-
Website
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/ -
Original page
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/cloverfield-update-fans-draw-the-cloverfield-monster.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
When is someone going to make a "monster movie" where the monsters are actually
something that *could* live. This thing makes no sense at all.
Someone's being a Negative Nancy.
We watch movies like these because it makes us feel better that these things could NEVER happen.
Thus, allowing us to sleep at night.
specifically. He just gave his opinion, based on the facts and a deep knowledge of science-
fiction and movie history. You are the ones jumping all over me for just stating my opinion.
If you are satisfied with junk, then movie makers will continue to make it.
Oh Yes, most monster movies are pretty stupid, but thats not the point, the point is to go see something different. I don't see how you can be an expert on monster movies and not realize that. Did you like Harry and the Henderson's? I thought it was pretty neat. The plot was pretty awesome.
I have an image that might be a good addition to this post. It was done as part of my review right after seeing Cloverfield Jan 10th. I had five people in my group, so we had ample opportunity to discuss different perspectives. Unfortunately, none of us is a graphic artist. I don't claim to have the monster 'nailed', but I don't think anyone has yet.
Here's the link directly to the image in the review:
http://www.kidreviewer.com/images/2008/jan/clov...
On your post you reference one that is 'closest' to the real monster. No one in my group agreed, btw. The hard shell back, the face, the lack of any bulk do not register with us. When the creature was prone/crawling, it's elbows where over it's head, similar to how a bat crawls,or a spider. The movie monster does lend itself to many perspectives, so none of us probably have it spot on.
Nick Chance,
KidReviewer.com
Me, I'll take my monster with fangs so long that they stick out of the back of it's head.
Here's an example (not spam):
http://www.who-sucks.com/animals/real-life-sea-...
Anyways, believable or not, I'm convinced.
" Jeremy is a writer who is an expert on the science-fiction genre and monster movies
specifically. He just gave his opinion, based on the facts and a deep knowledge of science-
fiction and movie history. You are the ones jumping all over me for just stating my opinion. "
pfft - you're an idiot . Ask any of us in here if we care about YOUR expertise .
were here for CLOVERFIELD . Not interested in any of your rants on how bad it looks asshole.
specifically. He just gave his opinion, based on the facts and a deep knowledge of science-
fiction and movie history. You are the ones jumping all over me for just stating my opinion. "
pfft - you're an idiot . Ask any of us in here if we care about YOUR expertise .
were here for CLOVERFIELD . Not interested in any of your rants on how bad it looks..NOOB
Seems like a copy of the latest Godzilla film starring Matthew Broderick, which wasn't very good.
Or is it because JJ Abrams is involved (Hmm MI3 anyone) or that the film is directed by a guy who's previous credits include directing the Felicity Tv Series?
One of, if not the worst movie I have seen this year. Whether it be the useless introduction party scene, the gimmicky first person cam-corder style cinematography or the ending which lacked a resolution or even an explanation for that matter, Cloverfield fails to impress or even amuse.
Don't even bother watching this movie, just a waste of money.
I hope cloverfarce has at least some decent plot to back up the unrealistic monster.
As for this "Jeremy" kid. Let him claim to be an expert on whatever he wants. His opinion on a movie he hasn't seen yet is just that, an opinion. Let him whine; about how bad the movie will be, all he wants.
The more obscure, the better. If i wanted realism i'd just go outside.
lol, anyway, whatever the monster is, I'm sure it'll be great (if we even see it at all)
Congrats guys! Keep thumpin' those chests and silencing the minorities. You go!
Surreale, you are guilty of the same thing... and yes, I know... in your mind you're saying "it's not the same thing" because you're defending the guy everyone is criticizing. (psssh). If you want to stop the flaming, just ignore everyone.
Now, as for Cloverfield... aaah, forget it, I lost my train of thought... :)
But seriously, if the dude in the first picture is even remotely close to what the monster looks like, this will be VERY cool. Thank you guys for stopping my head from slamming on my desk every time a new Cloverfield trailer came out.
I really dont know how anyone could come back and not enjoy this movie. Especially if you are a movie-lover. They did a lot of cool things you usually dont see in glitzy hollywood movies. And anyone who thought the party scene was wasted time, then again, you just dont appreciate good character development. The film was put together with strokes of genius.
Also, one of the best parts for me personally was when i walked out of the theater and actually saw Manhattan all around me. I could hear the monster roar and people screaming. Good times.
I have a feeling this is gonna be kinda big.
Anyway, I rather liked the whale myself, and this design doesn't compare in my mind...but I imagine this one will have a greater impact on the big screen than it does on a laptop.
kind of reminds me of one of my exes!
hehehe
-Charlie-
everything. Clearly you are a master of the genre and an artful craftsman of the written
word.
Anyway...
Can't for the movie, though I have to say I would have liked to have seen a monster that
would have evolved on this planet.
Anyone have something they could compare the monster from the film to? Similarity wise, sense apparently some people have already seen it.
1. It has four major appendages (2 arms, 2 legs) and a tail.
2. It has smaller arms on its chest.
3. It somehow releases smaller parasitic organisms that infect people.
4. It is huge.
Is anyone else out there thinking Queen Alien and Face-huggers?
While differing in size and basic execution, this could just be the "Superman Returns" of monster movies... A familiar scenario with a (sadly) familiar character. I guess H.R, Giger was truly the last visionary when it comes to monster creation.
