Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

CLOVERFIELD Monster Fully Revealed!! (Even More Than In The Damn Movie...)

Merrick here...
Okay, to be very clear here, I rather liked CLOVERFIELD. It's far from a perfect movie...and there's some pretty dopey stuff in it to be sure. But I think it worked pretty well as a whole, and more or less nailed everything it set out to accomplish. It's solid work with some truly wonderful moments. This said, one element of the film really irritated me: how it handled/presented its "monster". The movie's publicity coyly kept the creature from us...showing little-to-nothing at all. Which, of course, made for more anticipation when we sat down in theaters. Problem is: there wasn't a payoff for this anticipation in the movie itself. There was no "reveal" to speak of...nothing which made the months and months of guessing & second guessing this design or that design worthwhile. The film worked...but in this particular regard it felt like a bait and switch. ESPECIALLY since our characters...being followed by a video camera throughout the entire movie...were clearly in a position to see that which the audience was not being shown. A little too much of a tease, perhaps? And, oddly enough, no accurate images showing (what little we saw of) the creature escaped onto the Internet subsequent to the film's release. As recently as a few weeks ago, Talkbackers were complaining that they still didn't have a clear sense of what the "monster" looked like. Today that changed. Later this year, Hasbro will release a $99 (you read that right) megatoy based on the CLOVERFIELD creature. The Hasbro site was updated with images of the toy today, allowing our first clear sense of the creature's entirety.
This could still be considered something of a SPOILER, so don't click on this link if you want to preserve the mystique!


I realize that CLOVERFIELD is not about iconography, but I'm still underwhelmed by this design...and wonder if that's one of the reasons it was kept so obscured in the film. It's certainly frightening in motion, but there's nothing that embeds the beat image in my consciousness as "terrifying" or unpleasant just by looking at it. It looks like one of this things I used to incinerate with my electric fly swatter when they buzzed the lamp in my living room. That's just my opinion, though. What do you think? THANKS to all the readers who sent in this link. Appreciated!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:33 p.m. CST

    I liked it. Bring on Part Deux...

    by Pennsy

    But I wasn't paying attention at the very end with the falling thingy, I have to admit.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Bat Skeleton

    by Kraken

    that's what it looks like to me.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:34 p.m. CST


    by ishouldbeworking

    That thing does look a bit pathetic in my opinion

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:35 p.m. CST

    I liked the monster better...

    by PirateEmery

    ...before I clicked that link.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:35 p.m. CST

    That's what the whole hub-bub was about?

    by SkidMarkedUndies

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:35 p.m. CST

    70 pounds?

    by Pennsy

    Not a typo? Sheez...

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:36 p.m. CST

    What is that a geonosian?

    by Pipple

    Oh shut up. You remember those burnt jar jar looking things.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:36 p.m. CST


    by SaluteYourShorts

    The monster was awesome. People who complain about it, I dare you to explain how it could have been handled better, or designed better.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:36 p.m. CST

    That's NOT a Baby ....BABY!

    by FuryofthefilmFan

    That's a Full Grown Monster MAN!!!!

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:37 p.m. CST

    they did reveal it to satisfaction

    by geraldbeans

    I mean sure, he didn't start posing like he was in an Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue, but we received plenty of shots of him. This is so nitpicky as to be annoying.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:37 p.m. CST

    the fake whale design was better

    by BMacSmith

    why did they leak out cooler designs and build up all this suspense only to put a sucky ass design onscreen? let down

  • Americans just do not understand why the Japanese have been the only ones to make it work.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:42 p.m. CST


    by Merrick

    "he didn't start posing like he was in an Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue" ----> No, the rest of the cast was busy doing that.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:42 p.m. CST

    I haven't seen cloverfield yet...

    by greenstyle92

    So by looking at this toy have I ruined it for myself? And I agree BMacSmith... That Whale thing looked more interesting and unique. This design... Looks like Any old monster you'd see running around one of those totally Ass Sci-fi Channel movies.<br> <br> But I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it does work better in the actual movie.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:45 p.m. CST

    who would pay 100 bucks for that?!

    by BMacSmith

    anorexic rancor with an extra joint

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:45 p.m. CST

    I want to see actual production sketches

    by Gwai Lo

    Toys are such a lame reveal

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:51 p.m. CST

    Thats not a lion!

    by skywalkerfamily


  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:53 p.m. CST

    You mean Cloverfield ALIEN

    by Kirbymanly

    Watch it drop from the sky at the end. It's not of this world

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:55 p.m. CST

    It's not Voltron, either

    by Spinmove

    But where's the kickass non-Japanese import Voltron Lionbot $100 toy? I might actually buy that one...

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:55 p.m. CST

    Stupid Shakey Cam

    by tj donkey show

    Made me vomit. Just couldn't enjoy the movie.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:56 p.m. CST

    I saw the movie..

    by DannyDorko666

    ..but thats not how I thought the thing looked. It looks worse waaaaay worse. I liked it better when it was in "Spawn" and called the Violater.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:56 p.m. CST

    oh my LORD

    by LegoKenobi

    i can't believe you're complaining about how the monster *looked* long after the movie came out -- were you entertained while watching the movie? then they did their job. over-analysis this long afterwards is just ridiculous.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:57 p.m. CST

    It was weird and scary looking enough

    by Yeti

    When on the screen it looked like it was a good 200 feet in height. The parasites that kept falling off it and attacking everyone freaked me out.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:57 p.m. CST


    by Geekgasm

    Wow, that's not impressive in any way. I'm glad I didn't succumb to the hype and trot off to see the movie just for that. Anybody paying a c note for that embodies the fool of "a fool and his money are soon parted" fame.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:58 p.m. CST

    cool i guess, heres something cooler!

    by mmaddox3

    maybe you have all already seen this but since the speedsters here at aicn havnt posted it yet i thought you all would like to see this wicked cool clip from where the wild things are, follow the link!

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 6:58 p.m. CST

    I'm a month late to this debate, but..

    by Shut the Fuck up Donny

    I have to disagree. I felt the WEAKEST part of the film was when we had the full-face reveal near the end where we have the creature facing the camera. I felt it was too obviously CG and it ruined my suspension of disbelief. I think the film works better as a whole never letting the audience seeing the creature in its entiriety. That we fear most is that we can't see.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7 p.m. CST

    **Spoiler**Cloverfield 2**

    by SaluteYourShorts

    I heard Rosie O'Donnell is playing the monster in the sequel.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7 p.m. CST

    I finally saw CLOVERFIELD, post-backlash, and...

    by odysseus

    ...I fucking LOVED it.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:01 p.m. CST

    **Spoiler**Cloverfield 2**

    by SaluteYourShorts

    I heard Rosie O'Donnell is playing the monster in the sequel.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:01 p.m. CST

    The fake whale design was really, really stupid.

    by jimmay

    No! It's a whale!!! A WHHHHAAAAAAALLLLE!!!!!!

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:02 p.m. CST


    by nietzschebot1

    The monster was horrific because of the size, which magnifies its scary features. Diminished in size, it is not at all scary but rather buglike. NO JAPANESE MONSTER WAS EVER SCARY, except for 5 year olds. They were "iconic" and "cool" but not horrifying. The Cloverfield monster could have been scarier but it went in the right direction-- away from looking like a gigantic plastic "cool" toy attacking a city.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:02 p.m. CST

    How can you make a toy of something that changed its shape all t

    by Mr Chuff

    IS that a spoiler? Tough...get out more

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:03 p.m. CST

    Am I the only one...

    by Lenny Nero

    ...who liked the fact that by the end I still didn't have a clear picture of what the monster was? Isn't that meant to be, I don't know, SCARY?

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:04 p.m. CST

    where the wild things are clip!

    by mmaddox3 it looks fucking amazing!

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:06 p.m. CST

    maddox, tinyurl that shit...

    by Lenny Nero

    ...or nobody is going to click on it.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:09 p.m. CST

    I still feel the same about the monster as after I saw the movie

    by otm shank

    Rancor with long legs.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:12 p.m. CST

    Of course!

    by Logan_1973

    Of course it was more frightening when we couldn't see it. It's an age-old technique: letting the viewers' imagination do the work. What you can't see is scarier then what you can see.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:14 p.m. CST

    Lenny, no, you're not the only one...

    by Shut the Fuck up Donny

    I was utterly engulfed into the first 45 or so minutes of the film (aside from the beginning party) because I felt as though I were caught up in the same confusion and frustration that the characters felt--not knowing what was going on. I think it's that very sense of panic and apprehension that gives a visceral fear. The reveal removes that primal fear of you being in an uncontrolled situation. Using a more personal example, I'm terrified of spiders. Knowing there's on in the room scares the shit out of me if I can't find it immediately. However, if I were to go to a museum and look at a swarming hoarde of them behind plexiglass, I'll just stare in bland fascination.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:15 p.m. CST

    Screw the naysayers

    by cesaria

    All you people that say, "you bought into the hype,", well everyone seems to have the same complaints. 1. the monster isn't iconic. 2. they look like abercrombie models. What did you want it to look like? It looks like nothing I've ever seen in film. It's totally original, and has managed to stick in my mind. And the model shit, seriously, for one, they don't look like models, and if they did, they're real people, too. Would it be more realistic if everyone was ugly. How can someone being attractive possibly be a gripe with a movie. It's called grasping at straws. /rant.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:16 p.m. CST

    Monster revealed on Yahoo Movies

    by pendy16

    Monster is shown pretty well in a clip on Yahoo Movies' Cloverfield section (been there for some time)... the toy looks pretty accurate.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:18 p.m. CST

    It looked much cooler in the film

    by Mullah Omar

    Less was more. I enjoyed the hell out of the movie even if we didn't get a lot of long looks at the monster. <br> <br> Now bring on a sequel as inventive and exciting as the original.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:19 p.m. CST

    Yobo, well I was just paraphrasing Batman,

    by Shut the Fuck up Donny

    and it seems to work well for him! heh. Either way, that's the beauty of horror: there are so many fears to prey upon.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:22 p.m. CST


    by odysseus

    I saw a Q&A with Drew Goddard (Cloverfield's screenwriter) and he said all that matters is what's on screen -- everything else is beside the point. I agree. Viral marketing backstories, spoiler photos, production videos -- they're all taking away the sense of awe that movies like this are supposed to inspire. Sites like AICN chew and digest and crap out so much info that by the time a movie is released, the magic has been leached away. It's like peeking at all your presents before your birthday -- sneaky fun at the time, but ultimately you undermine your own surprise and enjoyment. I've been guilty of it too. 'Inside' knowledge is hard to resist. And these days, it almost takes effort to stay in the dark about films like Cloverfield. That's why JJ Abrams and Paramount were so obscure in the film's development and marketing -- and I loved it all the more for that.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:23 p.m. CST

    real men love curves..

    by DannyDorko666

    ..on our monsters as well as our women. Godzilla was a bit "hippy" but we loved him all the more for his imperfections. The medias focus on urealistic body-image results in wafer-thin twiggyesque super-monsters like this one.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:24 p.m. CST

    Gotta disagree with Merrick.

    by raw_bean

    I really liked the design, and loved the way/amount that it was revealed in the film. It was another part of the 'being there for real' sort of feel to it, that it was just so big and so alien that it was hard to comprehend what you were seeing, but I think we got plenty of 'money shots' of it towards the end of the film, rather than any feeling of being cheated out of it. Going back to see it again tomorrow (later today I mean).

