Little has been revealed about this flick but as I see more and more of it, all I can think of is THE HOST. A TV ad tonight really sealed it for me - one character gets a cell phone call and says, "Where are you?" and then later, "We're going to find her." Then there is a shot of people told they are being contained because they might be contaminated. Did Abrahams and co. just see THE HOST and say, "We should do that just but with POV camera work."

Hell, even the monsters from both flicks look, uh, very similar (massive spoilers for CLOVERFIELD at link):

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/the-cloverf...nster-revealed/

It's pointed out in the comments section that it was amateur artwork from a contest.

Admittedly, The Host came to mind the first time I saw the trailer, too... but if you're getting into the giant monster contaminating a city, that goes all the way back to Beast From 20,000 Fathoms and the first Godzilla.

And, of course, SAN FRANCISCO, in which Enrico Caruso comes to town to sing and...well, you know the rest!

Here's one of the first legitimate reviews I've seen of the film. Looks interesting.....

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35236

Here is James Berardinelli's review.

http://www.reelviews.net/movies/c/cloverfield.html

Based on this, it looks like the film is exactly what I was hoping it would be. I can't wait.

It's very, very effective at doing what you want it to do.

Let's see: You pretty much know all there is to know and much of what you expect to happen does happen. The direction in the early, pre-monster scenes does a nice job of playing with the format. There's some welcome humor that I wasn't expecting although I'm sure that others will think that the humor isn't all that funny or effective.

As far as the experience starting from the moment all hell breaks loose on through the end credits? It's a big, nasty roller coaster ride that isn't shy or subtle about the fact that it's really about 9/11.

What's interesting is that there are similarities to GODZILLA (1998) which are so blatant that they have to be intentional. It's as though J.J. and company are really saying: This is what the American GODZILLA should have been. There's even one moment towards the end when CLOVERFIELD copies a gag from GODZILLA down to using the same payoff shot.

The characters are likable without ever being well defined, but there was no way to do that without straying from the "home movie" format. There are times when the movie seems to strain to include personal exposition for the characters while still feeling spontaneous . Let's just say that this works better in the pre-monster scenes than during the halftime quiet moment.

I'm torn on whether we see too much of the monster or just enough. I think that a lot of people would have felt cheated had we not seen the "money shots" of the monster doing its thing, but it really is just, ya know, Gojira. The creature is definitely creepier when it is suggested than when you see it moving around.

I will say that the extent to which it was explained (or not explained) is really effective at making it seem scarier than just the next generation of America's Gojira. There's one line exclaimed right near the end of the film which gave me chills, but I think that it again had as much to do with the immediate connection I made to 9/11 than the fact of the monster movie.

There's no doubt that this film thrives and succeeds in the parallels it draws between a sudden, horrifying monster attack and a sudden, horrifying terrorist attack. Does that mean it's exploiting the terror of a day in which so many people suffered so many horrible fates? Well, yeah. Most definitely. It's also an amazing catharsis. I haven't seen WORLD TRADE CENTER or UNITED 93, but to touch the fear we have that something really can tear our lives apart is, I guess, a worthwhile experience.

I've tried really hard to keep spoilers out of this post, but the reality is that you can't spoil the experience of CLOVERFIELD. You go to this movie so that you can sit back and have a shared nightmare projected on the big screen and for all of its flaws, it does that incredibly well.

Not bad for a PG-13 horror movie (although I'm not really sure how it got away with that rating).

KINDA SPOILERISH:







My wife and I just came back from seeing this at a half-full theater (mind you, it was a 5:30 showing ... that may have been part of the reason for the small crowd). We both came away from it feeling it was somewhat lacking. This may seem strange but the film felt a bit lethargic as I never felt any empathy for the characters or even wonder how they were going to get out of their situation. It was just a lot of running around.

Perhaps it was due to the story-arc feeling weak. Sure, it's a monster movie, but even bad monster movies have a sense of narrative leading to a climax and then a resolution. This movie just went on for 90 minutes of a monster attack and then stopped. Even the standard plot - "My girl is out there and I have to save her!" - ran out of steam after the first hour.

