just going to pee, but they never returned. I didn't think much of it again until I started reading all these reviews of people saying how nauseated they became watching this film. Last time I checked, that didn't exactly fall under IDEAL movie going experience. I'm not going to call these people pansies like other commentors had in the movie Review forum, because regardless of gender, why should going to ANY movie induce such reactions? The hand-held camera thing? Yes, I knew going in & to be honest I say ridiculous stuff like the camer-man, and my friends even left going, that camera guy was totally you. But thats not what I felt was wrong with the movie. (continued)

Scott Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:19 PM EST

I have to agree with Dan. Anyone who paid any attention to the previews and ads had to KNOW that this was not going to be Godzilla 2008, or Independence Day. I fully expected zero story resolution as to the creatures origins or purpose and the fate of the characters. The beginning of the film WAS the end of the film, and that's all there is know.

Personally, I thought they might enrich the story's content by adding "secret government documents" to the film's website or something like that(ala LOST). But I think it's fantastic that they didn't. Leaving American audiences without a neatly wrapped up ending? What a travesty!! What horror!! But hey, that's what the movie is about.

And as for the camera work: I'll accept that theaters could post motion sickness warnings, but again, the trailers should have clued you in. Personally, I loved the relative realism of handheld video work.

Snarf Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:16 PM EST

Thought it borrowed a bit from Godzilla and Blair Witch but still managed to seem fresh. My friend started to feel motion sickness during the last 20 minutes I was surprised I didn't. Very well worth the $12. As for the disgruntled fanboys, when you obsess about something over several months it's hardly surprising it fails to live up to your expectations.

bdog Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:12 PM EST

Thought it was great-nice to see a fresh take on a rather tired genre
Anybody remember the big budget 'Godzilla' remake several years back?
This is what it should have been

dan Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:07 PM EST

i think CA Bridges has a point. most of the people in the movie theater i was at absolutely hated the ending. "that was it?" yes, that was it. if people couldn't tell by the trailers that this was going to be an isolated, POV movie ... then the first seconds declaring the nature of the footage we were about to see was ALL we were going to get, should have clued them in. this is not Independence Day, and this movie will not have Randy Quaid discovering the very thing needed to destroy the aggressor. and sometimes America does not always win the fight and save the world.
so, you want an ending? it's at the beginning of the film, and it's up to you to choose your own adventure: what in God's name could have happened to this city for them to start calling Central Park 'Cloverfield?'

Joan Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:01 PM EST

I bought two tickets to Cloverfield, one for myself, one for my boyfriend. I feel double ripped-off.

For one thing, I couldn't watch the movie due to the spinning, jerking camera work. I kept my eyes closed through nearly the whole thing. I know from past experience (the first Bourne movie) that I would have thrown up had I tried to have watched the movie. Had I not been with my boyfriend I would have left and demanded my money back. There was no motion sickness warning at the theater we went to.

Also, from what I heard, and from what my boyfriend said, the movie was just no good. We're both mad "Lost" fans and went to the movies expecting better.

Ashley Freije Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:57 AM EST

I thought the film was amazing. A brilliant, fresh take on an old, worn-out genre. While the monster looked rather CG (granted, the film only had a budget of $30 million including marketing) the film was good. So what, the diologue was crap and the characters were unlikable at times. You didn't go to Cloverfield for great character development, you went to the experience. It was definitely worth my $10 and I am seriously considering seeing it again.

kana Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:47 AM EST

i decided not to see it when my friend texted me: "You will not believe how much stomach content i emptied in the movie theater parking lot" after seeing it. Call me old-fashioned, but movies aren't supposed to make you physically ill.

Chip Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:46 AM EST

Supposedly, the dialogue after the credits is "It's still alive" played backwards.

Nicole Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:41 AM EST

I loved it and did not get sick. It was a classic old school monster flick. Some young kids were mad about the end, but thought wrapped up nicely.

Martin Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:39 AM EST

I liked the movie. I saw it twice. And I haven't been able to find anything on two questions I have:
SPOILER AHEAD
SPOILER AHEAD
SPOILER AHEAD
1) Did anyone else see IT land in the water at the end?
2) Does anyone know if the bit of audio heard after the credits roll mean antyhing?
Answers welcome at http://moviemartin.blogspot.com (look for the Cloverfield write-up please and let me know).

