Cloverfield...the unnamed monster movie (anticipate possible Spoilers)

[Radien]

After looking around my favorite forums, I've been surprised to find that no significant discussions of the movie Cloverfield have taken place. Considering how eagerly people were anticipating it on the web, this feels strange to me.

For those of you who don't know, Cloverfield is the title of the then-unnamed movie that had a trailer preceding the recent Transformers movie.  It involved a piece of handcam-filmed footage of a party in a Manhattan apartment that ends abruptly when a huge explosion is heard/viewed coming from the direction of the Statue of Liberty.  A few weeks later, a more detailed trailer came out which showed the head of the statue of liberty careening down the streets, claw marks visible on its face.

So yes, this film is a monster movie. But the general public is not treating it like just another Godzilla, even though it draws heavily from that formula. The difference is that it's filmed entirely from the point of view of a handheld camcorder, Blair Witch Project style. Additionally, it had a particularly huge internet hype behind it, in the form of alternate reality games and fake news footage created solely for the internet, such as this fake newscast showing an oil rig being pulled below the surface.

As for the movie itself...well, it was pretty decent, and fairly unique.  However, I find myself more interested in the cultural impact of the movie than the movie itself. It drew on the horror of 9/11 in a number of different ways, and despite being controversial, I wouldn't quite say it was in bad taste.

Hearing people's reactions is intensely interesting. I'd like to hear what people thought about the movie and the internet campaign behind it, as well as what they think it says about today's audiences. Not to mention, what they thought of the monster and the story behind it. Not much was explained in the movie, so there's plenty to talk about, especially after seeing video clips like the one above.

[AnimeMatrix]

I haven't seen it yet, but I plan on it. I saw on Yahoo! news a report by the Associated Press about how people were getting sick from the movie because of the jerky, handheld, camera moves. They called the movie the movie for the YouTube generation and I think they're right. It stars alot of young, good-looking 20-something year-olds who are also at the same time alot of not so well known actors, which seems to be the new trend in Hollywood. For example, the new Superman movie starred a not-so-well-known actor. Also, the reviews I've seen/read of Cloverfield also have stated that there's no explanation for the monster.

What I'm also really curious is why is it named "Cloverfield?" Or do I have to see the movie to find out?

[Sayda]

After I saw it last Friday, I looked up a lot of information on it on the web. I thought it was an awesome movie. ~.~ I have a few spoilers I'm going to mention, so, just warning now.

There were a lot of people who didn't like the movie. I think mostly because of the way it was filmed. I thought it was unique and original, and it showed the point of view from a group of regular New Yorkers trying to escape. It wasn't meant to have everything explained out to us; we're just as confused as the people in the movie. You don't get to know what it was, because in the end when everyone died, so did you. I was a little disappointed at the end, and the fact that nothing was explained. However I think the movie was meant to be just a piece of evidence that the government found. There wasn't suppose to be an explanation, it was just a piece of footage that they were sharing, and that was all it was meant to be.

I thought the monster was pretty creepy. ~.~; And I wasn't expecting the smaller ones to appear. I like how there wasn't really a story, or character developement. I was reading an article that explained that the story wasn't suppose to give the characters shape, it gave very few hints on the past, and focused on the present. You only knew what was going on when the camera was rolling. I think it's what made it seem so realistic, because in reality if a monster was attacking, no one would think of bringing up past experiences, and reminisce on events that had happened to them. They would be focused on trying to survive.

At the very end of the film, if you listen carefully, you'll hear something else that the camera picked up. I don't want to give it away, though.

What I'm also really curious is why is it named "Cloverfield?" Or do I have to see the movie to find out?

There was an article I read on the name of the movie. It has to do with what the Government named the incident that occurred in Manhattan. The director, and the few others in charge of the movie also explained their reasoning, however I can't really remember what that was. One of their reasons for naming it 'Cloverfield' had to do with the street called Cloverfield. It had to do with one of their jobs being on that street, or something like that.

[TomtheFanboy]

Cloverfield is a military designation for the operation.

The movie will make you seasick and give you headaches if you are at all sensitive to that stuff. So be careful.

I like the movie a lot and thought it told a nice story about a man who discovers he really loves his ex-girlfriend. There is a bit of character development as the best friend/cameraman becomes more stoic and the main character become resolute in the fact that he still loves his ex and wants to be with her. The monster and other disasters serve as the device to move the story of the guy and his love along.

A lot of people were frustrated with the movie because while the monster was there and you do get a good look at it in the end, it's not the focus of the movie. You don't get to see newscasts from scientists talking about aliens or deep sea trenches or military personnel talking about a bomb test gone wrong. The monster is just THERE trashing Manhattan.

SPOILER pictures!
http://www.myconfinedspace.com/index.php?s=cloverfield

It's really better if you look at this as a disaster movie rather than a monster movie, it will make the lack of answers easier to take.

[BigGuy]

 I waited around after the movie was over and heard a small bit of audio but wasn't able to pick it out. Anyone who heard it clearly if you could PM it to me thanks.
 I thought this movie was awesome! I really like how no one was special forces or a ninja or superhero or some crap like that, just a bunch of normal people dealing with a monster wreaking their city.

[risotto]

I saw it opening weekend and going to see it again with friends tomorrow. This time I'll be prepared and take some sort of nausea suppressant.