It felt like someone telling a campfire story like this: "There's this monster!" "Yeah?" "And he's attacking the city!" "Yeah, go on." "And these people are running away!" "Uh-huh. And then what happened?" "The end."

My wife's reaction was that it would have played much better if it had been for laughs and done as a comedy. There are funny lines throughout the film; she thought if they had pushed that a little more, or gone in a more outlandish direction, it would have been better. I don't know if I would go that far, but there seemed to be something missing to really push it from being decent into being good.

I kept flashing back to the last few minutes of the remake of DAWN OF THE DEAD. I hated that movie, but the last five minutes of that movie always stuck with me. It has much of the same feel as CLOVERFIELD and yet those five minutes were more interesting, emotional and visionary than 90 minutes of CLOVERFIELD.

Two things to leave the thread with: If you were a government official watching this video (which seems to be the impression), wouldn't you be fast-forwarding over the first twenty minutes?

Second: Was that something dropping into the ocean during the April 27th footage at the end of the movie?

I just returned from seeing this, and while the film's flaws will probably be more obvious to me when I rewatch it, at this time I'm still riding the buzz. This is the best horror film I've seen at a theatre in ages. In some respects, there's nothing strictly "new" about it. It mines the same emotional terrain and collective paranoia that horror films have been using for decades - WAR OF THE WORLDS, GODZILLA, BLAIR WITCH PROJECT... And yet it's one of the best distillations of those paranoias that I've ever seen in a film. Like the above poster said, there is nothing subtle about the 9/11 imagery - and I'd hesitate to recommend it to anyone that was actually in NY that day and still struggles with the experience - but it never feels exploitative. Somehow, it remains emotionally honest, genuinely horrifying and downright exciting at the same time. I haven't experienced this kind of frisson at the movies for a very long time. I've seen horror films in recent years that have disturbed or disgusted me, but none that truly frightened me in such a way that I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. CLOVERFIELD is very frightening, but without ever turning into an endurance test. I loved, loved, loved it.

D.

Looks like all the buzz paid off as it made $16 million yesterday.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?...08-01-18&p=.htm

I'm glad I was blissfully ignorant of all the hype. I had seen a few commercials and ads, but somehow managed to avoid the rest of it. I didn't even know last night was opening night until I got to the theatre. If I had known how hard it was being hyped, I might have avoided it. We got to the theatre a half hour early and it was so packed that we still had trouble finding seats.

D.

Saw it opening night and absolutely loved it.

Funny -- the part I had the most problem with in terms of suspension of disbelief was that they made it from Spring St. to Central Park thru the tunnel in a relative blink of an eye. ;)

Strong recommendation.

best,
FBC

Loved it, doubt anything will top it for me this year.

Makes for a great date movie, also.

If there was, I didn't see it. And I was looking for it.

Saw it early Friday, and wasn't looking for it... but I have a pretty good eye for catching these things. I didn't see it.

You all know about the silly little thing at the tail of the credits, right? It helps if you can hear backwards... :ph43r:

>> You all know about the silly little thing at the tail of the credits, right? It helps if you can hear backwards...<<

Ok, since you brought it up...

What is up with that?

We waited through the (endless) credits for "something" to happen, and then... nothing! A burst of garbled static? Was that it? I left the theatre thinking maybe it was the reference to stills from KING KONG, THEM! and BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS. ;)

Any insight appreciated.

best,
FBC

Silly little spoiler here.

I just caught this and I liked it. Oddly, for a movie that depended a lot on surprises and mystery to build up word of mouth, there's not really much to say about it. I wouldn't want to see a bunch of movies done this way, but this is the rare time where I think the gimmick (and it is, really, a gimmick, although to be fair it's kind of like the video version of epistolary novels, which is a gimmick too but a gimmick with some history behind it) works. That character Hud is overplayed quite a bit -- I get the idea that he's supposed to be dumb and good natured, but he came across as slow, frankly. But I can forgive even him, because his last scene, to be blunt about it, is kickass.