Frances Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:30 AM EST

I completely agree with JD. If you knew what you were getting into, the movie was just right. I enjoyed it, especially since its a new twist on the whole "monster attacks a city" genre. You felt like you were a part of the action, although I will say the camera work did give me a headache. But again, we were warned about that. People need to stop getting so worked up and just enjoy the ride!

JD Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:25 AM EST

Not sure why this movie should be polarizing. Going in, if you knew three things: 1) JJ Abrams 2) Monster Movie and 3) that (to the best of my knowledge) the only trailer scenes were with a handheld camera, the movie is exactly what one should have expected. Given those three things the movie was what movies should be. An enjoyable movie experience.

paige Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:19 AM EST

i liked this movie alot better than i thought i was going to and i am not suprised of the backlash at all... everyone hated blair witch project a month after it came out.

August Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:15 AM EST

Like most people have already said it is a very polarizing movie. It's not for everybody but it got a lot of buzz and people who are not the target audience got swept up and have hated it. It's more of a 50 million dollar grossing cult movie then a summer blockbuster but kudos to the marketing. If it drops far, like it probably will, it is just leveling off to what it should have been in the first place, a high concept medium range hit.

Jon Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:07 AM EST

I am not a part of the backlash. I thought it was quite clear from the trailers and reviews that the story unfolds through the POV of a handheld video camera. I found this to be an innovative and thrilling way to experience a classic monster movie narrative. In fact, the biggest problem with most pictures of that genre is the clumsy, artless way the filmmakers handle issues like character development and motivation. The genius of Cloverfield is how the approach doesn't just avoid those pitfalls, it forges a path that is so narrow the pitfalls doen't exist. I can't wait to see it again.
And I think I have a little crush on Lizzie Caplan.

C. A. Bridges Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:04 AM EST

When it ended, several of the other people in the theater were getting up and loudly complaining about it. I was still sitting in my seat, amazed at how good it was. Granted, I had a headache for a half hour afterwards...

From a lot of the complaints online, it looks like people really did want a Will Smith to swoop in and save the day, or for the characters to just happen to hook up with the disregarded scientist who knows the only way to stop the creature, so the other standard Hollywood monster movie endings. That was not what this movie was.

I think it's a love-it-or-hate-it movie. It'll keep a strong cult following and nail some awards, and the rest will continue to wonder what the big deal is.

Jennifer Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:00 AM EST

It might have been a cool movie if I hadn't spent two 15 minute sessions in the restroom being sick. Couldn't handle the shaky camera thing. Think I must have missed something important judging by the other reviews...

JH Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:49 AM EST

Loved it, loved it, LOVED it - I hate critics who think they can speak for everyone.

Bert Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:48 AM EST

I'm waiting for the DVD...if even that. I saw Blair Witch in the theater and was sick as a dog for almost a whole day. I slept for 15 hours after I got home. I'm not going to go through that again even for a JJ Abrams movie.

mark in nyc Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:28 AM EST

The music over the end credits are worth the price of admission alone.

Nix Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:27 AM EST

honey i can't even watch friday night lights due to the shaking, and i want to watch that. besides, i'm 31, a little too old for these things.

Ames Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:27 AM EST

I left the theater annoyed with the camera work and the characters. But the next day, I was back to thinking about the good parts and how clever it was.

Mary Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:24 AM EST

Saw it. Didn't enjoy it. The first section, which was supposed to provide motivation for the characters went on FAR too long. The style of video was not that bad. Monster was cool. Monster add ons were cool. The actor carrying the camera had some good lines.

I walked out of the movie with a 'blah' feeling- the characters were uninteresting in a self-absorbed way, and I really didn't care what happened to them. Most of the theater was sort of confused as well, there were no cheers and some minor boos. It left sort of a blank void in my movie memory.

Brian Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:17 AM EST

Awesomely, awesome. "Cloverfield" completely reinvents the giant monster movie. "Godzilla" fans should run to see this movie. And negative comments about the camera work certainly didn't hurt "The Blair Witch Project."

