Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

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

I liked it. Bring on Part Deux... by Pennsy	Feb 15th, 2008 06:33:54 PM
But I wasn't paying attention at the very end with the falling thingy, I have to admit.
Bat Skeleton by Kraken	Feb 15th, 2008 06:34:08 PM
that's what it looks like to me.
First by ishouldbeworking	Feb 15th, 2008 06:34:55 PM
That thing does look a bit pathetic in my opinion
I liked the monster better... by PirateEmery	Feb 15th, 2008 06:35:07 PM
...before I clicked that link.
That's what the whole hub-bub was about? by SkidMarkedUndies	Feb 15th, 2008 06:35:09 PM

70 pounds? by Pennsy	Feb 15th, 2008 06:35:16 PM
Not a typo? Sheez...
What is that a geonosian? by Pipple	Feb 15th, 2008 06:36:13 PM
Oh shut up. You remember those burnt jar jar looking things.
Truth by SaluteYourShorts	Feb 15th, 2008 06:36:40 PM
The monster was awesome. People who complain about it, I dare you to explain how it could have been handled better, or designed better.
That's NOT a Baby ....BABY! by FuryofthefilmFan	Feb 15th, 2008 06:36:58 PM
That's a Full Grown Monster MAN!!!!
they did reveal it to satisfaction by geraldbeans	Feb 15th, 2008 06:37:41 PM
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.
the fake whale design was better by BMacSmith	Feb 15th, 2008 06:37:47 PM
why did they leak out cooler designs and build up all this suspense only to put a sucky ass design onscreen? let down
Great design for an alien creature, not a deep-sea monster... by genro	Feb 15th, 2008 06:37:57 PM
Americans just do not understand why the Japanese have been the only ones to make it work.
Cloverfield monster? by DarkJediStoops	Feb 15th, 2008 06:39:04 PM
Godzilla would crush it like a bug.
Vagina Dentata by gotilk	Feb 15th, 2008 06:39:49 PM
GREAT album by the Police.
geraldbeans by Merrick	Feb 15th, 2008 06:42:08 PM
"he didn't start posing like he was in an Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue" ----> No, the rest of the cast was busy doing that.
I haven't seen cloverfield yet... by greenstyle92	Feb 15th, 2008 06:42:52 PM
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. But I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it does work better in the actual movie.
who would pay 100 bucks for that?! by BMacSmith	Feb 15th, 2008 06:45:28 PM
anorexic rancor with an extra joint
I want to see actual production sketches by Gwai Lo	Feb 15th, 2008 06:45:38 PM
Toys are such a lame reveal
Looks like... by Gus Van Rant	Feb 15th, 2008 06:49:32 PM
Kevin Smith's Mom. Milk them titties!
Thats not a lion! by skywalkerfamily	Feb 15th, 2008 06:51:05 PM
Cries.
You mean Cloverfield ALIEN by Kirbymanly	Feb 15th, 2008 06:53:41 PM
Watch it drop from the sky at the end. It's not of this world
It's not Voltron, either by Spinmove	Feb 15th, 2008 06:55:16 PM
But where's the kickass non-Japanese import Voltron Lionbot $100 toy? I might actually buy that one...
Stupid Shakey Cam by TJ Donkey Show	Feb 15th, 2008 06:55:46 PM
Made me vomit. Just couldn't enjoy the movie.
I saw the movie.. by DannyDorko666	Feb 15th, 2008 06:56:36 PM
..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.
oh my LORD by LegoKenobi	Feb 15th, 2008 06:56:47 PM
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.
It was weird and scary looking enough by Yeti	Feb 15th, 2008 06:57:45 PM
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.
Meh by Geekgasm	Feb 15th, 2008 06:57:51 PM
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.