..."There's been no new music since Beethoven, it's all been played."
Still gonna' see it though!
You crack me up... feels just like I'm back in the posts for "On the Lot"...
I think the look of the monster is much less important then the overall execution of the film. The idea of mass hysteria and confusion in a major city told from the POV of a running handicam and a protagonist that is not a highschooler out to save the world and get the girl. Or at least that's how its advertised.
Oh, and for those lamenting that its not "realistic enough". I mean... considering the premise of the film from the onset, umm... What were you expecting? Or better yet... Why were you expecting anything other than some crazy looking creature tear-assing around NYC? Expectations: delivered. Now... where did I put those tickets for friday...
And I don't care what people say about it, I'm going to see this movie.
A: Resurrected from a multi-million year slumber
B: Created bye evil scientists as a bio-weapon
C: Unleashed by man's callous disregard of the environment vis-a-vis nuclear-biological-chemical tampering-experimenting-dumping
Which then proceeds to terrorize "generic major metropolitan area" causing some other additional side effect as an added plot complication. Parasites, Pathogens, creeping-rot, etc.
Been there, done that, the same old way for over 60 years.
*YAWN*
Race right out and piss away your 8-10 dollars if that floats your generic watercraft.
Me? I'll wait for the Dvd......then rent it from my local home cinema emporium. X-b
Hate to say it but I think y'all have been duped, these "fan-art" drawings are more viral leaks. Well-done for the ad people, they've earned my 8 fity.
No monster can top Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.
And as for being another creature-feature... Agreed. But does it look original enough to warrant a look? Yeah I think so.
There are rare instances where a movie can land dead center in the middle of a genre, but still be completely original because the creators put a lot of thought and time into fleshing it all out. As far as Sci-Fi goes, that's exactly what this looks like. Now, does that mean I'm going to like it? Meh... I'm still undecided (I'll have to see it first). Personally I hate the hand-held camera binge that we've been on lately. Bourne Supremacy made my head spin. But I’m going to give Cloverfield a try because its one of the more original takes on an old favorite that’s come out in a long time. Judgment: withheld.
The third is the closest, but the mouth isnt as extreme, and I didnt notice the hard core scaling on the back of it.
A few bullet points to cover everything pertinent without wasting anyone’s time.
* I recommend you see it. It is an extremely well done movie, 99% of my criticisms of it would be nit picking (like how there is no token fat friend and everyone is gorgeous, etc).
* The style and scope of filmmaking will be horribly cliched after a while, when EVERYONE attempts to duplicate elements this movie pulled off flawlessly. See it done right the first time, and then wait for the eventual film that takes what Cloverfield did to the next level.
* Some said that it’s like Blair Witch meets Godzilla and they’d be missing the point. It’s funny at just the right times, the dialogue is believable, the scenarios plausible, and at no point are you ever rolling your eyes or thinking to yourself “yeah right, like THAT would ever happen†even while you’re watching a monster rampage through Lower Manhattan. Very well done movie.
* Beware that there will be no explanation of anything. This movie is solely from the hero and friends' perspective. Nothing is explained, nothing is promised.
* See it in the theatre, if at all possible.
now the last pic the parasite is kinda close, think thatp pic mixed w/ a camel spider and the arachnids from starship troopers and a weird messed up crab and there you go!
Ok, mr. Sci-fi expert. Did you know that the monster in the movie is supposed to be an alien. As you apparently know so well, that can...excuse does change everything. Alien monster have always been stylized different. Godzilla and King Kong came from earth, monster, they do look like something that could happen. as you so put it. Predator and alien, stylized and from space...but of course..being the expert you are...you knew that.
1) It is very different from movies of the same genre, but in a bad, very bad way...
2)The first person camera was done very realistically, but makes it close to impossible to follow the movie without your eyes popping out of your head.
3)The storyline might have been "unique", but it was utterly pointless.
The whole cinema was shocked after seeing this movie... we didnt pay money to see something that might have been realistic but boring and hard to follow. By far the worst movie of the year
1- Why are we looking to the entertainment industry to give us a "terrible monster" when we already have one occupying the White House?
2- What could be conjured up for the screen which could be any worse than what lurks in the depths of each of us?
3- What will we do when the movie is released and all the speculation is gone?
We need to examine ourselves instead of seeking escapism fed to us by a studio.
The world is filled with enough real disasters... it's nice to see a fake one every so often and
then walk out of the theater and realize we're all still here.
"When is someone going to make a “monster movie†where the monsters are actually
something that *could* live."
They did. Everybody hated it. It was the American Godzilla. They removed the silly Godzillasaurs and replaced it with a real creature. But people wouldn't buy the Iguana theory or the Iguana like GZ. But the iguana is the closest creature on earth to the original GZ. It has spikes on it's back, it can swim great distances in fresh and salt water. It was perfect, but no one would buy it. Now you complain that it's not realistic enough.
I wish I could make a movie with half the money.
Way to much hype around it for what quality the movie actually is.
Oh and Mattd, go play in traffic.
If you're prone to motion sickness, the hand-held camera work will make you queezy, but that only adds to its sense of intimate, sickening, realism.
I find it hard to believe this movie could ever have a sequel shot in 3rd-person perspective. It would somehow seem wrong... perhaps more ftg. of the creature shot from helicopters, on-sight gov't agencies, or local news teams could find it's way onto the viral (after-movie) marketing or onto the DVD? That would truly give the nay-sayers means for pause.