Laura Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:14 AM EST

I haven't heard a single negative review where I am. Everyones raved about it. A bunch of my friends & I are going to see it this weekend, and I'm not too worried. I've seen tons of home videos/really shaky youtube videos, and I'm not too worried about getting dizzy/naseous or anything. Guess we'll wait and see!

Vicky Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:13 AM EST

I really liked this movie. It was completely entertaining and I would see it again. But this was definitely a love it or hate it thing. I just don't understand the people who say it sucked because they didn't show the monster more, or they didn't explain anything. The characters are not going to stop in the middle of a tragedy and say "Hey! I need another shot of this monster" or "Wait! We definitely need to figure out where this came from because we're random 20 year olds in the middle of New York." I mean really? Is that what people wanted? I'm not saying there were no flaws (how'd the camera battery last that long?), but if you like cookie cutter movies, than Cloverfield is not for you.

Claire Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:07 AM EST

I absolutely loved this movie. I get nauseous pretty easily, but this movie didn't really bother me.
I thought it was ingenius - short, sweet, and very fun.

Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:06 AM EST

I only lasted 15 minutes before I had to leave and then I was nauseus for the next couple hours... but I'm also hyper-sensitive to things shot like that period. I can't even watch home videos. My opinion is that the ads lead us to believe that the hand-held was only a part, or the begining of the film and then it would turn into something "normal". Had I known I wouldn't have bothered.

Robert Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:03 AM EST

My wife is a high school teacher and she said that all of her teenage kids hated the movie to the point of ranting that their friends shouldn't see it. I suspect that means its in for a big drop off this weekend.

Jeff W Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:00 AM EST

The movie was simply amazing. I loved it! People need to get over the camera and enjoy the unique experience.

Steven Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:53 AM EST

I think it helps to have a basic knowledge of NYC in order to watch the movie to understand where they are going and the places they are talking about. Otherwise, the start and end of the journey could be a little confusing. Oh, and the motion sickness has nothing to do with age...my wife is the same age as me and she had trouble with both Cloverfield and the last Bourne, while it doesn't bother me at all.

Tracy Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:51 AM EST

I absolutely loved this movie. I knew nothing other than JJ Abrams Monster Flick going into it. Was I nauseous after the movie? Yes, for a good 30 minutes. But the trailers for the movie indicated that it would be shakey, so I was ready for it! I also knew that since it is a JJ Abrams flick, there would be no answers or resolutions (this is the man who brought us Lost and Alias after all). I went opening night, and it has been exciting to look at all the viral stuff online after the fact and come up with my own theories. Oh, and I will be seeing it again on Saturday.

tia Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:46 AM EST

I enjoyed the movie, but I went in with no other expectation than that it was a January monster movie. If the studios were expecting so much, then they would have put it up against the best in the summer, but they didn't. January seems to have been a great gamble as they have already doubled up on the movie's budget. Everything else for them is just gold.

Marcus Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:46 AM EST

While I like the movie, I could tell as I was watching it that the word of mouth was not going to be very bad. The audience that I saw it with seemed very unhappy with the movie, especially the teenaged boys sitting near me (the movies target audience I would suspect). I think everyone here is giving the average movie too much credit by suspecting that everyone knew it was a monster movie that was filmed in handheld. If you knew that going in, you were likely to be happy with the movie because it is well executed. But if you didn't, you might not feel that the movie was very good.

Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:45 AM EST

I saw this movie last weekend and really liked it. The video style is alitte tough to get used to but not enough to ruin the moive. Not only would I see it again will prob get the DVD.

Nick'd Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:42 AM EST

I was dissapointed in the fact that only the special effects impressed. The characters plight, unfortunately, was not deep enough to maintain my engagement. The steps and risks they take to find the woman they are searching for seem farfetched from an audience perspective. With every other person running out of Manhattan, why do these self-involved fools make every decision to stay? I didn't buy it. I guess they get what's coming to them.
But, that doesn't make it as good of a movie as it could have been.

And certainly can't compete with the F/X.

Nick Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:42 AM EST

I was dissapointed in the fact that only the special effects impressed. The characters plight, unfortunately, was not deep enough to maintain my engagement. The steps and risks they take to find the woman they are searching for seem farfetched from an audience perspective. With every other person running out of Manhattan, why do these self-involved fools make every decision to stay? I didn't buy it. I guess they get what's coming to them.
But, that doesn't make it as good of a movie as it could have been.