I don't think it's much like THE HOST. It's a different sort of story -- frankly, not as ambitious as THE HOST. What it did remind of was parts of 28 WEEKS LATER, only better. I'm tellin' ya, take the political subtext out of 28 and you got nothing.

I made a resolution, coming home, that this movie year I would only go to new releases that in some way interested me. (I also resolved to see every revival I possibly could, but that's another topic.) I want to spend my movie time this year thinking about why I like what I like, and what draws me to things. So, for instance, I saw THE ORPHANAGE yesterday mainly because of positive comments I saw here or elsewhere. Which leads to the interesting thought that, for those kind of movies, reviews really serve as a kind of marketing, which then leads to large, complicated-but-interesting questions about the relationship between those kind of art house movies and their audience. But I'll save that rant for the next time I go to something like that.

I saw CLOVERFIELD mainly because I was curious, which means it's a viral marketing plan that worked. I heard about it long before it was released, and saw a grotty little clip on some website (not here) long before I saw it today. The movie, by it's very nature, lends itself to that -- still, I think it's interesting that it's doing so well. I'm glad it is; it's a good movie. But the demand was skillfully stoked up: no big stars, an odd kind of structure, doesn't go in conventional Hollywood directions. Actually, it's sort of an arthouse take on monster movie conventions -- if you mean by that formal experimentation on the structure. Partly it has to be the calendar and the lack of competing things out there. Partly though, it must have been just sheer curiousity. This kind of success is probably almost impossible to duplicate, but it's cheering to me that old fashioned hoopla -- albeit updated for modern times -- can still work.

doug

Meh. I can't say that I, nor my son, had a really good time. It's got a good plot, a game and attractive cast, a great monster, some really tense moments, but does not work ,imo.
I understand the whole shot from camcorder thing, but on a big screen, we got motion sickness from watching this. Nothing but a small handful of shots is ever seen clearly, and there's way too much shaking and fast panning of the camera going on. Way too much.
What could have been a fun and very tense Kaiju film just turned into a headache inducing experience.

And that STAR TREK teaser did absolutely nothing to entice me. Looks like a car commercial.

I was reasonably entertained, and although the film didn't come close to scaring me, it obvious did do that to some people in the audience. The "peek-a-boo" approach to the monster is probably its strongest element, and one that's not necessarily dependent on the "found footage" shaky-cam approach. Just shooting from the street-level perspective of the characters (as the 90s GAMERA films do at various points, most memorably in REVENGE OF IRIS) might have yielded similar impressionistic results.

As several critics have said, the film's weakest element is its characters, and that's a particularly strong flaw here, as this approach really needed more vivid (not necessarily deeper, just more vivid) performances and dialog. I found it hard to care about Rob and Beth because they were both so bland and uninteresting looking. Lilly actually fared better (I liked her a lot more than Beth and thought she was more attractive), and I found poor Marlena (also more attractive than Beth) the most sympathetic character, if only because she had the most interesting face and voice. But Hud was a bit too much of a doofus, with "comic relief" dialog that for the most part wasn't funny enough.

I have no problem with the leads being shallow young Manhattan yuppies, just wanted them to be more interesting examples of the breed. I recently saw METROPOLITAN on IFC and couldn't help thinking how much more involving CLOVERFIELD would have been if the kids from that early 90s film had been the leads. I know, I know, somebody capable of investing the first twenty minutes with Whit Stillman's social nuances probably wouldn't have made a giant monster movie.

And yes, there are moments when it just becomes too damn unbelievable that Hud wouldn't put down the damn camera. I know the character is supposed to be an everyman schlub, but the conceit might have worked better if he'd been a documentarian, a news cameraman or even a film student, someone who could make a rational decision along the lines of "okay, I'm probably going to die here, but if I don't, this tape will make me rich." The conceit also needed more moments like the scene in the tunnel, where Hud had a damn good reason for not putting the camera down (as he wouldn't have been able to see anything).

A couple of SPOILER observations.