$100 for a piece of shit?? WOW! by leobloom	Feb 15th, 2008 06:57:54 PM
capitalism's alive and well, imagination's dead and gone.
cool i guess, heres something cooler! by mmaddox3	Feb 15th, 2008 06:58:19 PM
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! http://www.buzznet.com/whereth ewildthingsare
I'm a month late to this debate, but.. by Shut the Fuck up Donny	Feb 15th, 2008 06:58:34 PM
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.
SpoilerCloverfield 2** by SaluteYourShorts	Feb 15th, 2008 07:00:09 PM
I heard Rosie O'Donnell is playing the monster in the sequel.
I finally saw CLOVERFIELD, post-backlash, and... by odysseus	Feb 15th, 2008 07:00:33 PM
...I fucking LOVED it.
SpoilerCloverfield 2** by SaluteYourShorts	Feb 15th, 2008 07:01:05 PM
I heard Rosie O'Donnell is playing the monster in the sequel.
The fake whale design was really, really stupid. by jimmay	Feb 15th, 2008 07:01:10 PM
No! It's a whale!!! A WHHHHAAAAAAALLLLE!!!!!!
Perspective by nietzschebot1	Feb 15th, 2008 07:02:29 PM
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.
How can you make a toy of something that changed its shape all t by Mr Chuff	Feb 15th, 2008 07:02:54 PM
IS that a spoiler? Tough...get out more
Am I the only one... by Lenny Nero	Feb 15th, 2008 07:03:14 PM
...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?
where the wild things are clip! by mmaddox3	Feb 15th, 2008 07:04:08 PM
http://www.buzznet.com/whereth ewildthingsare it looks fucking amazing!
maddox, tinyurl that shit... by Lenny Nero	Feb 15th, 2008 07:06:06 PM
...or nobody is going to click on it.
I still feel the same about the monster as after I saw the movie by otm shank	Feb 15th, 2008 07:09:09 PM
Rancor with long legs.
not scary, too bat-like & cute with it! by Mysterious Yobo	Feb 15th, 2008 07:10:35 PM
should have just been a massive humans head keep the same body.
Of course! by Logan_1973	Feb 15th, 2008 07:12:12 PM
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.
Lenny, no, you're not the only one... by Shut the Fuck up Donny	Feb 15th, 2008 07:14:16 PM
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.
Screw the naysayers by cesaria	Feb 15th, 2008 07:15:27 PM
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.
i disagree with 'that we fear most is that we cant see' by Mysterious Yobo	Feb 15th, 2008 07:15:53 PM
i fear most some guy i can see beating the shit out of me with a baseball bat. i mostly dont think about the things i cant see because most of them i dont even know they are there so.... dont blame me!
Monster revealed on Yahoo Movies by pendy16	Feb 15th, 2008 07:16:08 PM
Monster is shown pretty well in a clip on Yahoo Movies' Cloverfield section (been there for some time)... the toy looks pretty accurate.
I just wanted to say that I thought Cloverfield was great by Ashok0	Feb 15th, 2008 07:16:21 PM
Nice change of pace from lame movies like Resident Evil.
'we're gonna need a biger city!' by Mysterious Yobo	Feb 15th, 2008 07:17:19 PM
see what i did there... JAWS man!
It looked much cooler in the film by Mullah Omar	Feb 15th, 2008 07:18:13 PM
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. Now bring on a sequel as inventive and exciting as the original.
Yobo, well I was just paraphrasing Batman, by Shut the Fuck up Donny	Feb 15th, 2008 07:19:56 PM
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.
I guess Cloverfield's month is up ... by krack	Feb 15th, 2008 07:20:16 PM
AICN staff don't have to pretend it's the greatest movie of the last 50 years anymore.
LET'S DISCUSS: by odysseus	Feb 15th, 2008 07:22:07 PM
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.
Any American that pays $100 for that should lose citizenship by krack	Feb 15th, 2008 07:22:46 PM
I'm serious - it means you don't have enough common sense to be a productive member of our society.
real men love curves.. by DannyDorko666	Feb 15th, 2008 07:23:44 PM
..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.