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:25 p.m. CST

    I agree

    by smackfu

    I went in with skepticism and walked out of that movie feeling like I spent 2 hours on Omaha Beach circa D-Day. It's not about the movie, or the monster, or the acting or the's about the experience, and the experience was unlike anything I've ever experienced in a theatre. There are very few movies I consider landmarks, that were completely unlike anything I'd ever seen to that point and I wasn't prepared for what awaited me. Two of those movies are Pulp Fiction, and Fight Club. I add Cloverfield to that category of landmark films, though nowhere near approaching the quality of artistry that went into Pulp Fiction and Fight Club, Cloverfield gave me an experience unlike any other movie I've ever seen, and probably will ever see again. My nerves reacted like I was really there, I was exhausted and shellshocked, and that is a rare experience.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:26 p.m. CST

    Saw too much of it in the movie already...

    by Hellboy

    ...and that figure is fucking horrible.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:27 p.m. CST

    The impression I got from the movie...

    by JackIsLost

    that it was a giant coffee table with fangs. But maybe that's just me...

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:29 p.m. CST

    "You`re an ugly Motherfucker!"

    by travis-dane

    yiekes.No hair on that ass!

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:31 p.m. CST


    by jimmy rabbitte

    ...whatever<p> the movie was very underwhelming...

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:34 p.m. CST

    Anyone think the monster looked like

    by henrydalton

    The devil/demon things that are in Constantine when he goes to Hell? Really looked like a big version of one of them. And yes, I was a bit disappointed in the look of it. But yes, Cloverfield was awesome. Especially on a biiiiiiiig fucking digital projection screen with a cuntfucking twatsome sound system. Bang bang ba-boing.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Love it

    by kyle051554

    I can't believe people are bitching that it looks too generic. Are they serious? If it looked like Godzilla or King Ghidorah, then yeah, it'd look generic, but as is, I think it's a completely original design that worked perfect in the movie.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:40 p.m. CST


    by Rufus

    Seriously, it's cool looking I guess, but it would've been cooler looking if we could actually see it in the movie. All we get to see in the movie is something that looks like an overgrown mosquito without wings and a giant red ballsack attached to its head. Fuck that.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:43 p.m. CST

    Plenty of payoff

    by FranklinStreet

    I felt like the movie really did deliver plenty of payoff on us getting to see the monster. I can think of many occasions in the film where we got to see it. I was more than satisfied with the way it was handled-- it was exactly what I wanted vs. something like Blair Witch where there wasn't a payoff at all.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:47 p.m. CST

    It kinda looks like that demon from Poletergeist

    by Orionsangels

    The one that shows up after the house has been supposedly cleaned by the midget lady. It's a giant skeleton like ghost that the mom sees her her cute football shirt nightie. I think it had flowing hair. real creepy lookin thing.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:48 p.m. CST

    Irrational hate in the fanboy community

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    I'm always surprised by the amount of hate thrown at the "yuppies" in that movie by talkbackers. Who would you want to see being attacked by a huge something? Is there a demographic you'd prefer in a life-or-death situation? Fat asthmatics living in their parents' basements? Latino gang members? Who? I've actually been to a party with people who more or less looked like that in Manhattan. I didn't have a general hate for the entire room of people based on a cursory glance. Some I came to like, some I came to hate. Even the ones I came to dislike at least seem less like the poor, hate-filled trolls who tend to populate these threads. I wonder if the more vociferous among this group have the capacity to like anyone or anything.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Well there's something you don't see everyday!

    by skywalkerfamily

    Nobody steps on a church in my town!

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:51 p.m. CST

    $99 for that?

    by ELGordo

    Fudge no.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 7:54 p.m. CST

    a monster that a 3 year old can choke on???

    by bacci40

    oh yea...that is really this made in china?

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:01 p.m. CST

    If anything

    by manikman

    My gf and I thought that we saw too much of the monster toward the end. We loved the movie but felt that it thought it needed to show us more of the monster than was necessary. We were happy for the film to end at the helicopter. Who gives a shit about seeing it in its entirety, that's not what the film is about. It's about the experience, not what the thing looks like for gods sake. If you were in that situaution would you ever get a good look at it, no, because you'd be too busy running away. Hence the fact that I actually thought we had too many gratuitous shots of 'clover' toward the end.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:05 p.m. CST

    Dammit, people...

    by ebonic_plague

    ...don't make me drag out my "Cloverfield remake for douchebag haters" treatment from the last time. Spare the talkback. Think of the children.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:07 p.m. CST

    a white VENOM?

    by guerillakarma

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:09 p.m. CST

    Who cares what the monster looks like?

    by Royston Lodge

    Not getting a clear view of the monster TOTALLY makes the movie more realistic. In real life, there have been PLENTY of times where there was a big, history-changing event, and someone was videotaping it - badly. Or the event happened so quickly that one video shot of it, from only one angle, simply isn't enough to TRULY document the event. So, even though there's a video document of the event, the eye-witnesses STILL have a better image in their mind's eye than the rest of us. That's why the movie WORKS. BECAUSE you never get to see the monster, it's that much scarier. Just like Tom Cruise (and by extension, Steven Spielberg) said in the one great piece of dialog from War Of The Worlds, "you don't HAVE to see it!"

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:10 p.m. CST

    it looks like...

    by Varakor

    a giant deformed, NYC sewer rat. Sign of things to come??

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:11 p.m. CST

    the monster worked big time on screen...

    by pdennett316

    In toy form, not so much. <p> He/it was shown the perfect amount in the film - aside from that last shot of HUD looking up at it, lingered a bit too long - saw the tail, then a glimpse of the face, bit of body here and there, and the best shot of all when the thing is bombed and you see it fall into the building. <p> Look forward to the sequel.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:11 p.m. CST

    Cloverfield Duce: How To Piss Off An Audience Even More!

    by TallBoy66

    The secrets will not be revealed! The movie will not be watchable! See it! Or, more acurately, don't!!

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:14 p.m. CST

    doesn't look like it could crush buildings

    by I Dunno

    but then that whale depiction was way too big to precisely chop the head off the the statue of liberty.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:14 p.m. CST

    That was the monster??

    by jdl82

    He's not so scary when he's only a few inches tall. Ah well, at least we can say for sure now that it really did not look like any sort of marine animal. It was definetely not from Earth. But dude, where's the tail I knew I'd seen??

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:17 p.m. CST


    by Shut the Fuck up Donny

    I wholeheartedly agree that the movie should have ended with the helicopter crash, but I suspect that the studio had to add on the "reveal" of the monster and the "I love you" scene to appease the mouth breathers in the test audiences.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:20 p.m. CST

    Godzilla v. Cloverfield

    by jdl82

    Cloverfield would win; it's 200 feet taller and can turn its head.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Looks like a pokemon really

    by Pipple

    Syther probably or hitmonchan. What? Pokemon's the shit.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:22 p.m. CST

    "Oh no, the Rancor!"

    by Fa Fa Fooey

    Piece of shit design.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:24 p.m. CST

    It looks way cooler now that you can actually see the whole damn

    by The_Squid

    One of my biggest problems with the movie was stupid the monster looked. It oddly looks much better now that I can genuinely see it.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:25 p.m. CST

    looks like Ann Coulter

    by BadMrWonka

    but probably causes less people in NY to scream...

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:30 p.m. CST

    I don't even recognise that from the film

    by aversiontherapy2

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:31 p.m. CST

    Worked on screen, but weak overall

    by jimmy_009

    Totally unmemorable design when you see the whole thing.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:35 p.m. CST


    by Briannicus

    In all fairness, it WAS designed by the same guy who designed the Rancor (Phil Tippett) I think he toy only bears a passing resemblance to what's seen on screen. As far as the douchebag that says Clovie crashes into the ocean at the end of the movie, wrong!!! That was the Tagruato satellite (one of the many viral campaigns attached to the movie.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Die haters die!!!

    by Hugh G Rekshun

    The creature design is is the toy. Once this thing has sold out, you teabaggers will weep that you didn't pick one up. Wassa matter...your mommy not giving you enough allowance money? Fucking douche nozzels!

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Crashes into the ocean?!

    by jameshardy

    What, and when, does anything crash into the ocean at the end of the movie? What have I missed?

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Looks like Hillary Clinton

    by picardsucks

    When she first realized Obama was whuppin that ass!!! Poor Bill no wonder he love the strange!!

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:44 p.m. CST

    i like this one better

    by BMacSmith

    whale are scary! hee heehee

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:47 p.m. CST

    For those complaining about the price...

    by Bubba Gillman

    ...please note it comes with 10 parasites. That's less than 10 bucks a parasite!

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:49 p.m. CST

    wow. letdown.

    by dr.bulber

    no wonder the monster mites bailed.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:49 p.m. CST

    notes from a cloverfield fanboy..

    by soup74

    okay, i loved the movie, and I'm one of the dorks who followed every peep being said about (and im sure a lot of you already know this stuff..)<br><br> -the thing falling into the ocean at the end was a satalite. they refernce it in the 'kinda-arg' they did for the movie. it was an easter egg for the fans. <br><br>-it says 70 'points' not 70 pounds. as in 70 points of articulation. which means if you look at the front 'hands' whoever was posing the toy for the picture should have done a little more homework and curled the knuckles backwards, because thats how the creature walked in the film. <br><br> the creature is probably from the ocean.. they can always change it, but drew goddard, matt reeves, and JJ abrams have made mention to its ocean-depths rising. (look up 'bloop' on wikipedia. it was an inspiration, and a pretty interesting article in itself) <br><br> the monster was a frightened baby. looking at the design it does look a bit immature. <br><br>if you really care. (i know a bunch of you hated the movie, but for those who enjoyed it want to learn more) go check out the imdb page for it. they have a great FAQ there.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:50 p.m. CST


    by BangoSkank

    The last "flashback" scene with "the dude & the hot chick" has something huge falling from the sky and crashing into the ocean behind them.... blink, and you'll miss it.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:53 p.m. CST

    I love how this site couldn't spoil the monster

    by skywalkerfamily

    until weeks after the movie bombed.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:54 p.m. CST


    by thebearovingian

    Cloverfield Monster In Name Only! I agree, that's not the same monster from the movie. Maybe Hasbro only saw the same footage we did and they "misremembered" what it looked like. <p>Debbie Clemens 4 Life!!!