SPOILER

SPOILER

SPOILER

Wouldn't they put the wounded girl in the first helicopter? Even if the soldiers didn't notice she was wounded, Rob knew and should have insisted on it (he basically gets Beth killed at this point). And why, with bombs being dropped and the monster thrashing around, was the second helicopter flying low enough for the beastie to knock it down? Wouldn't the pilot have been putting it into as steep a climb as possible?

Keep in mind that he's wearing it on a strap, and that if you're shooting the wide end of the zoom you really don't need to make a committed effort to compose through the lens to keep a coherent frame going.

At any rate, I don't think CLOVERFIELD's really about the chill of watching found footage a la BLAIR WITCH anyway, as one would reasonably assume (think about it: we'd have to be living in an unspeakably altered, post-giant monster world for that premise to really land). I think it's more about using 'real world' signifiers to break down the perceptual barriers between the audience and this representation of catastrophe.

I think it's about as successfully done as I've ever seen - especially if the sound presentation is up to snuff. It's pretty 'you are there'.

Yes, something capsule-like falls into the ocean in that final Coney Island bit. It's on the right side of the screen.

On the feel-bad monster movie scale, I'd put it above the extremely rudimentary AVP:R (which goes a little easier on some the human characters) but below the despairing MIST. I did like Michael Giacchino's riffing on Akira Ifukube themes over the closing credits. But I'm not sure you'd get much more from this one on second viewing...though maybe next time I'd see those credited vintage movie stills. Where are they in the film?

I much preferred this to THE MIST - repeat value or no.

Yeah, I think that's right. It's a kind of approach that can harden pretty quickly into an unbearable cliche -- and probably will! -- but it feels fresh here. Partly 'cause I think it's still shiny and new; partly too because it hooks in with the only other thing this movie seems to be 'about' outside of 'watch the monster smash the buildings and eat the people' -- which is something like 'did you see that crowd running from Godzilla? Well I bet you never thought they had stories to tell, huh? Here's one of 'em." Ie, "you are there" in the middle of the battle and "you are also there" in the middle of the yuppie soap opera, too.

I agree with Mr. McDowell about the characters -- Hud I think is the worst of 'em, although I was thinking about this today, Hud was probably the toughest character to deal with in the plot. He's the most important character in some ways -- no movie without him, after all -- yet he has to be faceless, pretty much, because after all the story's not his story. I thought the same thing Mr. McDowell did, why didn't they make him a documentarian or a crusading journalist or something -- it looks they're going that route in DIARY OF THE DEAD -- but then I thought well, if he was smart enough for that he'd be smart enough not to go chasing after his friend in mid-town while the monster's crashing about. Or at least it would have to be sold a lot harder, which means you'd have to develop his character and story, which would be tough because it's not supposed to be Hud's story.

Making Hud a 'likable' lunkhead was probably the best solution, although it requires a lot of suspension of disbelief -- he seems to be operating at almost Forrest Gump levels, sometimes.

doug

I enjoyed it.

I've got to agree regarding the characters not quite working and that ultimately being a pretty big flaw in terms of the movie working overall. They definitely felt like a group of movie cliches and the performances did little or nothing to bring them above that. It would have been much easier for me to sit back and let that go, except for how badly they then clashed against the verite style of the movie.

I also felt, despite its relatively brief length, it went on too long. The movie reached what was promised through most of it as the emotional climax and then lumbered on for some ways after that.

All of that makes it sound like I didn't like, which isn't true. I found the concept, the editing and the sound design kept the movie moving through most of its length. I liked the way we saw the monster mostly in glimpses and such.

That was a much better feeling than most of the audience I saw it with. There were quite a few walkouts, some probably due to motion sickness. But I was shocked that it was soundly booed at the end by much of the crowd, who then walked out muttering and cursing. I'm relatively sure I've never been in a theater with a movie who left so openly hostile toward the movie before. Even The Island of Dr. Moreau, which I did hear someone call the worst movie they ever saw as they left, it was in a calm and almost intrigued tone.

I'll be interested to find out how the opinion of the general public goes on this one. I know it brought in money. But how will it do next week?