Gotta disagree with Merrick. by raw_bean	Feb 15th, 2008 07:24:08 PM
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).
I agree by smackfu	Feb 15th, 2008 07:25:21 PM
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 writing...it'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.
i want to see the monster with its tits out and everything by Mysterious Yobo	Feb 15th, 2008 07:25:23 PM
i want to see 2 monsters fucking next time. the whole shebang.
Saw too much of it in the movie already... by Hellboy	Feb 15th, 2008 07:26:32 PM
...and that figure is fucking horrible.
The impression I got from the movie... by JackIsLost	Feb 15th, 2008 07:27:17 PM
that it was a giant coffee table with fangs. But maybe that's just me...
"You`re an ugly Motherfucker!" by travis-dane	Feb 15th, 2008 07:29:06 PM
yiekes.No hair on that ass!
IT'S A CTHULU... IT'S HUGE!!! by jimmy rabbitte	Feb 15th, 2008 07:31:05 PM
...whatever the movie was very underwhelming...
Anyone think the monster looked like by henrydalton	Feb 15th, 2008 07:34:30 PM
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.
Love it by kyle051554	Feb 15th, 2008 07:39:45 PM
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.
Lamesauce by mish87	Feb 15th, 2008 07:40:56 PM
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.
Plenty of payoff by FranklinStreet	Feb 15th, 2008 07:43:32 PM
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.
It kinda looks like that demon from Poletergeist by Orionsangels	Feb 15th, 2008 07:47:40 PM
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.
Irrational hate in the fanboy community by JumpinJehosaphat	Feb 15th, 2008 07:48:25 PM
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.
Well there's something you don't see everyday! by skywalkerfamily	Feb 15th, 2008 07:49:24 PM
Nobody steps on a church in my town!
$99 for that? by ELGordo	Feb 15th, 2008 07:51:23 PM
Fudge no.
a monster that a 3 year old can choke on??? by bacci40	Feb 15th, 2008 07:54:31 PM
oh yea...that is really scary...is this made in china?
If anything by manikman	Feb 15th, 2008 08:01:48 PM
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.
Dammit, people... by ebonic_plague	Feb 15th, 2008 08:05:59 PM
...don't make me drag out my "Cloverfield remake for douchebag haters" treatment from the last time. Spare the talkback. Think of the children.
a white VENOM? by guerillakarma	Feb 15th, 2008 08:07:29 PM

Who cares what the monster looks like? by Royston Lodge	Feb 15th, 2008 08:09:33 PM
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!"
it looks like... by Varakor	Feb 15th, 2008 08:10:03 PM
a giant deformed, NYC sewer rat. Sign of things to come??
the monster worked big time on screen... by pdennett316	Feb 15th, 2008 08:11:44 PM
In toy form, not so much. 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. Look forward to the sequel.
Cloverfield Duce: How To Piss Off An Audience Even More! by TallBoy66	Feb 15th, 2008 08:11:56 PM
The secrets will not be revealed! The movie will not be watchable! See it! Or, more acurately, don't!!
doesn't look like it could crush buildings by I Dunno	Feb 15th, 2008 08:14:01 PM
but then that whale depiction was way too big to precisely chop the head off the the statue of liberty.
That was the monster?? by jdl82	Feb 15th, 2008 08:14:18 PM
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??
Manikman, by Shut the Fuck up Donny	Feb 15th, 2008 08:17:56 PM
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.
Godzilla v. Cloverfield by jdl82	Feb 15th, 2008 08:20:28 PM
Cloverfield would win; it's 200 feet taller and can turn its head.
Looks like a pokemon really by Pipple	Feb 15th, 2008 08:21:14 PM
Syther probably or hitmonchan. What? Pokemon's the shit.
"Oh no, the Rancor!" by Fa Fa Fooey	Feb 15th, 2008 08:22:44 PM
Piece of shit design.