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:54 p.m. CST

    It's a lion! It's HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by performingmonkey

    Bet you never thought anyone would post that, am I right? You all make me sick. 'It's lame!' 'It's lame-o!' 'I'm not paying for that!' 'It's just like a lame rancor with lame long legs and lame white hairless skin!' 'Anyone who pays for that deserves to be raped in their lame ass by their lame uncle!' Oh shut the FUCK UP all of you. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in tears in rain. Time to die.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 8:58 p.m. CST

    Soup 74....

    by BangoSkank

    See, I friggin' loved the movie.... but didn't feed into any of the online viral marketing bullshit..... so to hear that the thing crashing into the ocean at the end of the movie was some random satalite, fucking pisses me off. Yes, I'm headed off to check out the IMDB page and the Wiki page and every other bullshit page I need to..... but I still call bullshit. I loved the movie. What I saw on the fucking screen. I don't want to learn after the fact that what I saw was completely different than what I though 'cause I never went to goddamn Slocko, or whatever it was... ARHHHHHHH! End rant.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:01 p.m. CST

    I saw it! It's HUGE!!!!

    by skywalkerfamily

    My penis.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:03 p.m. CST

    Well I guess it looks less like...

    by Shayde

    An angry vagina. It looked like an angry vagina to me until I saw the action figure. Psychoanalyze that.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:05 p.m. CST

    Well, I think it looked cool.

    by 'Cholera's Ghost

    That's just me.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:09 p.m. CST


    by 'Cholera's Ghost

    No, I'm not going to do it. performingmonkey's Blade Runner speech has made my mood too philosophical and introspective with awe to perform the meaningless lion dance...

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:09 p.m. CST

    It reminded me of

    by greyspecter

    a skinnier Rancor, if the rancor had been done today and Lucas probably would have screwed the pooch on that too.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:10 p.m. CST


    by dopepope

    I'm troubled by the design only for one reason. I recall JJ Abrams talking about how he wanted a Godzilla of our own. Now I know he wasn't looking to copy Godzilla, and he sure hasn't, but I don't think he set up any sort of continuing movie legacy with a design like this. This thing doesn't look very formidable if it were to come against other creatures of it's size. It looks more like the thing that gets killed right away, as the more ICONIC monster steps on it's carcass to carry the movie into it's sequels. I do love the way it moved however. It was pretty frightening. I can only hope that maybe this thing develops into a larger, sturdier monster worthy of some awesome fights and many sequels.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:10 p.m. CST

    All the Cloverfield haters

    by K|LLDOZER

    Seriously - you're a bunch of dumbfucks. The movie's marketing campaign, production and storyline were executed perfectly for fans of monster/disaster films. Alien was done in much the same way, sans the pre-release "clues." The monster was revealed slowly and with the right amount of tension/sensationalism to drive the plot as needed. And just like "Alien" it was told from a human perspective - how people thrown into a situation well beyond their control interacted and dealt with the possibilities at hand. Some were stupid choices, some were calculated choices, most were fruitless. Cloverfield, like Alien was an exercise in economy to the benefit of the viewer. Dipshits.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:11 p.m. CST

    The biggest mistake with the 'reveal'

    by BobPalpatine

    Was showing the audience the first full view of the monster on television screens. I was disappointed when the characters saw the creature on the news in the television store. I would much rather have seen this view of the creature later on in the story, and from a character's perspective.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:11 p.m. CST


    by soup74

    thats fair enough, and i see your point. but its not like that little detail added or detracted from the movie you saw on screen, it was just a little nod to the dorks like me who did follow all the viral bullshit.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:11 p.m. CST

    I think it showed too much of the monster

    by Guy Who Got A Headache And Accidentally Saves The World

    Not sure what your talking about Merrick. And the rest of you get over yourselves you pseudo hipster douchebags are just trying to appear hip by hating the film.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:21 p.m. CST

    The movie was done for 20-25mill. and made 77mill.

    by travis-dane

    so far,just in the States.Sounds like a good deal to me.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:24 p.m. CST

    by SaluteYourShorts

    Vincent Chase in..."CLOVERFIELD VS AQUAMAN" directed by Billy Walsh.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:25 p.m. CST

    Just read in Variety...

    by SaluteYourShorts

    Vincent Chase in..."CLOVERFIELD BLVD.", directed by Billy Walsh

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:28 p.m. CST

    No more wasting money on toys.

    by aboriginal

    Took a while, but its chicks and cars now.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:35 p.m. CST

    A pale, skinny confused young monster...

    by ebonic_plague

    ...with mini accessory monsters that cause blood explosions, running amok in NYC. I'd say that's the PERFECT iconic monster for our time.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:36 p.m. CST

    Totally off topic...


    Bridget the midget has been spotted(Really old joke, huh?)! I just watched The Soup and lo and behold, Bridget the Midget and a guy in a S&M mask appear. I think I need to wash my eyes out with bleach.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:37 p.m. CST

    The Creepy Crawlers in "The Mist"...

    by REDD

    Were scarier than that.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:38 p.m. CST

    Turd Movie, Turd Toy

    by quantize


  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:39 p.m. CST

    Same here, aboriginal...


    Now all my money goes towards hooke- uh, I mean dates...Yeah, that's what I meant(looks around nervously)...

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:55 p.m. CST

    I remember the whole LION thing

    by Orionsangels

    I would show people online pics of what maybe the monster looked like. everytime i'd get those people that would say to me, its a LION you idiot! its been established. they say it! well now what bitches? where's your lion? fuckers!

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:57 p.m. CST


    by kilerb

    are a moron.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 9:59 p.m. CST

    The way Harry spoke of this monster, remember?

    by Orionsangels

    Like it was the second coming, hahaha! its so damn lame when you see it now. Harry was hyping the shit outta this movie. I don't wanna say he gets paid. I'm sure it was just the geek in him. who had a hard on for the movie, but still. Makes ya wonder what goes on behind closed doors at AICN. closed basement doors?

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 10:04 p.m. CST

    I wish I had my $18 back.

    by abovo

    This movie was a serious disappointment.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 10:07 p.m. CST

    Does the toy go apeshit like in the film?

    by Han Cholo

    Cause I'm not going apeshit looking at it.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 10:15 p.m. CST

    ANGRY RED PLANET did it better

    by Mace Tofu

    with that RAT-BAT-SPIDER MONKEY Monster. But you know if you shake your head around while looking at that toy photo it's not too bad.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 10:15 p.m. CST

    Orionsangels, weren't we...

    by 'Cholera's Ghost

    joking about that?

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 10:28 p.m. CST

    Problem not the design

    by OwnedbyGeorge

    It's smartly designed to look confusing and unrecognizable from any angle, but that combined with clostraphobic shaky-cam doesn't really work. Like ascending a crooked building with a crooked camera...doesn't seem as thrilling because the camera's been crooked the whole time. The drama of this big confusing beast is lost to the little confusing eye-piece we have to watch the movie thru.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 10:39 p.m. CST


    by Orionsangels

    I don't have time to read every talkbackers comment. but kudos. i'm wit you guys

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 10:43 p.m. CST

    I just came

    by performingmonkey

    in your mom's cunt.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 10:44 p.m. CST

    They needed to follow Blair Witch more closely

    by jccalhoun

    Not the plot of the movie but the marketing. And not even the part about trying to convince us that it is real. While I liked the film I was left really wanting to know more about the creature and what happened. There wasn't any room for that within the film the way it was made. I'm fine with that. However, Blair Witch had the same thing. So they dealt with it by having a bunch of other "found" stuff online and they have that hour long scifi channel show that was supposed to be a documentary of the Blair Witch. <br><br>Since Cloverfield was supposed to be footage found by the government they should have had a website with more facts or an online documentary about the facts of the attack. They need to have somewhere I can go and find out more about this event without having to shoehorn it into what was a fairly entertaining film.<br><br>That being said, I also watched The Asylum's ripoff film Monster and while it was a bit long and really hurt by lack of a budget, I thought that parts of it were better executed than Cloverfield. It was certainly the best Asylum rip-off film I've seen.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Cloverfield...biggest gip in movie history...

    by sonnyfern

    Seriously, it wasn't a good movie at all, the monsters not that great, there aren't even any REAL action scenes...the movies just endless walking up stairs, talking about nothing and less than 6 minutes of the monster. It's a rip-off and I hope it falls into obscurity faster than it already has...

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 11:07 p.m. CST

    Looks like a mutated vampire bat.

    by Ozy

    Slap some wings on that bitch and you got CLOVERFIELD 2.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 11:18 p.m. CST

    How does that thing support its head?

    by skywalkerfamily

    With those paper thin legs.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 11:44 p.m. CST

    It's OK to Admit It Sucked

    by BeatsMe

    We all got sucked in by the hype, that move blew really, really nasty chunks

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 11:45 p.m. CST

    why is it $100

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    does it come with a handjob? - i hated the movie, but its a great monster - different - has a "bottom feeder" or "shrimp" quality i cant quite put my finger on - very cool - but no icon, like kong or gohira

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 11:50 p.m. CST

    So, Merrick, tell me...

    by LoneGun

    ...At what specific point in CLOVERFIELD did the cast get "busy" posing as though they were in an Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue? Because I don't remember that part. It sounds a bit to me like you are taking a cheap shot at a film that happens to center around a group of young urban professionals. I happen to agree with geraldbeans in finding this article nitpicky. The ads for CLOVERFIELD never promised to show the creature in any great detail. It only promised to thrill its viewer, and personally I thought it delivered the goods. I was on the edge of my seat at this film. The movie needs to be assessed on its own terms.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Only $25 Million?.....

    by closeencounter

    That piece-of-shit Snakes on a Plane cost $33 mil to make. If JJ and Co. can make Cloverfield 2 look as good as Cloverfield 1 for only $25 mil (more or less), I'm there. I really enjoyed it, and the ending reminded me of Hitchcock's The Birds. Just left you hanging, begging for answers. Which is why there will probably be Cloverfield 2.

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 11:53 p.m. CST

    I miss the Cthulhu Dance....

    by EvilGeek1

  • Feb. 15, 2008, 11:57 p.m. CST

    I want a Snakes on a Plane sequel!

    by skywalkerfamily

    MORE Snakes on a plane!

  • Feb. 16, 2008, midnight CST

    Doc Manhattan

    by LoneGun

    Am I a bitch because I referred to the characters in CLOVERFIELD as "young urban professionals"? Are you serious? Well, you're just a rude moron.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:01 a.m. CST

    Do people get to see Cloverfield for free on St.

    by skywalkerfamily

    Patrick's Day?