Matt Reeves/JJ Abrams use the Brooklyn Bridge to pay wonderful homage to a most famous scene from "Beast From 20,000 Fathoms". And many other scenes hearkened back to the days of movies that would only partially reveal their monsters... until the time was right.
Great job... you go you Bad Robot.
Now... JJ... if you were thinking of a sequel... and you could pull off the whole "Gorgon" angle... that just might rock the planet.
PS.
Stay for the closing credits to hear "ROAR", the Cloverfield theme. Like the monster, it's worth the wait... what's that weak transmission heard at the end of it?
Jeremy is right. If I want to watch something realistic and based in 'the real world', I'll watch Star Wars.
*ahem*
i thought the movie was great. It was meant to be realistic. duh no stupid monster will ever destory the world. but what if it did. its just a fun movie. its not like we spent some million or billion worth of money. they did and for what......to have fun.duh
A little numerology goes a long way to explain the monster in the film.
Cloverfield= (count the letters)11
1-18-08 = 1+18+8=27 and 2+7=9
11 = transformation
9= satan's number
There you have it 11/9. does it remind you of anything? Wake Up! Look at the news. The age of entertainment is over people.
The monster is a demon. The demon's name is chuthulu. It is from Earth and exists in lower frequency dimension. If Earth's frequencies can be lowered through your(humanity) own bad thoughts(anger, greed, desire for violence) or through microwave technology( 450mhz is the key frequency)the dimensions can be blurred together and you will see this very demon and others with your very own eyes.
HP Lovercraft who wrote the book The Call of Chuthulu. Had the wish to conjure up this demon which actually exists. Many who dabble in satanism know nothing of this. It is a dream of real satanists. You check it out for yourself.
Check into the concept of digital underlayments of mind control frequencies. See it in the movie Serenity( in the bar fight scene). This can be done on any digital media both music or visual.
This movie is not a joke it was made to wake some of you up. The rest can have the image of their future master imprinted on their subconcious down to the level of the soul.
Again, no joke.
John
No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!
I love how everyone follows the rules!
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1310/fmgp001...
and
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8484/mgp001b...
Action:
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/7051/cloverfie...
No seriously, this looks like Starcraft Two Concept Art.
FRIENDS meets BLAIR WITCH meets GODZILLA...
Like in "Dawn of the Dead" when they left the mall to save a dog.
The people are the real entertainment
I read posts about the monster being "unrealistic". Compared to what? It was a monster of undetermined origin, hence there is no ruler to measure it against. As far as the film not being believeable, well folks, that is the point of the monster genre. Yes, I put it in a newly created genre. Horror is too broad of a category these days. Back to the topic at hand though.
Films are created for the viewer as an escape from reality. Even slushy love stories. We get to live vicariously through the eyes of a character. We get to share their emotions. That is why we pay to go to the movies ultimately, to forget ourselves. For an hour and a half, someone else gets to deal with all the problems as we sit back and watch them suffer through their issues.
"Cloverfield" puts the viewer into the middle of something catastrophic. It is the fear of the unknown that is the strongest element in this film. A heavy dose of emotional claustrophobia is thrown in the mix. As I stated before, this is not an original story by any stretch of the imagination, however, the 1st person perspective adds just enough reprieve from the same tired formula to make the experience enjoyable.
I typically write in depth reviews and character studies, but it is obvious that this is not the medium to do so. I will put it as simply as I can. "Cloverfield" is a slightly better than middle of the road. The fact that the film maker strayed from conventional film making in an attempt to put the viewers into the middle of the action is commendable, and it surprisingly works well. Like I stated, it was just enough to prevent this film from falling into the "been there, done that" category.
I do not believe that "Cloverfield" lived up to all of the hype leading to the release. Films seldomnly do, but it definitely fared better than the last film to be touted so highly on the internet. Anyone remember "Snakes on a Plane"? All in all, this is a decent popcorn flick. So enjoy the movie for what it is, a new vision in the old monster genre.
yeah its unrealistic
duh
i agree
compared to what?
no matter how *unrealistic*
the monster was,
still scared me
this is an orignal moster.
The parasites are white and a cross between a crab and a spider. About 4-5 feet long. Their movements are very fast although they are easily killed with a blunt object. A bite will result in th epersons abdomin exploding although to what purpose you never see (only the after effect on the torso). Their heads are not like the drawing above but are long (once again horse or gator like in length and shape) but with beady eyes (I guess the starship trooper desription of the head part is close but the rest is much more spidery).