I didn't have a problem with the Hud character... as things fell apart, his tenacity in viewing the events through the camera might have been his way of trying to control them, to try to get the center to hold.

But then, if the filmmakers are making an actual effort, I generally meet them halfway and rationalize my way across the plotholes... unless I get the impression that they were left there under the assumption that the audience would be to stupid to notice.

There haven't been any plotholes brought up I had a problem working my way around.

Some are pretty easy... like Lily getting on the 'copter instead of Beth. Hud had the camera off until Lily was climbing in, so one could assume that with only room for one, Beth put up a (untaped) fit and refused to get in without Rob.

But then, that's me.

I enjoy filling in the blanks. Like the vibe I got that Marlena and Rob had had a few drunken encounters themselves, and she still had a crush on him. Puts her at the party and the why she follows him through the city.

Dumb Rob... Marlena seemed much more interesting (and hotter) than Beth.

Really?

I've been to so many seriously hostile movie screenings in different theaters over the years that I half expect it these days. It could be a matter of location (since it seems to happen a lot in Maryland, but seldom when I was in California) or general demographic, but I've seen a lot of really, really bad audience reactions over the year.

When I saw Cronenberg's CRASH at Baltimore's Charles theater, one woman pretty much lost her mind and decided to stay the whole time, yelling out variations of the phrase, "OOOOOOOH, THIS IS SUCH B------T!!!" That was the only time I ever got out of my seat and went over to seriously intimidate someone, but it was necessary. Imagine if Joel Siegel not only remained at the CLERKS 2 screening, but kept preaching about what offensive garbage it was from beginning to end.

I think that the first time I ever noticed a sense of audible disgust at the end of a movie was HALLOWEEN: THE CURSE OF MICHAEL MYERS, but that was mostly grumbling and cursing.

Nothing beats the experience I had seeing HANNIBAL. Around the time that the end credits rolled, one gentleman made to exit by the side door, but before leaving he turned and declared to the theater, "THIS MOVIE SUCKS!" Understandable, I guess, but that was nothing compared to the gentleman behind me who was so incensed that Hannibal would allow Clarice to cuff him without reprisal that he literally shrieked that, oh, how shall I translate this? Basically, he theorized that Clarice was an incestuous female dog and that he would have likely decapitated her. It sounded something like, "I WOULD HAVE CUT THAT M----------N' B---H'S HEAD OFF!!"

If you think that I'm exaggerating when I say that he shrieked this, you have no idea. If you ever wondered what it would sound like to be trapped in a movie theater with someone who was about to go postal, this would have satisfied your curiosity. And he didn't say it once. He repeated it a few times. So strong was the film's aftertaste that he shrieked it out again over the closing credits.

So, yeah. I've seen and heard audiences have meltdowns before. This is one of the reasons that I wanted to be careful about when and where I was going to see CLOVERFIELD. Fortunately, I was able to catch it at an early free screening with like-minded individuals. I feared that catching it over the weekend with young folks and unsophisticated viewers would have been uncomfortable.

I hope it's not a trend, but I find that when I go to see virtually anything with any amount of artistic ambition and the audience is filled with teenagers, they almost universally hate it and are very noisy about declaring so. I'm sure this isn't the case for everyone, but large groups of teenagers in particular seem very prone to fall into that kind of mob mentality. The audience I saw CLOVERFIELD with was probably 80-90% teenagers. They were really quiet all the way through the film, although they yelled and jumped at the right moments and laughed at the right moments. But the moment it ended, there were boos and people turning to one another talking about how bad it sucked.

I work with a lot of high school kids and it seems to me that they hate anything that makes them event remotely emotionally uncomfortable. CLOVERFIELD has an emotional resonance that goes well beyond your typical, snarky, torture-fest. I completely bought that the Rob character would risk everything and search for Beth, because...well...I'm married and would do the same thing for my wife. Regardless of whether or not those two actors give performances that are charismatic enough, I can't imagine watching that film and not putting yourself in his shoes.