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:06 a.m. CST

    LoneGun, on its own terms it failed

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    i wasnt on the edge of MY seat - i was literally yawning until the first big noise - none of it rang true - it was supposed to deliver a "realistic" experience - it had a "realness" to it - but for a movie that milked the blair witch technique to a fault, it felt like a "movie" - not a civilian documented event - i only leaned forward in anticipation when i thought i might see a monster - the parasites and their scenes in the subway were great - needed more of that - funny how the camera guy chose to film his dumb friends reactions rather than the actual monster - wouldnt you try to film the monster if it were you? - the budget musta been very small - dont promise in a trailer what you cant ($) deliver

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:06 a.m. CST

    where are the RED external eardrums?

    by Jubba

    or whatever they were? and where are the starship troopers bug lice?

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:08 a.m. CST

    LoneGun, no youre a bitch cause this movie scared you

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:19 a.m. CST

    Does the movie always have to be "about" the...

    by 33.3rpm Just 'cause it has a monster in it.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:21 a.m. CST

    Aliens VS This Weird thing!

    by skywalkerfamily

    Get on it New Line!

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:21 a.m. CST

    JimmyJoe RedSky, if the movie didn't work for you...

    by LoneGun

    ...fair enough. I don't expect a movie like this to be everyone's cup of tea. If I'm a bitch because it scared me, then I'm at least a bitch who got his money's worth.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:37 a.m. CST

    Thanks, Doc.

    by LoneGun

    That was a pretty funny post, actually. I will take your advice.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:51 a.m. CST

    KillDozer, no. Just no.

    by TheLastCleric

    Did you really just call the haters dipshits and then proceed to compare Cloverfield with Alien? I actually thought Cloverfield was a decent enough film but nothing about that movie even approaches the quality of Alien. When you consider the cast(several well known and accomplished actors), the director (Ridley Scott) and the design of the creature (H.R. Giger at his best)Cloverfield comes up short in every possible way. There was nothing even remotely iconic about the film nor the beast and all this talk of innovation seems silly considering it aped Blair Witch Project at almost every turn, including the ending where the kids give their tearful testimonials. The whole concept of slowly revealing the monster is film technique 101 and has been used before and since Alien. (Jaws did it four years earlier than Alien.) IF you think Cloverfield is truly a great cinematic endeavor that's your choice but I'd curb the attacks on other people's intellects given your comparison of a true classic to a mildly successful film that will be forgotten by this time next year.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 1:09 a.m. CST

    LoneGun, i couldnt resist - i was just kidding....

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    but seriously - i couldnt connect to this movie at all - are you a 20-something hipster like the cast? - is that the secret to "getting" this movie - i think "blair witch" is a better example of this type of movie - or at least scarier - it worked - why? - it felt like what it was pretending to be - a real piece of documented amateur footage from a strange event - cloverfield had incredible fx and some very real looking scenes of mayhem, but it felt staged - the mash unit scene at columbus circle felt very staged - not "real" - the camera was a magic camera that caught every important plot point concerning the vapid yuppies that could miraculously survive heart impalements and fall 50 stories from the jagged mouth of a giant monster and appear unscathed - (long breath) - maybe im getting too old for these kinda movies, i did love "the mist" though - so, maybe im not

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 1:22 a.m. CST

    was it just me

    by Campion

    Or did it look like the monster was constantly changing shape throughout the movie? At times it looked like a giant spider, spawning little spiders. By the end it seemed very much like a LOTR Cave Troll, albeit a giant one. I don't think it looked anything like that toy.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 1:25 a.m. CST

    Oh My God Merrick and co....

    by moto

    Do you need to be spoon fed this shit. Now it's, "We didn't get a great look at the creature"... i.e he didn't pose to the frickin camera and wink. Jeez. <p> The hype was well worth it because it delivered on its promise. Offering us a somewhat realistic perspective of how a monster attacking a major city would impact the citizens. The chaos. The glimpses of the creature during the utter chaos of the situation. <p> Fucking appalling to hear people bitch about not seeing enough of it. If the situation was reversed and we saw too much of it, you'd all be saying that the monster was too in your face. <p> And as far as the monster goes... just what exactly would a monster that terrorizes a city in the real world REALLY look like??? Does it need to look familiar to you? Give me a brief TBers. The movie delivered what it promised. It had its faults in some of the acting, that annoying camera guy talking way too much, and yes, convenient camera work at times. But the premise paid off. Stop bitching and move on. Easily one of the most annoying posts by AICN, showing all that's wrong with the film goers of this internet generation.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 1:26 a.m. CST


    by blondeman

    What is crazy is how that toy looks almost nothing like the monster in the movie...but then again the monster in the movie looks different just about every time you see it any way.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 1:38 a.m. CST

    The monster looked great in the film and that's what matters

    by GimpInMyPants

    The monster was revealed perfectly. It looked terrifying, ugly and unstoppable. The shot near the end right before Hud bites is it a perfect example of what I mean. The monster was right above the characters' heads. It looked so real. That shot was brilliant.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 1:44 a.m. CST

    moto, dude im in my 40s and i didnt like it

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    i wanted to see more monster - and had i, i still wouldnt have liked the movie (the monster stuff was its strength) - imo

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 1:46 a.m. CST

    Merrick- you're a tool...

    by Rubiks Doob

    If this monster were any more exposed we'd have seen him balls deep in your vagina...

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 1:54 a.m. CST

    Yeah, I'm waiting for the DVD on this one

    by skywalkerfamily

    There will probably be some unrated DVD with gory footage this summer.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 2:03 a.m. CST

    It's the perfect american monster

    by reagon

    Cloverfield was a perfect creation of an American monster that plays on our greatest fears of an enemy we can't easily see and understand. We've been fed fear by our government for 6 years and Abrams used it perfectly. Seeing the monster piece by piece is great. This is how real horror works. What does the Chinese army look like in Tiananmen Square? Can you see it all at once? Can you make a toy out of it? No. It's a tank column here and a platoon there, an explosion ... screaming. This is real world horror and it scares the shit out of people who's reality isn't based on an 8-sided dice.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 2:06 a.m. CST


    by kafka07

    I'm even more glad now that I didn't waste my time and money on this movie.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 2:08 a.m. CST

    That thing is TOTALLY posed wrong, and it makes a HUGE differenc

    by Playkins

    It's posed almost upright, with the hands flayed out. In the movie, it was very much prone on all fours, and it crawled on it's knuckles.<p> Nevertheless, $99 bucks for that is a joke. The fucking Masterpiece Optimus Prime is only $69. Cloverfield-thing is a RIP.OFF.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 2:24 a.m. CST

    Umm, if the monster

    by Fortunesfool

    looks different everytime you see it...doesn't that suggest that there's more than one? <p>I have no intention of sitting through another shaky-cam headache full of vacuous teenagers just to see some nice fx shots so I haven't watched the movie. Just a thought

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 2:40 a.m. CST

    Looks a lot smaller in real life.

    by alucardvsdracula

    Doesn't scare me. Monsters? I shit em!

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 2:58 a.m. CST

    Shit Sandwich aka Cloverfield "Film"

    by Tha Tohdouble

    I had to stop at this.................."I saw a Q&A with Drew Goddard (Cloverfield's screenwriter) and he said all that matters is what's on screen -- everything else is beside the point. I agree. Viral marketing backstories, spoiler photos, production videos -- they're all taking away the sense of awe that movies like this are supposed to inspire."......WHAT AWE???!!! That wasn't even a movie, it was someones HIGHSCHOOL VIDEO PROJECT, ie...LAME CGI, LAME DIALOGUE, LAME ACTORS (NO, NOT CAUSE OF HOW THEY LOOK, OF HOW THEY "ACT" THOSE SHITTY LINES), LAME "CAMERA" WORK (yes I get the "found footage" thing) THE WHOLE FUCKING THING WAS LAME! FUCK JJ ABRAMS, I WANT MY 10 BUCKS BACK!

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 3:15 a.m. CST


    by submarinevoyage

    Remember when trailers didn't show what the Gremlins or Yoda looked like? Cloverfield was simply trying to go back to that time, but that's obviously not acceptable in the internet age, where we need to know everything ahead of time, and if somehow we don't "it better deliver!"

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 3:19 a.m. CST

    But will the monster get off the island?

    by Pops Freshemeyer


  • Feb. 16, 2008, 3:43 a.m. CST

    They showed way too much of the monster.

    by Knuckleduster

    CGI and "found" amateur video footage just doesn't mix.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 3:58 a.m. CST

    Two Words: Skinny Rancor

    by manicart1

    I dug the film though, and feel like critics are trying a little too hard to find fault with it, probably because nothing could live up to the kind of hype that film generated.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 3:59 a.m. CST

    My reaction: Meh

    by Prof. Pop-Cult

    The fan designed whale monster was more interesting and made more sense in a real-world scenario (i.e. a species of whale that had mutated from mankind's polluting of the oceans). This looks like some generic demon out of the Spawm comic or any art student's portfolio, who has aspirations for working in the movie or games industry.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 4:07 a.m. CST

    by manicart1

    That fan designed whale monster looked stupid as hell. Am I really the only person who thnks that? While the Cloverfield monster turned out to be a decent yet fairly generic nasty it's pretty clear to me why professionals are professionals and fans are fans.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 4:16 a.m. CST


    by blondeman

    I agree they did show too much of the monster. They did a great job of making it very creepy all the way until the end where they just show it for like a solid 20 seconds... I didn't like that at all. It reeked of the studio forcing them to provide a money shot so that the 14 year olds can go spooge online about the CGI. And I think they failed at doing that too, because all the teenagers at my screening booed the movie, I don't think their fragile minds could handle the downer ending.<br><Br> But yeah, they show too much of the monster - I think this movie would have worked great as a low-budget independent movie which would have forced them to be more creative with hiding the monster and also some of the other terrible crap.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 4:23 a.m. CST

    I liked the movie.

    by ZeroCorpse

    The whole concept of "Godzilla from the citizens of Tokyo's point of view" should have been done a long time ago. Cloverfield carried it off well. <p> Of course, some people need their movies to be full of lame jump scares and weird noises and blood to consider them "scary" -- I'll never understand people who claim "Haute Tension" was bad, but then turn around and say "The Descent" was "awesome" -- A lesbian with multiple personality disorder killing and torturing her best friend's family is a LOT more interesting than a bunch of bitchy girls in the dark with Bat Boy and his family. <p> And don't get me started on people who think "The Grudge" and "The Ring" are good horror movies. They SUCKED. <p> I guess some horror is made for mainstream fucks who are afraid of the dark, weird people, and shit jumping out a them... While some others are afraid of shit that could really happen, or shit that's completely out of your control to prevent/defend against. <p> The latter is what made Blair Witch Project good, and it's what made Cloverfield good. Helplessness is FAR more terrifying to me than any half-assed jump scares or creaking ghost-lady. <p> I find that there's an experience and/or intelligence divide in people's taste in horror. Blair Witch still gives me the creeps because I've BEEN lost in the middle of BFE with weird, dangerous locals running around in the woods. You haven't been scared until you've tried to sleep in a tent while some backwoods, possibly homicidal creepo skulks around in the dark... And if that psycho happens to think they're a witch or servant of the Devil or Angel of Death serving God's will, then it goes up quite a few notches into freakytown. <p> You haven't had the shit scared out of you until you've had psychotic hicks chase you in a tall cornfield, brandishing cruse weapons or firearms, screaming about killing you and wearing your ass as a hat, or other weird, "Deliverance" crap like that. <p> I've been chased by gangbangers in Detroit, held up at gunpoint in a heavily Arabic town, and stumbled across Satanists in the middle of a ritual in a patch of woods in the suburbs, but being chased in the middle of the boonies when there's nowhere safe to run to, and your pursuers may well be batshit fucking insane-- Well, that is much, much more terrifying. <p> Given a choice between that experience, and having Bat Boy hissing at me in a dark room, I'll take Bat Boy. I'll take the cat-child, or the creaking woman. I'll take the jump scares. <p> Being lost, and unable to fight back because you don't know what you're fighting against is fucking scary... And most of you would shit yourselves and cry if you were lost in the woods with an unknown crazy person, or stuck in a city with a giant monster that seemingly cannot be stopped. <p>

