Comments on: Cloverfield: Oil Tanker Destroyed

By: Anthony

Anthony — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:52:09 +0000

I was being sarcastic.

I don’t have a problem with PART of the film being shown from the 1st person’s perspective through a camcorder, but not the ENTIRE movie!

It should have a DISCLAIMER letting you know that if you are prone to motion sickness then this film is NOT for you.

By: Lola

Lola — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:03:22 +0000

Anthony, if you would’ve stayed to see the entire movie, you’d understand that the movie was based on a character/amateur….holding a video camera…..RUNNING FOR HIS LIFE!! I don’t think that if you were in the middle of an attack, you’d want to set up a tripod, now would you? So, before you trash the film and/or film style, why not use your head and figure out the reason why it was shot like that in the first place?

By: Anthony

Anthony — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:53:41 +0000

I took my Family to see this movie…. unfortunately could not stay and watch the thing because, my wife, daughter and me all got motion sickness. I HATE movies done with this kind of “amateur cam
style. For 25 Million, BUY A TRIPOD!

I ended up demanding my money or tickets to see anything else. The theater management gave no trouble, and informed me that they have been having to do this all weekend. They told me that Friday they had a few people actually puke in the theater from the motion.

I can tell you this, I’m not interested in seeing this movie again. and will NOT be buying the DVD, and if the sequel is like this one, then I won’t be interested in seeing that either.

By: Jim Bob

Jim Bob — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:50:52 +0000

This is a bad “Blair Witch” type movie! I hope all the investers that bankrolled this flop go away laughing that they sold a bill of goods to the audience once again and the laugh was on movie goers.

By: MoeGoofie

MoeGoofie — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:29:10 +0000

if you wait long enough on the 1-18-08.com, the monster will roar for you.

By: Mike Macnamara

Mike Macnamara — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:52:57 +0000

Why does it ‘need’ a sequel? Why does everything have to be explained in a neat little package? Cloverfield isn’t about the monster. Unlike your standard Kaiju type monster film, the monster in Cloverfield isn’t a character. It is a problem facing the characters. An element per say.

By: J

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:49:10 +0000

The movie needs a sequel, not just to explain the how the monsters lived the attacks, or where he came from, but because it seems like its part of an invasion. The big monster as the mother ship, and and the ones shedding of as infantry. Almost like halo or gears of war.

By: ME

ME — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:35:37 +0000

Hey “Required” Yes, there are interesting characters. No, it isn’t just a bunch of reaction shots. Go fuck yourself, and how about you look into a movie before you trash it.

By: Justin R....

Justin R.... — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:25:44 +0000

Saw the sneak preview at 12:00 AM this morning.

Amazing.
Cant say a single bad thing about it.
That wasent the monsters eyes… it was its brain pulsating.
the pics have very little to do with the film.

CGI was awesome.
seriously it seems hard for someone to not like this film.
it even has comedy in it.

i feel a sequel comming on. one in which takes place at the exact same time as the first film, with another group of people using a video camera. maybe even the military’s perspective on it. that way we can find more out about the monsters origin.

later.

By: Jerry Butler

Jerry Butler — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 04:05:37 +0000

Impossible. the movie would have to end right there.

By: BxA

BxA — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:22:39 +0000

They have just now added a new pic.
looks like the army is calling in a airstike to the middle of the harbor..

–BxA–

By: GrannyKlump

GrannyKlump — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:01:33 +0000

@Required,

I hate to break it to you but i do not work for any viral marketing firm or anything related to that. the only reason i posted was hoping that someone would could translate what was on the back for the pic. dont hate on me becuase i am observant.

By: Kere

Kere — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:45:02 +0000

I’ve sent a review to Peter Sciretta today. I don’t know if he will publish it. Anyway, the movie is great.

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

There are many monsters in this movie. Think about Alien + Starship Troopers + Half-Life 2 and you will understand. Did you get it?

By: Jerry Butler

Jerry Butler — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:34:54 +0000

Not.

By: Jerry Butler

Jerry Butler — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:34:20 +0000

Well, you’ve got me there. If movie critics say it is good I’m sold that it will be good and make lots of money. History has proven this to be the case.

By: Danatic

Danatic — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:31:19 +0000

Word, James.

By: James

James — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:25:49 +0000

@Jerry Butler - There have been several other professional reviews (Hollywood Elsewhere, EOnline, Neil Cumpston) all of which have been positive and make no mention of bad cgi. EOnline review even says that this looks like 10 times its budget of 25million. Now if there was only one review claiming it was a work of genius then you maybe right but when most legit people who have seen the movie liked it then your ‘its only Harry Knowles’ argument becomes stale and irrelevant.

@Required - I think you are working for a rival studio trying to spin Cloverfield negatively.

It’s amazing how far some people will go to say something negative about a movie about which we have heard nothing but good things so far.

By: Jerry Butler

Jerry Butler — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:13:00 +0000

Are you taking Harry knowles review as legit??

…….

Ahahahahahahaaha!

By: Joseph Ferrarelli

Joseph Ferrarelli — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:12:48 +0000

theres also a night vision picture on the site as well.

By: Nuevas imÃ¡genes de ‘Cloverfield’ desde el sitio web 1-18-08.com — CINERAMA > ReseÃ±as de cine

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:39:59 +0000

[...] Via | /Film [...]