I don't mean to make a blanket comment like "all young people are stupid." I know that's not the case. But I also know that when large groups of teenagers get together to watch a movie, there are a million different reasons for why they react the way they do and very seldom do they have anything to do with the actual movie.

D.

I saw CLOVERFIELD on Saturday morning at a 10:15am showing. There was about 9 other people there with me. The sound was loud, the audience was quiet as a mouse and, for the first time in a LOOONG time, I actually had an enjoyable time at the movies with no audience distractions to piss me off.

I enjoyed CLOVERFIELD much more than I expected to. The movie is full of little illogical things and contains characters and dialogue that'll make even a casual movie fan roll their eyes at some point. But, if you go in with your brain checked at the door and all you want to see is a cool monster movie, then CLOVERFIELD fits the bill quite nicely.

The monster was cool (when you get to see it) and the effects were a lot of fun. I particularly liked the sequence where the monster "claws" away the side of one of the buildings toward the end.

With all the issues people have with the film, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned my biggest peeve with CLOVERFIELD. And that is...


SPOILERENO...

SPOILERIFIC...

SPOILERS...


The fact that the entire movie revolves around this amazingly, uber-cool and (assumingly) consumer grade video camera that has some battery that can last more than 10 hours without recharging (YES, I know they DO exist but they don't last that long with frequent starts and stops and turning on the battery draining external light). Oh, and let's not forget this camera also has a "night vision mode" that turns everything green like in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS... Oh, and it survives all sorts of citywide destruction and somehow... somehow... if my interpretation of the ending is accurate... keeps the recorded tape safe from some sort of nuclear/explosive blast/dirt-rock burial. Can someone steer me on how to obtain one of these logic defying and uber-powerful video cameras? I sure want one...

Exactly my experience - except for the group of 5 twentysomethings that liked it to varying degrees and hashed it over for the duration of the credits as Michael Giacchino tore the roof off the sucka.

I didn't see any reason to regard the final bombardment as nuclear, but rather a powerful enough conventional explosive to destroy Manhattan. Rob says during his final speech that they've begun bombing the monster, and we get a succession of blasts. If they'd used a nuke, it probably would have been just one.

I definitely agree that Marlena was hotter and more interesting than Beth. And I really have no problem with Rob making the trek to rescue a girlfriend, especially one that's actually called him begging for help. I just think the film could have sold that element better, and that more charismatic actors and a couple of more effective dialogue exchanges would have helped.

Didn't bug me too much, but I would have appreciated one little line of dialogue from Rob to Hud in the electronics store after he replaces his cellphone batteries.

"C'mere. If you're really gonna keep shooting this, you're gonna need more of these."

Angle on data card and batteries in Rob's hands.

Actually to address the battery situation...

While they were out there for nearly 10 hours (hard to pinpoint exactly), the camera wasn't on that whole time, which is why we see the brief snippets of Rob's day out with Beth between various scenes in the film.

What we are watching is exactly what was recorded onto the tape, so if it was only a 80 minute or so movie, it's completely believable that the battery lasted as long as it did.

For the record, I loved CLOVERFIELD, and I didn't have any character issues with it. We're along for the ride with average folks...I didn't need or desire any complex characterizations. This was a survival story and I just enjoyed the ability to ride along...

I remember a guy that videotape rock concerts by concealing a miniature video lens in his baseball cap with the wire going down and to a camcorder taped to the small of his back. He could film the show easily as he watched it (mind you, had to keep his head down at a slightly weird angle so that the lens inside the cap could film things properly, but still ...).

Now that was back in the early 1990s. I can imagine it would be even easier to setup that type of thing today.

As I saw there in the theater, I thought about all how they could have done it that way and easily given the guy a better reason to be filming everything instead of tossing the camera aside in the first few seconds and run like heck like most people would. Have it so that the guy is wired for video in order to make a candid video for the one guy at the party, and since the guy is wired for video anyway, he would have a reason to just keep filming while keeping his hands free.