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 4:24 a.m. CST

    As disappointing as the film

    by Mr Writer

    The monster looks like a skinny white rancor although it doesn't really bother me as much as the movie itself, which I thought was really disappointing. Don't get me wrong it was okay, but it could have (and should have) been great. The idea of a found footage monster movie (or Blair Witch meets Godzilla, however you want to put it) was great and I applaud the way the found footage was presented with fragments of the previous video content filling us in on the backstory of the characters. However it was made without any understanding of creating tension and suspence. What should have been a white knuckle ride comparable to the first time you saw Aliens turned out to be a cold, clinical and completely uninvolving experience. I didn't jump once. I wasn't scared whatsoever and I didn't feel anything for any of the characters. The entire audience I saw the movie with seemed to feel the same as numerous people muttered it was rubbish when we walked out at the end. There were too many movie cliches for it to be realistic and it didn't have any of the thrills of a classic movie for it to be anything more than 'ok'. Rather than subvert the conventions of a blockbuster with arthouse sensibilities it got hopelessly lost between the two and didn't satisfy on either regard. As for the monster I thought the design was ultimately unimportant. Far too much of the creature was shown too early in the movie via the news footage and that immediately ruined any tension for me. Plus as someone else just said CGI and found footage doesn't mix especially when its really obvious CGI.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 4:25 a.m. CST

    cruse = crude

    by ZeroCorpse

    No, the hillbillies didn't have cruise missiles.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 4:29 a.m. CST

    Come on Mr. Writer

    by blondeman

    You didn't jump once during the heilcopter sequence? And you must have cared about Marlena? She was the cool character in the flick besides Hud. She exploided. That was sad, I was like ...wait don't kill the interesting character.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 4:33 a.m. CST

    Blair Witch worked better than Cloverfield as far as creating fe

    by Mr Writer

    When I came out of the cinema after watching Blair Witch late at night I was totally freaked out and was looking over my shoulder the entire walk home. After Cloverfield all I felt was frustration at how good it could have been. Maybe Cloverfield wasn't trying to be scary or creepy or tense, but if it was then Blair Witch did its job and it didn't. That's just my opinion tho. I know there are plenty of people out there who geeked out for Cloverfield and got totally sucked in.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 4:41 a.m. CST


    by Mr Writer

    I liked Marlena, but she was obviously the one who exploded in the trailer so I was kind of detached because I knew she was going to die and exactly how it was going to happen. I agree that she was one of the better characters in the film. Hud was okay too although I thought some of his responses were too scripted. I liked him better in the party scenes when he was just being a normal doofus. His comic relief during the escape from new york bit was a bit too 'summer blockbuster' for a found footage movie. And he doesn't compare for a second to his namesake from Aliens - that was true freaking out in the face of horror. The oddest thing about Hud was that although he was our "eyes" for most of the movie I felt absolutely zip when he was killed. And I can only blame that one the writing/direction. Something was clearly missing from the film. The characters weren't terrible or anything. There were a few too many supermodel types and chishelled yuppies, but Marlena and Hud were okay. And no I didn't jump during the helicopter sequence. Again I think it was partially spoiled by the trailer although it was one of the better moments in the movie. I actually thought it would have been a more effective end to the film rather than the strange, seemingly 'tacked-on just to show us the monster's face' central park sequence.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 4:53 a.m. CST

    Looks like a spazoid bat without wings...

    by KillaKane

    Personally dug it in the film, does'nt appear to translate to well to a scale replica model. I don't think that it's posed or lit particularly well in those shots, so yeah not quite as imposing as the final reveal in the film when Hud gets chomped by it. Sideshow, would do it justice, the 'thing' needs a diorama too (like those awesome Aurora kits of the 70s).

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 4:57 a.m. CST


    by Maniaq

    That toy does not do the monster justice - but then again IT'S A TOY! I don't think SCARING THE SHIT OUT OF KIDS is what Hasbro are aiming for, y'know? <p> Having said that, I actually thought the parasites were scarier - maybe because there were more of them, I dunno. <p> I *totally* agree the film should have ended with the helicopter crash - the rest didn't just feel tacked on, it felt jarring - like somebody messed with the logic of the film's universe? <p> Not only do our heroes survive a fucking helicopter crash but the monster decides to take a fucking break from its daily chores to SMILE FOR THE CAMERA??? <p> I went from totally satisfied to a little annoyed at the point the camera winked back on after that crash - and for what? A couple more FX shots?

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 4:57 a.m. CST

    Never Ever Satisfied!


    That's not what the monster looked like! coz that's a fucking plastic toy! and as about as close as the old Starwars figures resemblance to the actual characters in Starwars ie not much!<P> I thought you saw plenty of the monster in the movie and in a believable and real way because the guy with the camera was also running for his life not filming a nature documentary in HD and not even meant to be a professional camera man!<P>As for the design of the creature I don't think it's a classic or Iconic Image like godzilla or anything and I actually preffer the salamander monster from the Host but it was fucking scray due to it's size and the fact it was losing all those huge parasitic lice too which was a brilliant devise as I saw a documentary about the parasitic crablice things that live on real deep sea whales and they were almost as big and very gross!<P>As for folks saying the Blair Witch was scarier!? that's personal taste and in my opinion utter bullshit because it's obvious in that movie there really was nothing there and was basicaly a campfire style story and if you find them scary then fine, I don't.<P>Cloverfield worked for me in so many ways and was so fresh and original compared to all the other sequels and remakes we're so used to now I absolutely welcome a sequels shot the same way from a different angle showing maybee the military or a nems crew or whatever because this was on the ground, realistic and for once tense and scary like the original Night of the Living Dead will spawn a new wave of found footage movies admitedley started by the BlairBitch but pissed on from a great Height by the Cloverfield Monsta!

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 5:03 a.m. CST

    i bet that monster...

    by Y282

    has no problem reaching its own prostate tho. eh? EH?!

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 5:10 a.m. CST


    by Varakor

    now THAT's funny!!

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 5:20 a.m. CST

    Let's hope the Lost monster turns out to be better

    by abovo

    I sure hope that Lost doesn't end up disappointing us as much as Cloverfield.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 5:21 a.m. CST

    Galactus Saga shot like Cloverfield

    by messi

    or part of it. Now that would have been brutal.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 5:44 a.m. CST


    by Moshi

    I liked the way the monster was reavealed in parts, left you wondering what piece of anatomy it was, leg, tentacle, tail? The design has flaws though It doesn't look aquatic. Something this big would be festooned with barnacles. The head looks wrong, out of scale for a creature of this size. The teeth likewise are too big, they would be immensely heavy at this size. They must each be a many metres long. I'd rather see lots of small shark like teeth. The legs are too long to support a body mass so huge. Having said all that, it looks good in the film, though the parasites were better. They were a great idea & a more sucessful design.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 5:48 a.m. CST

    and that Zapruder film sucked too

    by scumbag good shots of the shooter

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 6:13 a.m. CST

    Looks like that "Poltergeist" monster...

    by Anna Valerious

    I say Tobe Hooper should sue.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 6:30 a.m. CST

    Does anyone have a link to

    by henrydalton

    Screencaps or video of the end scene? I missed the whole 'thing falling into the sea' thing and can't be arsed to shell out 12 quid for another cinema ticket...

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 6:51 a.m. CST

    So let me get this straight...

    by poeticwarriorII

    the producers of Cloverfield had some douche bag take a picture of a bat, erase the wings, give it a shave job, and then charged them an ass load of money for another shit job well done? And they expect people to pay for it on top? No wonder movies are getting so bad, Southern California is loaded with retards.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 6:53 a.m. CST

    Yeah, not very aquatic

    by I Dunno

    and that wasn't the creature that fell from the sky, it was way too small. Web site says it was a satellite. But the creature is scary looking anyway, scarier than anything the Japanese ever came up with, in the mainstream movies anyway.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 7:15 a.m. CST

    this toy is very lithe

    by Kloipy

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 7:18 a.m. CST

    i love

    by Lemming

    how a fucking kid's toy affects people's enjoyment of a film on this site. You couldn't make this shit up, seriously..

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 7:28 a.m. CST


    by LaserPants

    I think the whole CLOVERFELD thing depends on seeing less and less. The original trailer was brilliant, the viral campaign stuff was pretty cool, the movie was okay but dumb, and the actual full frontal monster design is actually pretty fuckin' crap. So the more you see and the more you know, the worse the movie seems, because, lets face it, it really was pretty stupid, although, admittedly, a fun time at the movies. I just don't see myself ever watching it again or paying to see the inevitable part 2.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 7:29 a.m. CST

    It looks slightly different to the onscreen monster

    by Fried Gold

    I've seen the film a couple of times now. I'm sure the toy has bigger back legs and a smaller tail - probably to make it stand up and work as a toy.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 7:31 a.m. CST

    A bad looking toy from an overly long film

    by MrJJonz

    80 minutes for a film was too long. (I never thougt I'd say that). Get rid of the 1st 10 minutes and the last 5 minutes then it would be a much better film. The monster design served its purpose well in the film. . .just not so good as a toy. . .hardly a big shame.<p>and to the person comparing Cloverfield to Alien in a positive manner. . .just don't even try. Alien had good actors delivering decent dialogue filmed by a good director. I wasn't bored pre-monster in Alien when it revolved just around the characters but bored off my tits with Cloverfield pre-monster

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 7:40 a.m. CST

    I wouldn't call it a kid

    by I Dunno

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 7:41 a.m. CST

    I wouldn't call it a kid's toy

    by I Dunno

    being that it's based on an R rated movie and it cost $100. I think their target demo are 20-30 somethings who need something to put in their cubicle at their tech support job.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 7:43 a.m. CST