There is actually not that much gore but the attacks and action sequences are fast furious and the handy cam does put you in the action and get the heart beating a bit quicker which I must say I havent felt watching a movie since the beach assault seen on Saving Private Ryan. I thought the movie was pretty good and the people that whingew about the innnovative style would also have whinged if it was a stock standard shot monster flick and said "well that wasn't original-blah blah. It doesn't telll you what it is, where it cam efrom or if it is still running around as teh military watch the recovered video-who cares-the movie i sabout ordinary people dealing with extraordinary events and getting killed left right and centre on the way. I'd definately tsee this on eon the big screen, sit up the back and if youy arent a 'first person shooter' veteran a hint is to watch the whol escreen and try not to focus on every little detail. Id give it a 7.5/10.
and spartan i totally agree with you on your review i also gave it a 7.5
i enjoyed this movie. iv been telling everyone about it. and i keep telling them its not a movie. its a documentry. enjoy it as if it were real cus its a really great idea. plus did anyone see the auction on ebay for the camera they had. what a nice camera. i wish i could afford it lol.
hOW CAN YOU SAY THAT THE FIRST ONE IS ALMOST CLOSE TO THE MONSTER IN THE MOVIE CLOVERFIELD. ALL I KNOW IS PEOPLE WHO DIDNT WATCH THIS MOVIE I SAY YOU SHOULD. ALSO I KNOW WHERE THEY GOT DETAILS ABOUT THESE MONSTERS, THEY GOT IT FROM THE GAME GEARS OF WAR LIKE THE SMALL THINGS THAT CAME FROM THE ORIGINAL MONSTER. MY CRITIQUE ON THIS MOVIE IS ABOUT A FOUR AND HALF. BUT SOME OF YOU PEOPLE MIGHT NOT LIKE THE ENDING OF THE MOVIE!
how it could be very divisive. I'm sure half the audience was disappointed/thought it
sucked. If you need an obvious explanation or a straightforward and obvious plot, don't
go see it. If you don't mind a movie that requires some thought in order process the
plot, then see it. The first person p.o.v. was very well done, though it does give you a
headache towards the end. It made for a totally engrossing experience and makes for
some real suspense/anxiety throughout. The ending/origin of the monster are explained
at the very beginning and very end if you pay attention and are able to put 2 & 2
together. And I sort of agree with Joshua, it kind of looks like "a combination of da 1st pic
n da 3rd". But not exactly. I thought it was a great movie, but I don't expect everyone to
agree. So pay your 10 bucks and hope for the best.
While watching the movie, it will be far more enjoyable to try to decide exactly what you would do when placed in that situation that the main characters are put into. Would I try to save my best friend or would I save my own hide.
I personally have no idea, and until the city I live in is ravaged by a creature of unknown origin, I guess I will never know.
http://www.jacklovesyou.com/misc/cloverfield.jpg
Don't forget how long the monsters reach was?
SPOILERS
When they saved Beth and carried her across the monster fell due to bombings, it reached up and swiped the whole side of a huge building. It's arms had 2 elbows each, as shown in this drawing:
http://www.jacklovesyou.com/misc/Cloverfield.jpg
First, the creature has NO HARD SHELL. In fact, I'm not satisfied that any of the above drawings looked right.
It's skin was relatively smooth and flesh toned, and it had a skinny but long torso. It's front feet DID NOT FOLD BACK. I don't know why people keep thinking that, as just before it eats Hud you can very clearly see a cloven hoof like foot stomp down on the ground near him. It has four major appendages. Two relatively short back legs, and a pair of front legs at least equal in length to the rest of it's body. It has a pair an air sac on each side of it's head, and two very distinct black eyes.
Now, as to why it kept seeming to change size, that's likely due to the way it walks.
And for those throwing tantrums about the movie itself...remember...this is done like it was being shown to the department of defense, not a theater audience. It's very likely this is a set up for another movie.
http://wayangtopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/...
i hope other people recorded with a few cams also. like different point of views would get kinda lame but i would still watch regardless. maybe a full production in 2009 of how they destroy the monster. but then again they did say they would nuke the place. im just still hyped. the ending sucks big **** but maybe its bigger then this who knows.:(
First, I really liked the movie. While it is not totally new, it does go a great deal towards re-inventing american mega monster movies. The hype... worth dealing with and while there was just enough built up to get you to believe it was centered on a monster, the reality is a nice surprise and the movie well executed.
Second. every scene is just dripping in hints, future plot points for future follow on/prequel/sequel movies, and atmosphere. It's NY, with lots of what makes NY both bad and awful... and it's also current, with much fo the same in examples of good and bad when it comes to the late teen and 20 something generation.
--- spoilers materials ---
Sorry, old habit from other forums. Anyway, regarding the parasites/lice... they are an interesting additon to the movie... perhaps too Aliens in execution/concept at their core but a nice addition to the movie. they do indeed resemble a cross between a spider crab and the Starship Trooper 'bugs' or perhaps the worms from Tremors. Their bite infects people, and eventually people burst open at the abdomen from this 'infection'. While not directly confirmed through visuals, we do see a burst open soldier in all it's shakey cam beauty and get hints that this is somehow related to the expanding population of the parasites/lice.
The monster... the pics that have leaked so far to the net from the big screen reality do not really show it well enough. It really doesn't look a lot like the pictures posted above, just bits and pieces from several are right... it's very different than anything else in the mega monster movie genre, and no way does it resemble or rip off anything like The Host or GOW (though it seems familiar at times so I need to see some better pictures to figure out what it reminds me of).
I have heard multiple rumors now, coming from movie and sci-fi/fan sites that seem to piont to a companion big budget movie that starts off months and months before the monster's emergence and tackles multiple, intertwined plot arcs with big name actors and a 100+ million budget (another number I heard was 120mil)
as for the rather silly debate over realism here... get over it, troll or otherwise. It is a movie, there is supsension of disbelief to be had in this movie in droves. Personally, and I am a nitpicky type, there were only a few weird things that stuck out... for one, the pole through the girls arm, she recovered pretty fast and while it is possible for someone who has been impaled to miss major anatomical structures there would be bleeding and pain and a big chance for at least partial imparement around the area... the massive building leaning across a street onto another and the climb up and all that was too much in my book... and the scene where Hud dies, I dunno, seems gratuitous and nonsensical as to why would a 20 - 25 story monster pay any attention to, let alone attack a single human like that when it is on the run from nearly constant attack by jets and what not?