It looks way cooler now that you can actually see the whole damn by The_Squid	Feb 15th, 2008 08:24:31 PM
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.
looks like Ann Coulter by BadMrWonka	Feb 15th, 2008 08:25:15 PM
but probably causes less people in NY to scream...
I don't even recognise that from the film by aversiontherapy2	Feb 15th, 2008 08:30:02 PM

Worked on screen, but weak overall by jimmy_009	Feb 15th, 2008 08:31:08 PM
Totally unmemorable design when you see the whole thing.
Ranco??? by Briannicus	Feb 15th, 2008 08:35:27 PM
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.
Die haters die!!! by Hugh G Rekshun	Feb 15th, 2008 08:40:14 PM
The creature design is outstanding...as 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!
Crashes into the ocean?! by JMcLovin	Feb 15th, 2008 08:40:21 PM
What, and when, does anything crash into the ocean at the end of the movie? What have I missed?
Looks like Hillary Clinton by picardsucks	Feb 15th, 2008 08:43:58 PM
When she first realized Obama was whuppin that ass!!! Poor Bill no wonder he love the strange!!
i like this one better http://tinyurl.com/3xeuxc by BMacSmith	Feb 15th, 2008 08:44:50 PM
whale are scary! hee heehee
For those complaining about the price... by Bubba Gillman	Feb 15th, 2008 08:47:11 PM
...please note it comes with 10 parasites. That's less than 10 bucks a parasite!
wow. letdown. by dr.bulber	Feb 15th, 2008 08:49:12 PM
no wonder the monster mites bailed.
notes from a cloverfield fanboy.. by soup74	Feb 15th, 2008 08:49:47 PM
okay, i loved the movie, and I'm one of the dorks who followed every peep being said about it..so.. (and im sure a lot of you already know this stuff..) -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. -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. 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) the monster was a frightened baby. looking at the design it does look a bit immature. 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.
JMcLovin by BangoSkank	Feb 15th, 2008 08:50:27 PM
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.
ZZZZZZZZ by Gamerra_Presley	Feb 15th, 2008 08:50:53 PM
ZZZZZZZZZZ
I love how this site couldn't spoil the monster by skywalkerfamily	Feb 15th, 2008 08:53:41 PM
until weeks after the movie bombed.
NEW HULK DISPLAY PICS by deliciouscowbell	Feb 15th, 2008 08:54:13 PM
http://tinyurl.com/yrdvtm click on it for more and take out the space. not bad.
CMINO! by thebearovingian	Feb 15th, 2008 08:54:15 PM
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. Debbie Clemens 4 Life!!!
It's a lion! It's HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by performingmonkey	Feb 15th, 2008 08:54:49 PM
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 time...like tears in rain. Time to die.
HOLY SHIT THOSE HULK PICS ARE NICE by deliciouscowbell	Feb 15th, 2008 08:57:03 PM
i just looked at all of them very nice
Soup 74.... by BangoSkank	Feb 15th, 2008 08:58:09 PM
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.
I saw it! It's HUGE!!!! by skywalkerfamily	Feb 15th, 2008 09:01:10 PM
My penis.
Well I guess it looks less like... by jakeblues	Feb 15th, 2008 09:03:42 PM
An angry vagina. It looked like an angry vagina to me until I saw the action figure. Psychoanalyze that.
Well, I think it looked cool. by 'Cholera's Ghost	Feb 15th, 2008 09:05:52 PM
That's just me.
DID SOMEBODY SAY LION? by 'Cholera's Ghost	Feb 15th, 2008 09:09:19 PM
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...
It reminded me of by greyspecter	Feb 15th, 2008 09:09:59 PM
a skinnier Rancor, if the rancor had been done today and Lucas probably would have screwed the pooch on that too.
Icons... by dopepope	Feb 15th, 2008 09:10:16 PM
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.
All the Cloverfield haters by K\|LLDOZER	Feb 15th, 2008 09:10:23 PM
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.