    The whole sattelite/monster thing

    by Jonah Echo

    I saw the object fall from the sky at the end of Cloverfield and thought it was the filmmakers giving us a clue to the monster's origins. I still think that. I never looked at any of the website stuff and I quite honestly think this idea that we are supposed to pursue additional info to make sense of what was onscreen is sort of silly. It was just a monster movie, and if you see a giant alien creature and a few weeks earlier something drops into the ocean where it later emerges, theres a good chance it's alien. And I suspected like Ymir, that the alien didn't arrive to earth in full size. It didnt look remotely aquatic. Sattelite or no, something is hitching a ride to earth in the final scene. Otherwise, isnt it completely stupid to have an unrelated object fall to earth and then..there is a monster! This isn't Varan the Unbelievable or War of the Gargantuas or something.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 7:58 a.m. CST

    I thought they showed too much

    by HootDad

    MINOR SPOILER ALERT I thought they showed TOO much - the big "Money" shot at the end took me totally out of the movie. Up to that point I really thought I'd seen enough.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 8:02 a.m. CST


    by blakes7

    The monster is a total rip off of the "closet monster" from Poltergeist.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 8:09 a.m. CST


    by purplepurple


  • Feb. 16, 2008, 8:18 a.m. CST


    by Custom_personality

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 8:25 a.m. CST

    The Poltergeist Closet Monster Would Kick Cloverfeld's ASS!!!

    by LaserPants

    Cloverfeld would be lookin around for that indestructible camera from Krypton, then he'd look in the closet, and BAM!!! THE POLTERGHOOST WOULD KICK HIS ASS STRAIGHT TO HELLLLLLLLLLLL!!!! (cue SLAYER) <br>AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 8:43 a.m. CST

    Cloverturd : HD-DVD Genre Redefining Edition

    by quantize

    In a texas bargain bin somewhere near Harry....soon

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 8:51 a.m. CST

    Where's H.R. Geiger when ya need him????

    by geodesigns

    He should've designed the monster. Nothing beats the Alien design.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 8:54 a.m. CST

    I'll take Harryhausen's Ymir any fucking day.

    by Uncle Stan

    It killed a fucking elephant, man! A GOD DAMN ELEPHANT, MAN!!

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 9:01 a.m. CST


    by heyscot

    I absolutely agree with this statement: "Sites like AICN chew and digest and crap out so much info that by the time a movie is released, the magic has been leached away. It's like peeking at all your presents before your birthday -- sneaky fun at the time, but ultimately you undermine your own surprise and enjoyment." I love looking at AICN but you're right, I think it (and sites like it) might undermine my enjoyment of the movie. I'm going to try not looking at the site to see if it makes watching movies spoiler-free more enjoyable. And for the record, I loved Cloverfield and thought it was fantastic, although I understand gripes about Abercrombie and Fitch too. It would've been a completely awesome movie if they had used more real-looking people in place of the two mains, I think, but I guess that's what the public demands.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 9:08 a.m. CST

    It IS more or less a vampire bat skeleton..

    by Rameses

    with bollocks , where it's ears should be and its fingers reduced ..Which is most likely what they were thinking of for the closet monster in poltergeist( without the bollocks though}. Looks to me, too spindly to carry its own weight , once scaled up to giant size .Plus it also reminds me of something rejected from , the collisium fight at the end of attack of the clones .

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 9:08 a.m. CST

    Toy As Underwhelming As The Movie

    by grievenom

    Both are pretty sucky. The movie had loads of weaknesses and annoyances, and this toy is flat out lame. Takes a lot of balls to charge $99 for it.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 9:23 a.m. CST

    actually, geodesigns,

    by I Dunno

    that was the one thing I was going to say about the design that was positive. Every freaking monster looks like the Alien now. Giger should have sued the ass out from the makers of Independence Day, for instance.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 9:33 a.m. CST

    Goddamn, I am Batman

    by I Dunno

    What's with all the bad energy on this site? Someone likes a movie you don't and you have to pull the tired "(usually mom's) basement" card? This is supposed to be a site where movie geeks came to talk about movies, not a jr high pissing contest. What the fuck is wrong with you people? <p>And almost every movie that isn't a "tent pole" falls off after its first week. That doesn't change the fact that this film (or I guess video) made 500% of its budget back. </p>

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 9:39 a.m. CST

    Pretty much a giant bat without wings

    by ebolamonkey

    Somebody saw how creepy a bat looked walking around on the ground and made a movie out of it.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 9:54 a.m. CST

    HD-DVD just died...

    by digitalcos

    Where's the eulogy?

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 9:55 a.m. CST

    Y'mir and Varan

    by Jonah Echo

    Yea,my point in mentioning Varan was that total random events were just part of the experience,where in today's big budget movies I think we expect at least an attempt at no complete narrative incongruity. I enjoyed Cloverfield, but it just didnt feel like much like a monster movie(more of a survival-end of the world street level sort of thing). I also find Varan to be enjoyably ridiculous. Recently picked it up in part of a Toho pack that included Matango and The Mysterians. Talk about schlocky fun.As for Y'mir, thats a classic monster in a classic movie and one of my all time fave giant monsters. Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, which probably has the most narrative similarities with Cloverfield is also a vastly superior monster movie. Heck, pretty much anything Harryhausen ever worked on was superior.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 9:57 a.m. CST

    The reason why we are all underwhelmed...

    by mooseaka

    ... is because there have been literally hundreds of video games released in the last ten years where someone runs around with a gun and shoots creatures that look like some variation of the Cloverfield monster. Not to take anything away from the artists who came up with Cloverfield, but there are only so many different ways to draw an alien/mutant/monster, and so I really doubt that anybody who has lived through this era will ever look at an artist's conception of a monster and say "Wow, that's amazing". Doom, Halo, Resistance, Half-Life, Starcraft, and their clones have really taken any of the awe away from seeing a big reptilian beast with big teeth and a Kirsten Dunst face.<P><P> Seeing a toy version of the monster just doesn't do it justice, since it is more of a force of nature in the movie than it is an actual creature that people have any chance of stopping. Therein lies the excitement in the move - it is so, big, so fast, and so unstoppable, that you can't help but be in awe of it, regardless of its design. It would be like putting out a toy model of the Sun for the movie Sunshine - nobody would look at it and say "Wow, that looks really powerful and dangerous."

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 10 a.m. CST


    by uss cygnus

    It's the Blair Witch Project In Manhattan with Godzooky. The Simpsons already did it. Who cares.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 10:35 a.m. CST

    That's right mooseaka

    by reagon

    Exactly! People showed up for this movie for a monster movie and were given an unforgettable experience. These people will be griping about this movie for the next 30 years - because it's unforgettable. Most of the people that left the theatre pissed off when I saw it were mad that they didn't get a complete explanation of the monster. They were livid. They couldn't whip out their cell phones fast enough to text all their brainless friends that it sucked. Well, they didn't want you to know, idiot! They didn't want you to understand. That's the fucking point! You'll never understand, unless the sequel is handled poorly and a retarded explanation is cranked out for the MySpacers like they did for Blair Witch. Abrams is all about boxes that never get opened. Mysteries never solved. That's what makes his stuff so compelling.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 10:38 a.m. CST


    by God's Brother

    even bother reading the articles on this site? Furthermore, why do I scan through the talkbacks? And lastly, what propels me to post a comment of my own? What is this, 2003?

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 10:45 a.m. CST

    Stop exaggerating

    by CarmillaVonDoom

    You get to see *plenty* of the creature in the film, in my opinion. Frankly, I thought that the main reveal showed the creature TOO MUCH...when the head is visible for more than a few seconds the cgi looks pretty dodgy. The movie was good; hopefully in Cloverfield 2 people who aren't irritating pieces of fluff will document what is going on instead.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 10:46 a.m. CST


    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    "What does the Chinese army look like in Tiananmen Square?" - it looks like a bunch of tanks rolling over a bunch of skinny college students

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Front view looks like a demented McDonald's "M"

    by GimmeABreak

    That thing is goofy.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 10:55 a.m. CST answer to you querry

    by DoctorWho?

    ..."who would pay $100 for that?" Answer: Half the geeks on this site. Which of course begs the follow up question: WHY? No clue pal.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 10:56 a.m. CST


    by Hikaru Ichijo

    It's not a giant monster until I own a hollow vinyl toy with three points of articulation and a tag dangling from it.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Post Harry's HD-DVD obit!

    by Kragmose

    "This is horrible news... HD-DVD gone..."

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 11:08 a.m. CST

    Cloverfield was great because of what it didn't have.

    by heyscot

    Part of the horror was that you didn't know what was going on. You couldn't see everything. Abrams & Co. are great at the tease in terms of starting plots but not really ever finishing them. Take Lost, probably the most convoluted and contrived TV show in history, as well as Alias. But in the case of Cloverfield, it worked because it was realistically handled. Where did the monster come from? Why? Could they beat it? It's sort of beside the point of the movie--the horror was not knowing the answers to those questions.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 11:12 a.m. CST

    what's this?

    by mrbong

    is this the thing they advertised with just a date or something? you are aware that no one else in the world (those bits on the map which are not America) has seen this film yet? it looks like there is little or no point now.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 11:21 a.m. CST


    by Shozo

    I liked the movie. But it should have ended after the great shot of the monster taking down the helicopter. Honestly, no one would have survived that, and everything that came after it was just gratuitous... a GRATUITOUS REVEAL OF THE FUCKING MONSTER... just to satisfy dweebs like Merrick who apparently weren't paying attention. I agree that the monster did not look particularly aquatic though. Most sea creatures do not have arms and legs. Most DO have gills.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 11:28 a.m. CST


    by Geekgasm

    "Easily one of the most annoying posts by AICN, showing all that's wrong with the film goers of this internet generation." Who are you, my grampa? Complianing about my rock and roll and my box socials and whatever the devil we children are into these days ...? Get off your fucking high horse.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 11:33 a.m. CST

    I LOVED Cloverfield

    by dtpena

    The fact that the monster wasn't revealed was the best part of it. If only, when they revealed it in central park was the weakest part of the movie.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 11:39 a.m. CST

    I love that these idiots don't know what Harry's...

    by Lashlarue

    animation is. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. There are other movies besides comic book adaptations, guys.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 11:41 a.m. CST

    "Post Harry's HD-DVD obit!"

    by I Dunno

    "It's like eating a girl out who has an infection that"....I'm sorry, I can't reach Harry's level of depravity.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 11:42 a.m. CST

    Lashlarue, Who didn't know it was Lawrence of Arabia?

    by I Dunno

    The only questions about it I saw was what the point was.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 11:50 a.m. CST

    OH MY GOD!!! OH MY GOD!!!!!! OH MY GOOOOODD!!!!!

    by SkinJob69

    ...did Cloverfield suck. I actually took time out from Sundace to see the premiere at a cinema in Salt Lake City. Big fuckin' waste.<p> Annoying, unsympathetic lead characters, lame dialogue, contrived events that 'just happen to be caught by the camera', and no fucking good view of the monster. Now I see why- it is generic as hell. Like something a high-schooler might doodle on a book cover.<p> When are people going to wake up and see that the emperor has no clothes? Cloverfield blew. Empirically.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Rob. Rob. Rob? Hey, Rob. Over here. Rob. Rob! Hey Rob?

    by Kragmose

    I bought you a toy, it's a lion, it's TINY!