Then I saw the rendition shown here:
http://www.jacklovesyou.com/misc/Cloverfield.jpg
and I became a bit more uplifted.
But it still didn't rise to the expectations that I had for it, which I expected. I wanted it to be almost impossibly, unimaginably, huge. Kind of like the big whale picture.
I should draw up what I thought it would be like.
Oh well, i'm still going to go see it.
wasn't expecting an epic movie, but instead a frantic little slice of terror and
confusion from a "what if" perspective. However, that is not my main issue, my
main issue is the "Lovercraft" post.
To the alleged-occultist...Lovecraft (note spelling) lived his entire life in fear of the
non-christian of eastern and african cultures and always depicted the practioners of
such arts as being debased foreigners or westerners who became involved in the
dark arts.
He was a raging xenophobe by all accounts and repeated central theme his books
as a warning to western civilization not to be overthrown by the "evil" of
non-western cultures. Cthulhu, the sleeping god, beneath the sea, isn't some
biblical devil boogey man either, so "real" satanists wouldn't worship Cthulhu since
he has no relation to the biblical story, and if one did stumble across such things
and conceive to summon this entity their lives would be forfeit as well if one is to
believe that the writings of Alhazred the Arab are not complete fiction.
If you would like to truly understand the faiths you hope to emulate I would advise
actually reading any of the versions of the Necronomicon (if you want to worship
Cthulhu), a study of Luciferianism (if you want to follow the Prince of Light...because
Satan is just a desert term that means "adversary" and refers to a wide range of
antagonistic entities before the Hebrews pinned the term on Lucifer).
Not trying to come off as mocking, because I'm not, but I feel just as aghast as
some Christians would if they saw someone describing Jesus as a powerful wizard
who would be summoned back to the world to rule it when the Temple was rebuilt in
Jerusalem.
Also there's a whisper at the end of the movie were they say "Help us"
But if played backwards it says. "It's still alive"
Hinting at a sequal maybe? I hope so.
It's on www.idmb.com under FAQS I think.
most of these pictures are very similiar to the beast id say the second one is the most related...
SPOILERS:
at the very end of the move there is a scene where beth and rob are at coney island...there in the backround (the beach and ocean) you can see a small ship coming into the ocean...althought i have not seen this myself a bunch of people behind stated that there WAS a ship...
This sketch is the best I've seen of the monster to date, IMO:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_tO-rlYBwQsk/R5Q0_WtVlQI...
KidReviewer
While Lovecraft didn't live long enough to explicitly acknowledge and recant his racism, examination of his stories, essays, and letters in the last years of his life showed that he had abandoned much of his affected hatred of modern American society and softened his views considerably. In particular, the description of the black majordomo in "Through The Gates Of The Silver Key" is of an observant, thoughtful, intelligent man, nothing at all like the menacing "degenerates" in his earlier fiction.
Back on topic, I saw Cloverfield, I enjoyed it (apart from the motion sickness), I agree that this plays really well as a Beast From 20k Fathoms update, and I'm looking forward to a sequel--for my money, the same event from the POV of a news crew or documentarian, revealing much of what went unseen in the first film and extending the observer-on-the-scene motif without inflicting mock-amateur camera work on us again.
I'm also not disappointed that the monster wasn't Cthulhu/Dagon/whatever. Cloverfield stands up fine on its own, but it's also completely satisfying as a Lovecraftian film: humanity descends into panic and madness as a reason-defying creature rises from the sea, shattering our self-importance along with our cities. The audience leaves the theater knowing that ultimately, nothing that the characters did or thought mattered beyond their own petty satisfactions; shock at the monster's brutally awful power overshadows any other emotion evoked by the film. Lovecraft himself, who HATED the trite horror movies of his day, would probably have loved Cloverfield.
http://www.maboroshi-ch.com/img/zoo_32.jpg
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/205
The top photo doesnt look close at all (although I wish it did), and the monster doesnt have a shell like some photos show....just like spots/barnacles on his back in some places. I only saw 4 limbs (along with some small ones on the underside)...and its color was pretty plain like a light green in most shots (probably the lighting) It's face was kind of like an ogre-ish face with black eyes and the red sacs that move when he breathes are more on top of his head where horns should be if he had them... You dont really get to see it that well, but I did like the way it was filmed. kidreviewer's link shows it pretty accurate....but I dont think the tail was split at the end...
The smaller ones look more starship trooperish than the drawing above. They are white with tiny hints of grey/blue and make weird noises that sound like sped up high pitched dog growls and barks...or in that scene from the first jurassic park where they feed the raptors the cow and all you see is the bushes moving...you hear a growling noise identical to the noise the smaller monsters make. And you pretty much get weezy, bleed from eyes and then "pop" when you get bit.
/SPOILER
saw it friday night....
SPOILERS AHEAD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xbn9GdgclY
http://www.metalbabble.com/art/clover_attack_sm...
and the smaller parasites...
http://www.metalbabble.com/art/clover_parasite.jpg
A+ flick as far as I'm concerned!