For me, I got the fact that the movie is depicted individuals who don't know whats going on and brings you into the situation. It left too many questions, even for a disaster movie. What irked me the most is that the monster is being bombarded with military power, yet several hours later the thing is still up and running around almost unscathed.

Don't get me wrong, the movie was great. I was really impressed with how realistic it looked with the monster and the destruction of Manhattan. It was like it really happened.

There was something audible at the end? I'll have to listen closely tomorrow. I went with my brother and we were both too motion sick to pay attention.

[~boogiepop~]

Good idea.
Not so good job executing it.
I just don't enjoy movies that have a giant chunk of it being "OMG THERES A MONSTER! NOISES! LOOK AT OUR FEET!" That and I was pretty much done with the movie with the 30 minute intro of the party.
I don't hate it as much as I make it out to be it's just something I probably would have rather rented for 3-5 bucks instead of paying 9 dollars to go see it in theaters.

[totemo_oishii]

SPOILER!!

After the credits, there is audio. They're saying "It's still alive", but it's played backwards.

Anyway, I thought it was really interesting. Reading a lot of stuff online made me understand it a lot more.
and yeah, I got motion sick.

[TomtheFanboy]

It's still alive, played backwards? Man, I'm glad I didn't try and wait in the theater for that.

On a lighter note;
http://community.livejournal.com/m15m/17991.html
Movies In 15 minutes is a great LJ community based around the writings of Cleolinda Jones.
Now available in book form on Amazon UK!

[Sayda]

SPOILER!!

After the credits, there is audio. They're saying "It's still alive", but it's played backwards.

Anyway, I thought it was really interesting. Reading a lot of stuff online made me understand it a lot more.
and yeah, I got motion sick.

Played regularly you hear them say "Help us." It's at the very end of the credits, though.

[totemo_oishii]

From imdb.com :

It sounds like "Help us." But the line is backmasked, or played backwards. Played backwards, the line is "It's still alive!

[balmno]

Spoiler.

I didn't notice it the first time I saw the movie, but I guess there is a clue about the monsters origin In the last scene of the movie where Rob and Beth are on the ferris wheel you can see the monster falling into the ocean behind the yacht.

[totemo_oishii]

Just read imdb~! It has the answers! :3

[AnimeMatrix]

Man, I really should stay away from this thread ^_^. I still haven't seen it, but I can't stop reading this thread and the reaction people are having to the movie ^_^.

[laurifer]

Gawd. I love this movie so much!

[Pie Row Maniac]

It cracks me up and infuriates me at the same time that people complain about the shaky cam, despite the handheld perspective of the movie being one of it's key elements that separates it from other monster/survival flicks. I mean one would assume that if you're seeing the movie, then you've seen the trailer. As a result, you should know what to expect. There isn't a single shot in any of the teasers, trailers or TV spots that shows a normal, non-first-person perspective. C'mon now.

[EveofAbyss]

It cracks me up and infuriates me at the same time that people complain about the shaky cam, despite the handheld perspective of the movie being one of it's key elements that separates it from other monster/survival flicks. I mean one would assume that if you're seeing the movie, then you've seen the trailer. As a result, you should know what to expect. There isn't a single shot in any of the teasers, trailers or TV spots that shows a normal, non-first-person perspective. C'mon now.

*high five* ^_^

[Washougal_Otaku]

But the problem was that it was too shaky, even when people were barely moving.

What I hated about the movie, more than anything, was at the end when you could see the monster.  It was the fact that, despite how ling the people were there, the monster somehow showed up unnoticed, until it was practically on top of them.  Then the freak took like, what, 15 seconds, before it decided to eat the cameraman; a few seconds would have been fine, but they made it stay there too long.  And he didn't eat the whole human!  The guy was like a Skittle to the monster & yet he didn't eat the dude's upper torso!  Eat all of him!  And the camera, too!  That would have been cool!

Oh, wait, I take that back.  I hated the lighting more than anything else.  However, when I watched it, it was a recording of it; someone took a camcorder & put it in the projection room, then put it on the internet.  That's how I saw it, so that is more than likely why the lighting sucked.  (I hope that's the only reason).

[Darknight2433]

I haven't got to see it yet.  Should I be wary of the camera, or just focus on being afraid?

[Pie Row Maniac]

Oh, wait, I take that back.  I hated the lighting more than anything else.  However, when I watched it, it was a recording of it; someone took a camcorder & put it in the projection room, then put it on the internet.  That's how I saw it, so that is more than likely why the lighting sucked.  (I hope that's the only reason).

A cam recording of a cam movie. Nice.

Yeah that would explain why it might look terrible. The movie all by itself already has the feeling of a handheld camera, meaning the light be too sharp at times or things being blurry. The full effect of the movie comes from watching a high-quality version, or at the least a version that looks how it was intended to be seen.

[AnimeMatrix]

Oh, wait, I take that back.  I hated the lighting more than anything else.  However, when I watched it, it was a recording of it; someone took a camcorder & put it in the projection room, then put it on the internet.  That's how I saw it, so that is more than likely why the lighting sucked.  (I hope that's the only reason).

A cam recording of a cam movie. Nice.

I was thinking the exact same thing . A recording of a movie... that's suppose to be a recording of an event. There's gotta be some kind of irony in that.