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Looks better in action

    by zooch

    The toy does not do it justice.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:09 p.m. CST

    HD-DVD officially inside.

    by Mindworm22

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Would work better as a diorama

    by Squinty CGI Flynn

    with the creature tearing through buildings, kicking the statue of Liberty's head like a soccer ball. It would capture the only scenes worth remembering from this overblown crapfest. Unless you count that quick moment at the beginning where we see that guy who played Kirby on Frasier, this time with a smaller fro.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:18 p.m. CST

    Ok this is not Lost

    by Dazzler69

    We don't have to know everything about the movie monster. This is a POV movie and nothing more. A great piece of work I will own on Blew-ray when it's ready.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:21 p.m. CST

    In 1979...

    by ufoclub1977

    I got into an argument with my middle school art teacher who insisted that my humanoid, middle school prize winning drawing of the Giger alien looked nothing like the multi-tentacled lobe that was actually in the movie. And she also insisted that you never saw the larval alien actually push out of the stomach of the victim. She was WRONG!

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:29 p.m. CST

    Plush toy please

    by BrandLoyalist

    There's Cthulhu Plush (really) - he's adorable. You've got to start warping baby's mind early if you want to make sure he doesn't grow up to be obnoxious, keg-pumping, shoulder-hanging YUPPIE SCUM* like Rob and his friends. Loved the movie tho. <br><br> * The Creepy Thin Man, talkback 35303#comment_1849978

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:44 p.m. CST

    cloverhype came and went

    by palewook

    and it wasnt awesome

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 12:49 p.m. CST

    yes it was!



  • Feb. 16, 2008, 1:06 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Cause Cthulhu might have been better than this garbage. I was seriously underwhelmed by CLOVERFIELD. And that toy makes the monster look even worse than I remember.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 1:17 p.m. CST


    by J-Dizzle

    Reeves and Abrams have stated that the monster was actually dormant in the ocean. They also stated that what dropped from the sky at the end was in fact a Tagruato satellite. Apparently, the satellite woke the monster (yes, I know, lame).

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 1:52 p.m. CST

    It looks like something Skeletor would ride

    by godhatesyou

    Does it squirt water??

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 2:29 p.m. CST


    by slkboxrman

    i ordered mine almost 2 or 3 weeks ago, cccant wait to get it did look better in the film tho.. bring on part 2 ....cant wait .... anyone that didnt like it obviously didnt see the same movie those of us that liked it did....and please will all the losers of the world that constantly repeat the same crap movie to movie , just die !! "i didnt care about the characters" "i wanted to see only monster" "waaaa waaaa, my testicles never descended" yes go and die somewhere, or tell mommy to take away ur internet connection....ur wasting bandwidth for intelligent people... also never breed, thanks !

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 2:40 p.m. CST


    by slkboxrman

    the movie "bombed" ???!! ur obviouly on drugs or sniffin darth vaders ass ......the movie was made for 23million and made over 58million the first day or weekend or whatever , when u double ur budget in ticket sales thats not a "bomb" its a "hugely profitable film" and its still making money...stop slobbing ur knob and wake up..... lol

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 3:25 p.m. CST

    cloverfield creature

    by spasticus

    all the people moaning about not seeing much of the creature probably praise chainsaw massacre for not showing the gore.Of course the toy looks shit ,when you see the movie you get glimpses of its different body parts and you fill in the blanks yourself which makes the creature seem more bizzare.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 3:33 p.m. CST

    Another image for debate & review: SJ and NP kiss at Berlin fest

    by BrandLoyalist

    Cloverfield had way too few good clear shots of Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman giving each other a little sugar... here's one. Tinyurl leads to image on<br>

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 3:41 p.m. CST

    So it's clear they've seen Primeval (UK)

    by elab49

    Given that is the spit of the future monster from season 1 that has just turned up again in season 2?

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Silk boxers are largely popular amongst gays- just saying

    by SkinJob69

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 3:43 p.m. CST

    so are ball gags and leather- got some of those, too?

    by SkinJob69

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 3:46 p.m. CST

    Wow, boring much?

    by Tourist

    Would have looked better if it was on the video box artwork for an early 80's italian Alien rip off.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 3:54 p.m. CST

    If all that matters is whats on the screen...

    by Tourist

    ...This film matters about as much as Mimic or The Relic. All that actually mattered about this film, no offence to Drew Goddard and his shitty writing, is marketing.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 3:58 p.m. CST

    The Cloverfield monster was better than the whale.

    by Novaman5000

    That whale monster was a cool design, but looks like it would be slow as shit. It would fuck things up to be sure, but part of what made the cloverfield monster scary was that it was big AND fast. Like when it bites the helicopter or snaps at them as they're running into the subway.<p> What would the whale monster's reaction time to a missile to the ass be?

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 3:59 p.m. CST


    by Tourist

    We saw the movie in Australia BEFORE America. Not that it made any difference. Its pretty boring anyway. I like sea monsters though. Had a semi-sexual fetish about swimming out over the deep ocean and being consumed by an island sized monster and being sexily digested. Sorry, fucked up childhood.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 3:59 p.m. CST

    Totally forgettable and

    by Rocco the dog

    fucking shitty. Every artist who keeps milking the "extra elbow" tit should have their balls soldered off. It's not creative. It's not original. It's already dated and it fucking ruined what could have been a cool movie. Maybe in twenty years JJ will pull a Lucas and fix this mess with a Cloverfield Special Twentieth Anniversary Retcon, er, I mean "Edition".

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 4:02 p.m. CST

    By the way, AICN

    by Tourist

    Doesnt just chew and spit out a lot of info that spoils a film. In the case of Cloverfield, they did nothing but pimp a piece of shit. This film was a little better than most sci fi channel flicks, but it was aided by having a huge production and marketing budget. Sites like AICN help generate income for flicks like this, that ordinarily no one would give a shit about.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 4:14 p.m. CST

    I still think it's a lion. But...

    by SantiagoAtez

    But friends tell me I'm a stubborn take it for what it's worth.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Godzilla looked cooler

    by skywalkerfamily

    Take that.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 4:46 p.m. CST


    by lucky slevin

    until now i was sure there had to be more than one monster. that would have been perfect. (especially because ive been arguing that theory to all of my friends). still loved the movie, have to admit that the toy doesn't do it much justice though. then again toys rarely do.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 4:55 p.m. CST


    by lucky slevin

    except for movie maniacs. i fucking love that line.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Should be a Sideshow statue

    by skywalkerfamily

    Sideshow makes awesome stuff.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 5:24 p.m. CST


    by Mr Cairo

    that's shit ....... like the film

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 5:49 p.m. CST

    Wait--I thought the dude said it was a Lion...

    by 'Cholera's Ghost

    [spits on both hands, picks up club, repeatedly applies it to flank of deceased equine]

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 5:57 p.m. CST

    It's the Skinny Primeval Poltergeist Rancor monster!!!

    by spud mcspud

    It does look kind of shit as a toy. I remember thinking how fucking laughable it was when you finally aw it fully at the end, weird ear bags breathing in and out and everything, but then that's the point - you spend a whole night running from some nightmarish creature, only to find it looks like something from GODZILLA FUCKS MOTHRA!!! Classic cheesy monster. Great fucking movie though. I'm just sayin'.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 6:01 p.m. CST

    "Not for children under 3 years"

    by Dr Lizardo

    Honestly, it says that on the product page.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 6:09 p.m. CST

    rip- off

    by Emperor_was_a_jerk

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 6:19 p.m. CST

    Instead of Hasbro...

    by gamerawangi should've been made by "Meh-ttel". Get it? "Mattel", the toy company, but with a "Meh"! HAR! SNORT!... Who am I kidding? 304 post later, nobody's gonna read this.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 7:49 p.m. CST

    I liked it

    by samsquanch

    At least it wasn't a remake.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 8:12 p.m. CST

    I saw the monster on a commercial on one of the late night shows

    by MrMysteryGuest

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 8:23 p.m. CST


    by Thomas Cromwell

    How very boring.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 8:55 p.m. CST

    Now I know why the monster's angry.

    by Christopher3

    His arms're broken.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 9:07 p.m. CST

    shitty sculpt

    by dedfx

    looks a bit rushed

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 9:08 p.m. CST

    the monster is cool

    by Stevie Grant

    it was everything else that was lacking

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 9:10 p.m. CST


    by Stevie Grant

    i meant everything i said, except about the "monster is cool" thing

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 9:57 p.m. CST

    Looks like Pumpkinhead fucked the Rancor...

    by BurnHollywood

    ...AND Billy Bob Thornton. But I think that's been observed previously. I liked the whale red-herring better: it tied in neatly with the Slusho website and it's cute little whale...also, I liked the premise: motherfucka's pissed and it wants its Slusho juice back!

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 10:28 p.m. CST

    The only way to save it...

    by Boober

    is to say this is a larva/instar/catamapillur "baby" stage and have this thing pull a grub to japanese beetle/Mothra/Species change. Otherwise, Chewy and R2 want their tabletop piece back to complete their match.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 10:36 p.m. CST


    by Boober

    ALIEN = awesome = satisfied fans and enduring iconic franchise with superior monster design. Cloverfield = weak easter-egg compensating disappointment/betrayal wiht a horrible gimp of a monster design. Yeah, I had an experience. I was so underwhelmed at the end that I thought to myself, "Thanks for betraying my trust JJ. I sure as hell don't want this as my American Monster movie." OH, well, Lost Season 4 is KICKING ASS.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 11:25 p.m. CST

    Looks like......

    by slayers bitch

    Looks like a Paris Hilton doll...... you know, if she gained some weight.

  • Feb. 16, 2008, 11:31 p.m. CST

    by huggerorange

    That made me want to go see the movie even less. If people thought they showed too much of the monster, its probably cause the monster was a crappy design...judging from the toy.

  • Feb. 17, 2008, 1:24 a.m. CST

    past the hype, and the 'lame' design..

    by soup74

    and everything else... i still enjoyed the movie. had myself a good ole' time. it's too bad a lot of you didnt feel the same.

  • Feb. 17, 2008, 2:14 a.m. CST

    Re: Satellite

    by eXcommunicated

    Who gives a SHIT about the viral marketing? No where does it even mention Taraguatakwtfzomg corporation or Slusho or any of that shate. At the end all you see is something splash into the ocean. In the context of the movie its either something random or actually has something to do with the appearance of the monster. The viral marketing, hell, even any possible novel of the movie are secondary to what the movie actually says or shows or the context set up within the movie. Its like the people that INSIST their favorite shitty Star Trek novel is canon.