Oh and the things that came with it, couldn't those have just been independent parasites that latch onto the monster just like real animals do?
"Tagruato used the Hatsui satellite to try to identify a rogue piece that is thought to have fallen off of the Japanese Government's "ChimpanzIII" satellite. Although Hatsui’s work has not yet been able to confirm the identity of the fallen piece, Tagruato scientists and engineers are busily trying to track and recover the fragment. According to Hatsui data, it disappeared into the Atlantic Ocean late last week."
Satellite piece maybe? Also, remember the chimp holding the cheese flag at the end of Slusho's commercial? I wonder if that has anything to do with the Japanese Government's satellite.
Added Yoshida, "Our first step into space was a triumphant one. Our next will be unforgettable." <--- "unforgettable" huh? sound's interesting.
This movie was one that, to be enjoyed to the fullest, required a basic obsession to it, or at least knowledge relative to the plot. The first trailer showed before Transformers. If you didn't know that, you probably can't enjoy this movie too much. I saw this trailer, which sent shivers down my spine, and thought "I'm seeing that." I watched to the end, awaiting a name to find more information, and... no name. Just a release date. 1-18-08. J.J. Abrams. Clearly this was a mystery. Us who felt this way seeing the trailer, have all been a part of the hype, the questions, the mysteries, Slusho, Tagruato, random unexplained moveable, flippable photos (1-18-08.com.) and so on from the beginning. We've spent many hours researching, discussing, and obsessing over this movie, which meant, when the day neared, we all got excited out of our pants to see it. So many questions awaited answering. We went to see it and were happy. So much to reflect upon, so many things, that, opposing critics and many disappointed people, we were amazed by. The monster was awesome. The acting, wonderful. The plot - amazing. But for those of you who just saw the trailer on the television, and thought "That looks pretty cool." you missed out. This movie wasn't great. You saw it and thought, " well what the hell, that made no sense..." because it doesn't, without having seen every piece of viral information released.
To all those (Jeremy) criticizing this film; we weren't in this for a realistic tragedy with a great story and filming expertise around every corner. We came to see a crazy ass beast, pissed off its crocket, and filtering this rage into destroying shit. That's exactly what we got.
Cloverfield - ***** five stars.
looks like. It's close, but not that close. The monster doesnt look like a giant horse-shoe
crab. Its features are more human that that, particularly the head and torso. It has a
shoulder structure much like a humans, however, it does walk on its multiple legs. The head
is very much like a human, two eyes, two nasel holes. The only thing different is the red
lungs on the top of its head and its crazy large mouth with the pointed teeth.
1.) the monster looks like #5 up there
2.) the "handycam" style was good. although if you suffer from motion sickness..... be careful.
3.) whomever said " the chick who blows up from no reason.." above didnt actually watch the movie. Anyone who was in the theater heard the preceding line which explained the " blow up"
4.) At the very very end of the movie look for something very small and quick. I mean in the very very last scene. This will explain some things you might have missed.
All in all, a great flick. I recommend it to anyone who wants to watch a sweet movie. Also, to those who are naysaying about the "believeability" of the movie. ITS A MONSTER MOVIE... get a job.
Resolution at the end was good and believeable. Anyone who says different does not watch "films" they watch "movies",
Any questions?
p.s. WATCH THE FRIGGIN MOVIE! ITS WORTH IT.
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e51/khamelion...
we make blockbusters...
any way about men in black!! thats our monsters, its the water cooler guys, who smoke yah
know WANDA yeah WANDA the little rat thingys all grown up and pissed off that there isnt a
smoke big enuf for them to suck on, but the things in the subway look like my pet iguna
GO DRINK A slusho!!
http://i28.tinypic.com/vo27ti.jpg
1) what's wrong with you? not being realistic is kind of the whole point of movie monsters.
2) considering the extreme depths that this creature might have come from, i wouldn't doubt that there could be something like that because for sea life, apparently, the deeper you go, the freakier you get
MONSTERS are meant to be unrealistic that's why they're called MONSTERS and not animals.
I agree. I was hoping for a really huge, very slow creature similar to Sin in FFX. Not a really quick, nimble bug-like thing.
it was a good movie, made me a little nausious though
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809873032/video/...
you see monster 1 which i will call "godzilla" in new york having fun and playing with buildings but then it is a tentacle that smashes the bridge in half. How big can that bitch get? Plus when shots of "godzilla" are seen, he has no tentacles. And for anyone who believed it lacked an ending, at the end of the credits, that guy says "I'm still alive". A sequel maybe? tentacle thing FTW!!!
It started down at The Battery and ended up north of 59th Street in the park, while at some point trashing the Brooklyn bridge. ( which is a Right detour from The Battery)
These kids lived I think in SoHo, which is more to the west.
What did the beast do? - dance around lower manhattan then sprint uptown?
attacks the bridge it uses its tail, not a tentacle. The reason they don't incounter more of
the parasite creatures is that the parasites are spread out through all of manhatten.
there are only so many that could have fit on the large monster. For all you people who
didn't like the whole "told from camcorder perspective for whole movie" thing, okay.
What JJ was trying to do was make this as real as he could. If halfway through it would
have cut to standard camera views, it wouldn't have made any sense. He wanted it to feel
like you were at the FBI watching this tape they found in a conference room. Didn't want
it to be a regular old Hollywood film. I would love to see a companion movie or whatever
where it's the same basic story from a different perspective. Maybe a news reporter?