Then again, maybe that says something about how much I was into the movie when my mind started wandering like that. :lol:

Here you go Don :)

http://cgi.ebay.com/PANASONIC-HVX-200-CAME...1QQcmdZViewItem

I saw the film this afternoon on a spur of the moment 'moment'. I quite liked it and felt it was very effective at what it set out to do. The characters didn't really bug me, although I agree that Marlena was hotter and more interesting than any of the generic 'sexy' girls that we are supposed to really identify with. The Beth character couldn't have been more uninteresting to me, but these characters aren't entirely the focus of the film anyways.

I've heard various comments about if there was enough footage of the monster or not. I loved the quick half-views of the thing early on - fun and creepy - but the more they showed it, especially in that scene very near the end, it just really lost a LOT of the impact. Imagination is still so much more powerful than what you can actually see. BLAIR WITCH got attacked for its subtlety and for not showing anything, but that's what I loved about it so much (of course, I also saw BW during its very brief one-theater arthouse release before it went wide at multi-plexes and marketed as some sort of end-all horror film for the masses). I think CLOVERFIELD is kind of a compromise - a Blair Witch film made for moviegoers that like commercial dumb blockbusters, but it still has an edge in there as well. The film does show the monster and has a lot of big CGI destruction so that will make all of those viewers happy, but it also delivers that ultra-realistic 9-11-type terror that should effect any viewer. Based on some people's comments here, though, maybe some young audience members still don't like it - or dislike anything that's done in a unique way and not the generic formula that they are exposed to every day.

PS: I agree with Jeffrey. This was much better than THE MIST, which I felt was a cartoon filled with cookie-cutter stereotype characters. I just didn't believe a minute of it. CLOVERFIELD may be flawed, but it easily earned my suspension of disbelief and I went with it. That's really all I ask for in any film. The characters in CLOVERFIELD may not be geniuses, but they are everyday regular (and maybe generic) people, and that's more believable in this day and age than some of King's siphons for commenting on humanity. Sad, but true.

Hahaha!

The auction says this was the camera used in CLOVERFIELD, but says it was a backup camera and that it was barely used with less than one hour of recording time. I can see buying this if it indeed was the actual main "shooting" camera (the movie geek in me would probably consider it) but... naaaahhhh!

Well, the PANASONIC AG-HVX200 "does" have a battery life of "about 2 to 3 hours" according to reviews. That's stretching it in the movie, though... with all the "pauses" and "stops", I'm sure our intrepid hero probably just put it in standby mode which would suck the battery over the course of the night (well before the morning, certainly).

Also, this camera DOES have an after-market "night vision" camera add-on, but it retails for an additional $5995.00 and adds a bit more weight. Certainly VERY easy to hold while you are being chased by a monster in a subway tunnel (insert sarcasm here).

But, if all these yuppie yahoos in the movie can afford things like that giant downtown NYC loft, I'm sure the guy can afford a HD video camera for a total of around $11,000 (with the night vision add-on of course). Oh wait... how much was that external light, too? And wouldn't THAT also suck more battery life? Thinking this camera would work, without a battery change, with all these added accessories is a bit... well... so I stand my my earlier criticism. I still really liked the movie, though.

Our buddy "Hud" must be a bionic superman to not get tired holding this thing, with all the add-ons, all night!

Oh its still unrealistic, but its not bad as some Sci-Fi stretches. I just like the fact you asked to buy one, and I remembered that ebay auction. Plus you can always assume Hud "re-upped" at commons Electronic store lol.

I was very happy with the movie both times that I saw it too. Still its less better than the infamous WotW camera still works, even though it never bothered me as it created a compelling scene. Still I like that movie ,though L. Ron's winner of the Fla-Flav Crunk Medal does make it harder to enjoy as of recent.

Funny thing both my fiancee and my sister (who I saw it the second) time are both convinced that I'm Hud lol. Both liked the character a lot. Considering when I first meet my fiancee I soon after asked her if she knew what Godzilla was, she may be right lol. Plus he was a pretty good person.