  • Feb. 17, 2008, 2:34 a.m. CST


    by Briannicus

    check em out here

  • Feb. 17, 2008, 2:53 a.m. CST

    It's a toy, of course it looks flimsy...

    by obi12kenobi

    ...the true cg representation would have much more weight to it. It would be nice if they could reveal him officially.

  • Feb. 17, 2008, 5:02 a.m. CST

    The fan-made design was better

    by the_scream

    you know, the one which was a whale-crab thing. That was really creepy. This design is like a spider. BORING. So fucking boring. Why can't they get a real artist like H.R. Giger to put something totally original together?

  • Feb. 17, 2008, 5:05 a.m. CST

    Great Old One

    by Roderich

    Tx Briannicus for the pictures, which do more justice to the nice cthulhoid monster-design than the small pics in the news. Of course a model looks flimsy as compared to the "footage" in the movie.[/p]This movie was great btw, of course a "B"-flick but in the best sense. This movie delivered what it promised and there is no reason to deny it at all.[/p]This monster is the first to announce the return of the REALLY BIG GREAT OLD ONE. Mark my words!

  • Feb. 17, 2008, 6:49 a.m. CST

    Maybe "Cloverfield" is a code word for "Primeval"?

    by Mr Willi

    To echo the thoughts of another poster, this creature definitely has an uncanny resemblance to the "future predator" from Primeval -- which explains where it came from: A space-time anomaly, and the sequel will feature a bunch of crazy brits running around trying to catch it.

  • Feb. 17, 2008, 9:33 a.m. CST

    'Lame' Design..

    by micturatingbenjamin

    Shit, everything looks 'lame' under the cold harsh lights of a toy manufacturer's studio lamps. These are designed to get distributors to purchase the toys, not really how the packaging is going to look or how the toy is going to look in the homes of American kids.<p>Case in point, on the Jaws special edition DVD, they show Bruce on the rack in that garage or chum house or whatever, and it's not nearly as frightening as it is in motion, partially concealed, and attacking.<p>It looks fine to me, about what I remember seeing, but I recall a second pair of vestigal arms on the chest, hmmm....

  • Feb. 17, 2008, 10:42 a.m. CST

    It looked like the creature from Xtro

    by DC123

    Did anyone notice how the monster in Cloverfield looks a lot like the creature from Xtro? Maybe thats why they never showed it. They didn't want a lawsuit.

  • Feb. 17, 2008, 12:01 p.m. CST

    What do the parasites look like?

    by Spartacus Hughs

    Wonderful design. Similar colour & texture to the Blade 2 Reapears. Especially the mouth. Although I can't work out where the giant ticks would be situated.

  • Feb. 17, 2008, 12:31 p.m. CST

    Cool enough...

    by rutgersjaffo

    Loved the movie. Dig the monster. bring on the sequel...

  • Feb. 17, 2008, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Briannicus, thanks for the link

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    it is a very cool monster - those are better pics than the ones merrick posted a link to - its an original enough design - the most interesting parts being the head and "arms" - its hands are almost human-like - it doesnt look like something that would be that size (as seen in the movie) - it kinda defied the laws of physics - it moved very fast for something that big - know that ive clearly seen it i can definitely say i like the monster a lot more than the actual movie

  • Feb. 17, 2008, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Why reveal this monster?

    by Freefinger

    Hell the movies sucked... Yes I'll give it a 7.8/10 up until the end.<p>Is there no other way to end a movie than play off the BLait Witch Project and make this movie filmed the same way then end on the same note?... This was probably the biggest rip-off of all time.<p>It was a Crack of Godzilla and other movies. There was no real end.<P>As if the screenwriters said "We'll be going thru a strike soon enough, let's just make sure this movie ends in a very shitty way... Oh... yeah like that 20$ budget movie that was actually incredible since no one else did it before, BLair Witch style... It'll just end like that. Nothing happens!"<P>At least the BWProject were able to say that they were visionnaries to have done such an ending. No one else tought of that style before and kuddos to them, but for this one.. Bleh... happy to have seen it, but still tought the end was very shitty...

  • Feb. 17, 2008, 3:06 p.m. CST

    DC123.....I knew I had seen something like this before

    by godhatesyou

    But couldn't think what movie it was from.

  • Feb. 17, 2008, 3:06 p.m. CST

    vestigial arms

    by Briannicus

    Are tucked away against the body, closer to the creature's waist.

  • Feb. 17, 2008, 5:55 p.m. CST

    Cloverfield was what Cruiser's War of the Worlds

    by chromedome

    tried and failed to achieve: showing the events from an "everyman" perspective, piecing together what is going on from fragmented information.<p>Sure, the "shaky video cam" is not a novel concept, nor is a large monster trashing a city.<p>But it was well done fun, entertaining and never dull. And the less we knew about the monster, the more suspenseful it was.<p>Of COURSE we are underwhelmed by a lame-ass little toy that is poorly photographed as if for e-bay posting.<p>Oh, and HEY MNG!! Looking forward to the BSG Countdown shifting from units of weeks down to days!!

  • Feb. 18, 2008, 2:07 a.m. CST

    Everybody hates this movie. I don´t

    by CuervoJones

    All movies are hated these days. That monster is crazy.

  • Feb. 18, 2008, 2:10 a.m. CST

    Angry Red Planet

    by CuervoJones


  • Feb. 18, 2008, 6:54 a.m. CST

    The movie was awesome

    by Harold The Great

    I dunno what the hell did you guys expect. It was everything I wanted and more. (Well, could've used some more likable characters aside from Hud)

  • Feb. 18, 2008, 9:21 a.m. CST

    Is it just me

    by puzzledman69

    Or does that look nothing like the monster in the film. The one in the film had two extra legs in between the back legs and its arms. I've only seen the film once so maybe I'm remembering it wrong. But I don't remember it looking anything like that.

  • Feb. 18, 2008, 9:22 a.m. CST


    by puzzledman69

    Oh and whoever mentioned the Primeval future predator is spot on. I watched that episode on saturday and remember thinking it looks like the Cloverfield monster.

  • Feb. 18, 2008, 11:16 a.m. CST

    ROAR!!!! I'm a dumb shit

    by Seph_J

    I live in China, but I've been out the country for the past month... anyway, came back and thought to myself, I wonder if Cloverfield is showing at my Cinema.... generally the western movies you can see in Chinese cinemas are limited, and shitty... but over the last few years we did get Spidey 3 and Transformers.... and (a heavily edited version of) Pirates 3. So, I call the cinema and ask them (in my far from perfect Mandarin) what films they have showing. They said ATONEMENT... and another film which just opened yesterday... and the title they told me had the word MONSTER in it (I know this word in Chinese too you see!). Aren't I smart! <p> So I reserved my seat for the 10pm showing... got excited.... trotted down to the cinema.... and was a little surprised to not see any posters for CLOVERFIELD. Nevermind I thought.... the cinemas here dont always get the posters at the same time as the film... indeed often they dont even display the right poster at all.... payed for the ticket.... was directed to screen 1 (I had made sure on the phone that the 10pm showing was in the biggest screen... for maximum cloverfield ROAR-y-ness. <p> 5 minutes later <p> I've decided that 'THE WATER-HORSE: Legend of the Deep' isn't really a very good movie.

  • Feb. 18, 2008, 4:20 p.m. CST


    by jimbubble

    Good pics,but $100 for THAT? I prefer the damaged buildings,looks like they took more time and effort in creating those.

  • Feb. 18, 2008, 4:57 p.m. CST


    by jimbubble

    Spot on,t`s a Primeval rip-off. I thought we were getting a completely original beastie,seems that naughty Mr Reeves and Abrams are talking through blow-hole in their ass! I still like the movie,though I wish to fxck people would stop comparing it to that shit fest that was the Blair Witch bollox!

  • Feb. 18, 2008, 10:05 p.m. CST

    Cloverfield didn't need a payoff!

    by Make-up Joe

    For me the movie was working quite well with its glimpses of the creatures here and there. Seeing what we saw of the creature(its reveal) actually took me out of the movie. Alien never had a big reveal..remember how well that worked?.

  • Feb. 18, 2008, 11:17 p.m. CST

    $100 bucks for a Hasbro toy?

    by PippinTheJedi

    The childrens be cryin.'

  • Feb. 19, 2008, 9:35 a.m. CST

    Monster is from Space and Looks Amazing

    by BilboRing

    Haters suck. This monster is freaking cool. I doubt it is a sea creature. Last scene in movie shows something falling out of the sky. It is similar to the closet demon in Poltergeist. But not really.

  • Feb. 19, 2008, 2:10 p.m. CST

    The toy sucks ass! But the movie was awesome!

    by Violator90

    The toy looks positively aweful! That shit looks like an anorexic mutanted bat, and a $100 to boot?!?! No way any one with brains would buy that shitty toy. But I just saw CLOVERFIELD and I have to say; regardless of how uber hyped it was and the expectations being beyond imagination, it delieverd the goods. I was a great; scay at times, monster movie that reminded me a lot of the original GODZILLA movie. But just like many others, I also feel that a bit was taken away when we finally get to see the whole monster. I actually was digging it NOT seeing it all, and just getting bits and pieces of it. The still it waas a great fun monster movies. NOW that's how you make a movie. Just don't show too much of the monster next time would be my suggestion.

  • Feb. 19, 2008, 8:26 p.m. CST

    A little recycling.

    by Tarsus Khan

    It was kind of a lame monster. But all the serious CGI number crunching for the beasty had been done for the Expedition/Alien Planet piece on the discovery channel. You gotta know that they wanted that homage to Barlowe to have come out better. The creatures were a labor of love and brought the book to life. The voice-over route was lame. Had to hurt. Anywho, all the complicated joint and skin work was done. Change the textures, no daytime shots (Godzilla) so far fewer shawdow issues and you can have a huge impact on costs. The joint and gait work really was spectacular though. As far as being a so-so monster, my guess is that we saw a juvenile creature with mom and dad carrying more body mass set to show up in C2. Primeval/Gustave is a guilty pleasure and the crocodile chasing Orlando Jones across the field is jkiller. The sense of depth achieved in that shot, the splayed croc run, keeping everything to scale as you come forward, just masterful work. Classic shot and elevates the entire movie out of the pack.

  • Aug. 26, 2008, 9:33 p.m. CST

    I disagree...

    by Beezer545

    Okay I disagree with all of you, because I think that can't take photos because on bloody there are way better photos that make the figure look way better. And I'm probably going to be getting the figure despite all the money it's going to cost me.

  • Oct. 23, 2008, 2:08 p.m. CST

    00 | 11 | 22 | 88

    by TheButcher

    What the Hell is Aladygma?

  • Oct. 27, 2008, 9:12 a.m. CST

    You tell Orcus

    by orcus