Also, side-note. Anyone know what that (Japanese?) man was saying when he ran into
Hud? I thought it could be interesting. Another note. I've gone to I think Hasbro or some
toy company and they are taking pre-orders for the Cloverfield monster collectors model
thing. Anyone think the monster will ever get a real name? maybe not, but it's kinda
awkward always saying "Cloverfield monster" and don't go on with "zilla". I'm not taking
that. I also thought the video camera durability and battery were a little unrealistic.
However, as to the battery subject. When Rob goes into the electronics store he got
phone batteries, who says they didn't grab some camcorder ones too? I loved the idea of
people throwing a party for Rob. It's an amazing set-up.
It's a way to give us background on characters.It makes everything start out as perfectly
normal NY. It gives us an interesting arrangement of characters to work with. It would
have been more boring if it were, say, a family, as there wouldn't be as much interesting
character interaction and personalities. The best thing I think the party does for the plot
is that it gives us a reason for a camcorder. Wouldn't it seem odd if the movie started
with a family, the monster attacks, and the dad yells, "Honey! where's the camcorder in
case we need to document this?" Odd. but if there's a party, and already a reason for the
camera, it just sort of flows into everything.
I loved how the characters, through their journey, give us so many veiws of the monster.
they see glimpses of it past skyscrapers, the run underneath it into the subway. They see
it from the top of a skyscraper. they're running to the helicopters and it's right on the
other side of the (road?) from them. They see it from above in the helicopter and it
attacks them. We get a good view of its head when it eats Hud (by the way, the sounds
on that part were extremely realistic and kinda gross. =P ). I also forgot that they see it
on tv from perspective of the News crew.
I thought this was such an excellent movie, the camera didn't get to me at all, I got used
to it after a little bit. The whole chaos and lack of plot was brilliant. The hype was a little
much for this short of a movie, though. But overall, it was fantastic. 5/5
I WILL TRY AND POST IT
I already did a draw
xD do you want to see it?? :D
its a kind of spolier xP.....just a stupid draw
lol
contact me
None of these drawings are fully accurate. Period. Do not say you 'got a good look and it's EXACTLY like number such and such', because it's not. You want a good idea of what it looks like, go to Deviantart.com and search 'Cloverfield Monster' and get drawings from actual artists who saw the movie.
You see all those drawings up at the top of the page? The ones done in the EXACT SAME COLOR SCALE in the EXACT SAME DRAWING STYLE? Yeah, that's not fan art. Those are CONCEPT SKETCHES by the guy who designed the monster for the film.
Now, Mattd, to answer your 'was he dancing around Manhattan' question....yes. Yes he frickin was. Abrams and the director BOTH said that the premise of this monster was that it was lost and scared. Now, if you were lost and frightened, would you simply travel in a single organized path? Nope. You wouldn't. You'd look around for help. Which means traveling in different directions until you find some.
For the 'oh noes monster didn't look as good as I wanted' schmucks...too bad. The movie wasn't ABOUT the monster. The monster was just a frickin catalytic agent to give everyone a REASON to be running around trying to save themselves. All the monster had to do was be big, destructive, and very very frightening. And yes, it was nimble and quick, because frankly most aquatic creatures are. Even whales can move quickly when threatened or hungry.
When the helicopter was attacked the monster had JUMPED at it. I mean, come on...if something from above you suddenly rains a lot of concussive heat down on your back, are you going to assume the attack came from behind you? In front of you? No. You're going to attack what's above you, and with the size of the creatures forelegs it could probably generate a good deal of push.
Finally, everyone griping about how unrealistic it is that the military couldn't take it down...this is a deep sea creature. It's skin is likely tough as steel as it's muscles hard as cement. It's going to be able to take a LOT of abuse before it goes down.
http://s167.photobucket.com/albums/u122/HeadRol...
The creature sure did look a lot like the monsters from Metroid Prime.
Watch:
http://www.niwifi.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/0...
It's just some strange creature with really long arms and legs, two arms on his ehm... torso or whatever... It drops parasites and has this really long tale. Those red things everyone is drawing are his, whatever to appear his cheeks, which he uses to breathe (just think of those things of frogs). Well whatever, I'm done here. Peace
What the hell is a sci-fi expert? To me it describes a 30+ year old who lives in their moms
house while juggling a failing love life, but knows a lot about things most normal people
don't care about. How many sci-fi conventions have you been to this year? My guess is
double digits.
of the pics so you can't make out any detail whatsoever. right up there with the highest
quality UFO, or Loch Ness Monster pics.
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg195/burnin...
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg195/burnin...
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg195/burnin...
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg195/burnin...
I was thinking there was more than one monster, but now that I read more of what people say, and see more renditions there is actually just one monster, he just positions himself differently when you see him different times. Like when they're saving Beth from the building and you see him coming straight for them he's on 2 legs running full steam, and seeing renditions of the monster help put into perspective how he can get up and be a biped when he wants lol.