And certainly can't compete with the F/X.

mark in nyc Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:38 AM EST

If you cant watch it, your too old. Simple enough.

KG Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:34 AM EST

It didn't exactly suck but I cared neither for the monster (which seemed to have shrunk by the end of the movie) or the characters (annoying yuppie hipsters who were obviously not raised in New York.) The camera work did make me a little nauseous but what truly sent me over the edge was the subway scene. That is NOT what the Spring St. station looks like and it is impossible to run from the village to 59th in less than an hr! That's all I'm saying....

AA Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:33 AM EST

I enjoyed it for what it was--I thought it had good twists on the genre. But count me among those who became nauseous; and I never get motion sickness, never mind in theatres.

Hardy Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:22 AM EST

It was a cute gimmick for awhile. Then you started wondering, what kind of idiot carries a video camera around while he's running for his life? When I started to root for the monster, I knew it was time to pull the plug on this mildly amusing flick. Please, no sequels!

Hardy Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:22 AM EST

It was a cute gimmick for awhile. Then you started wondering, what kind of idiot carries a video camera around while he's running for his life? When I started to root for the monster, I knew it was time to pull the plug on this mildly amusing flick. Please, no sequels!

NineDaves Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:03 AM EST

maybe i'm crazy, but i too liked the movie. a lot, in fact. i live here in new york, and it was pretty fun to watch. i'd see it again!

jaime Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:59 AM EST

As a few reviews of the movie mentioned to sit as far back from the screen as possible, i did!! It did take me a while to get used to the motion but all in all the movie was very good i loved everything about it including the ending!!! If you are a fan of JJ you will enjoy the movie!!!

I hope word of mouth wont hurt it. . .

amah Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:56 AM EST

I agree with Court and Eric. I can understand some of the Oscar-type movies going through "backlash" after being shoved down out throats, but Cloverfield is just a simple monster movie that was marketed well. And barely marketed- unless you went looking for the clues and such. I think it was a pretty unique, enjoyable experience. I also think younger viewers will enjoy the premise (and the humor) a lot more than 30+ year olds.

ns Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:55 AM EST

I must be hearing a completely different word of mouth. Everyone I've talked to has raved. They've talked me into going.

Tom Brazelton Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:50 AM EST

The people I've talked to who didn't like it weren't really affected by the handheld camera work. Only an idiot doesn't know about it going in. Most of the people I know who hated it were mad that they didn't get to see more of the monster. They couldn't wrap their heads around the concept of a monster movie shot from the ground level and needed things spelled out for them more (monster origin, motivation, fate of the city, etc.) Cloverfield is much more enjoyable if you're willing to go with the flow. Backlash? What else is there to see? Rambo? Please.

Jason Sansbury Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:49 AM EST

I think the thing is this- a movie like Cloverfield gets propelled by a younger generation, a YouTube generation, which is used to watching grainy, bad videos if they find it interesting. So while there will be some drop-off, there won't be much. I work with kids and some of them are already planning to see it for the 3rd or 4th time.

Court Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:45 AM EST

Exactly, Eric! It wasn't the best movie ever and it's not going to reinvent a genre or anything, but I liked it. I got what I expected--a scary monster movie that was silly at times, but was a lot of fun overall. Everybody knows going in that it was shot on a video camera. If you don't like that type of film, stay away or wait for it on video. I don't understand why there has to be a "backlash".

Tony Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:27 AM EST

I think it's going to seriously drop off. There's definitely going to be backlash. I saw it with two other people. I loved it. They hated it. I have a feeling the movie will end up being very polarizing.

Nick Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:20 AM EST

This always happens with the internet generation. They get all hyped up for something, and when it isn't the second (third..fourth) coming of Christ, then it is just bull$---.

I liked the movie, and I was indeed nauseated by it. I knew it going in.

However, since the movie only cost $20 million, they have already recouped and made a profit. So, I'm sure Bad Robot/Paramount really doesn't care from this point on...

Eric Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:14 AM EST

A better question is why does it "deserve" a backlash? You don't like the movie - that's perfectly reasonable. But why must people rally for some unanimous decision on whether it's good or bad?