SOME MILD SPOILERS


Cloverfield is scary as all hell. Once it moves, it really keeps the intensity flowing. Despite some of the illogical nonsense, I did get a kick out of seeing local Manhattan landmarks before and after destruction. All the monsters of Cloverfield were well designed and animated by Tippett Studios, but the impact was dampened by The Mist, which already had similar monsters that were more interesting and disturbing. And... like most brainless Hollywood blockbusters, I find the good points of Cloverfield far more interesting to experience than to write about.

I liked Cloverfield a great deal for its pure viceral strengths, but the contrivances and general brainless moments can't be ignored. These 20-something cardboard stand-ups don't earn the label "characters" from me. What was the difference between the two brothers, besides facial hair and where they wound up? Once again, I'll take Toby Jones' Ollie from The Mist over these mini-yuppies ANY DAY. The Host is a perfect example of a monster movie with the kind of compelling characters totally absent here. I checked my watch two times during the party scene, desperate for monster apocalypse over verite John Hughes. During the subsequent chaos, people continually do things that no one would or could ever do. I needed some tangible reason all those people would run off for the Beth Rescue Mission, as I woulda wished them all a very swift good night and good luck. If Al-Qaeda blows up the Brooklyn Bridge as I'm using it to evacuate Manhattan, I hope I can turn around and march back that easily. You mean you can just boogie underground from Spring St to 59th St that fast? I'd risk total darkness, the third rail, AND spider monsters over endless slow-poke pedestrians if I could manage a shortcut like that. If I ever sustain an injury like Shish-Ka-Beth, I hope tying a hoodie (or whatever it was) around my shoulder will stop the bleeding and allow me to run down 30+ flights of stairs and sprint down the street. Nice and convenient how the monster can tiptoe through the tulips in Central Park without making noise until the mini-yuppies see it. People, I'm perfectly happy to suspend my disbelief to generous lengths at the cinema (especially fantastic cinema) but I have limits.

9-11 imagery is continually exploited, popping up to disturb us with associations without making any real commentary about that terrible day. I was here in Manhattan back then, so perhaps I have a lesser desire to see a Hollywood recreation. Having our heroes run up all those stairs to save Beth did recall the firefighters in the Trade Center, but it mostly just made me motion sick.

I'm surprised more people haven't mentioned the similarities to Miracle Mile, particularly during the slow walk into the bright light at Bloomingdale's. In that film, Anthony Edwards played a much more appealing, intelligent, and believable protagonist on the run to rescue the girlfriend. The finale of Cloverfield is also verrrry similar.

But, I'm in total agreement about Michael Giacchino's "Roar" overture. By all means, stay through the end credits for this. I love Giacchino's work on Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and the PS1 Medal Of Honor videogames. The guy has a great sense of how to do retro just right and definitely composes 'em like they used to! The Classic Trek/60s Ifukube female vocals was the perfect icing on Cloverfield's musical dessert. At this point, I'd buy Giacchino CDs unconnected to any film. Bring it on, man.

In short, Cloverfield's worth seeing in the theaters if you really like kaiju or disaster cinema. Despite its flaws, I can begrudgingly place it with The Host and The Mist on the long list of the best monster movies I've ever seen. Just expect very little in terms of character, depth, or the barest concepts of logic. And I would certainly first recommend the modern Gamera and Godzilla kaijus of Shusuke Kaneko, all of which robbed Cloverfield of much of its sting.

More about that green night vision mode... it's really nto uncommon. My old Samsung (SCD103) has that feature, which I just bought at the local mall for $100 like 3 years ago... as does my newer higher end camera. My two friends who have digital cameras also have that night vision mode on them. It never really seems to work that great, but it is a pretty common Joe Consumer-level feature.

Yeah, I full on caught that. I'm assuming that it was very much in mind.

Love 'em both.

I liked Cloverfield but still feel like it's something of a missed opportunity. Couldn't they have just workshopped the characters a bit & greatly improved that part? As it was I had trouble telling them apart. Or had a better writer (imagine what Larry Cohen could have done with this). Though home video is the gimmick I wondered if a more conventional style would have been more effective overall.