About the monster being able to fly, i'm gonan go with a big no on this one. it's an underwater creature, i don't see underwater creatures having the need to fly. And after it eats Hud you can hear it walking away, butttt then you think how did it get to the bridge so damn fast and how did the people on the bridge not even notice it going underwater? Theres a lot of little things here and there that don't add up. And I dunno what's up with the monster when it eats Hud, it looks like it shrunk or something, either that or he just zoomed in all the way with the cam. And i'm thinking when it went to chomp down on him, how is there even any trace left of Hud? Something thats 250 ft tall would gulp a human down easy, and then it spit him out wtf lol...maybe it didn't like how humans tasted? Oh and the thing is not from another planet, its from the depths of the ocean, people just gotta read up on the marketing they did for the movie.
http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/ProductsByBrand.ht...
As a SF writer, I think it looks pretty cool.
But even though "Cloverfield" isn't the Godzilla-for-the-YouTube-generation picture that everyone may have been hoping for, it's still a terrific movie, filled with spectacle and a surprising amount of humor, which makes up for its lack of terror or emotional impact.
Produced by "Lost" and "Alias" mastermind J.J. Abrams, "Cloverfield" has been one of the more interesting experiments in large-scale guerrilla filmmaking. It was completed relatively quietly (for a movie that involves the decimation of this nation's biggest city) for a modest budget, then was introduced with a short trailer that appeared mysteriously - and namelessly - before "Transformers" in July.
When a few cryptic Web sites related to the movie appeared later in the summer, the passionate sci-fi-movie-loving community pounced, analyzing every scrap of "Cloverfield"-related minutiae that was posted online. Perhaps worried about another "Snakes on a Plane," where the overload of hype diminished the box-office returns, the studio seemed to cool down the marketing machine considerably.
And it's a good thing, because when you get past the hand-held camera approach, there isn't a heck of a lot to this movie that you haven't seen before. Many of those online "clues" appear to be red herrings. If you've watched "Starship Troopers," that bad Matthew Broderick "Godzilla" movie and any episode of "Dawson's Creek," you won't be surprised by the plot developments or creature design in this movie. In addition, Reeves and writer Drew Goddard chose to ignore "Blair Witch's" the-less-the-audience-sees-the-scarier-your-movie-gets lesson, and they show every angle of the Great Evil in the first half of the film, which significantly dilutes the scare factor.
But "Cloverfield" succeeds despite these potential shortcomings, mostly because of the effective presentation. The first 15 minutes are so goopy - focusing on a fleeting romance between main character Rob and his longtime obsession Beth - that you'll wonder at first if Abrams and his crew might have pulled off a truly epic twist, using a false trailer to disguise their party movie as a monster mash. Some of these first scenes are almost cringe-worthy, but they serve two important purposes: You'll get to meet lots of characters in a short time and drop your guard enough that the first wave of world-ending mayhem truly does seem to come out of nowhere.
When the action begins, it comes fast, giving the characters (and audience) only a few moments to catch their breath. And even though this movie probably cost one-eighth the final bill of the average "Harry Potter" sequel, the special effects work is nearly seamless. Unlike that atrocious American-made "Godzilla" movie, you'll be able to easily convince yourself that this all could be real.
The handful of quieter moments in "Cloverfield" are often the best, such as one great scene where a pack of looters stop to watch the television news coverage in an electronics store they're stealing from - mouths agape and with their plunder hanging slackly in their arms. After the Hurricane Katrina debacle, it's also nice to see the U.S. military responding to a disaster so swiftly and forcefully. New York will never be the same after the events in this movie, but George W. Bush's approval ratings may finally top 30 percent again.
The other great call was to make Rob's well-meaning dimwit buddy Hud the cameraman and de-facto narrator. His lines get better as the situation becomes grimmer and more chaotic, and there's a nice running gag involving a girl he has a crush on at the party. Who knew that "Cloverfield" would be funnier than "First Sunday"?
Unfortunately Hud isn't much of a cameraman. Hopefully when a monster really does level New York, someone will bring a Steadicam - and Errol Morris - to the party.
I really wonder how the millitary got the New York so quickly, however. Did they have some knowledge of this beforehand? It wouldn't suprise me, honestly.
The only thing that annoyed me was really the lack of twists. Everything is so wrapped up on the monster, ( It is a monster film, so I understand) that it seems JJ Abrams believes everyone will fall down with shock after seeing the Cloverfield monster. The Xenomorph was a hell of a lot scarier, let me tell you.
I saw this movie the other night and I have to say it's the best monster movie I've seen in ages. I loved how it was filmed from a first person view. I also loved the monster itself and the images above aren't very close. Then again, I belive the movie left you to come up with your own vision of the monster. Being an artist myself and one who really loves to create sci-fi monsters, this really sparked my mind. The monster I see in my head is something way different from those shown above. I didn't remember it having back legs but I do remember the giant scythe like 'hand's and the 't-rex' arms. I personally find this to be a very intriguing and suspenseful movie. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen the whole time I was watching it. I love monster movies and this just took the cake. I loved everything about it. The parasites were kinda unimpressive though. A bite that makes you explode? That's kinda unrelated to the monster really. It's like the bite gives you a bad bad case of ebola or something.
Anyways, in short I loved the movie because it left you to think up possibilities for everything to yourself.
Like did Lily survive?
I wonder what the cover will look like?
Modernized "Escape From New York" cover anyone?
camera turns to the water pay close attention to the right side of the screen. Yeah... it's
a space monster.
- They are huge, taller than the statue of liberty! (Need a very large space ship).
- They are not very clever. (Have the basic instincts of a wild primative animal).