The biggest mistake with the 'reveal' by BobPalpatine	Feb 15th, 2008 09:11:20 PM
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.
bangoskank.. by soup74	Feb 15th, 2008 09:11:31 PM
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.
I think it showed too much of the monster by Guy Who Got A Headache And Accidentally Saves The World	Feb 15th, 2008 09:11:59 PM
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.
did it major on copter bashing? by Gamerra_Presley	Feb 15th, 2008 09:19:32 PM
I liked that part myself.
The movie was done for 20-25mill. and made 77mill. by travis-dane	Feb 15th, 2008 09:21:59 PM
so far,just in the States.Sounds like a good deal to me.
by SaluteYourShorts	Feb 15th, 2008 09:24:26 PM
Vincent Chase in..."CLOVERFIELD VS AQUAMAN" directed by Billy Walsh.
Just read in Variety... by SaluteYourShorts	Feb 15th, 2008 09:25:35 PM
Vincent Chase in..."CLOVERFIELD BLVD.", directed by Billy Walsh
No more wasting money on toys. by aboriginal	Feb 15th, 2008 09:28:56 PM
Took a while, but its chicks and cars now.
A pale, skinny confused young monster... by ebonic_plague	Feb 15th, 2008 09:35:59 PM
...with mini accessory monsters that cause blood explosions, running amok in NYC. I'd say that's the PERFECT iconic monster for our time.
Totally off topic... by BLIND ALBINO PENGUINS	Feb 15th, 2008 09:36:36 PM
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.
The Creepy Crawlers in "The Mist"... by REDD	Feb 15th, 2008 09:37:04 PM
Were scarier than that.
Turd Movie, Turd Toy by quantize	Feb 15th, 2008 09:38:41 PM
....
Same here, aboriginal... by BLIND ALBINO PENGUINS	Feb 15th, 2008 09:39:03 PM
Now all my money goes towards hooke- uh, I mean dates...Yeah, that's what I meant(looks around nervously)...
I remember the whole LION thing by Orionsangels	Feb 15th, 2008 09:55:37 PM
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!
You by kilerb	Feb 15th, 2008 09:57:51 PM
are a moron.
The way Harry spoke of this monster, remember? by Orionsangels	Feb 15th, 2008 09:59:03 PM
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?
I wish I had my $18 back. by abovo	Feb 15th, 2008 10:04:23 PM
This movie was a serious disappointment.
Does the toy go apeshit like in the film? by Han Cholo	Feb 15th, 2008 10:07:18 PM
Cause I'm not going apeshit looking at it.
ANGRY RED PLANET did it better by Mace Tofu	Feb 15th, 2008 10:15:25 PM
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.
Orionsangels, weren't we... by 'Cholera's Ghost	Feb 15th, 2008 10:15:27 PM
joking about that?
That's a lovely design..! by Experiment 626	Feb 15th, 2008 10:16:24 PM
Got a toy for a little less than a hundred, tho..?
Problem not the design by OwnedbyGeorge	Feb 15th, 2008 10:28:27 PM
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.
What? by Orionsangels	Feb 15th, 2008 10:39:51 PM
I don't have time to read every talkbackers comment. but kudos. i'm wit you guys
I just came by performingmonkey	Feb 15th, 2008 10:43:28 PM
in your mom's cunt.
They needed to follow Blair Witch more closely by jccalhoun	Feb 15th, 2008 10:44:11 PM
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. 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. 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.
Cloverfield...biggest gip in movie history... by sonnyfern	Feb 15th, 2008 10:57:11 PM
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...
Looks like a mutated vampire bat. by Ozy	Feb 15th, 2008 11:07:08 PM
Slap some wings on that bitch and you got CLOVERFIELD 2.
How does that thing support its head? by skywalkerfamily	Feb 15th, 2008 11:18:58 PM
With those paper thin legs.
It's OK to Admit It Sucked by BeatsMe	Feb 15th, 2008 11:44:39 PM
We all got sucked in by the hype, that move blew really, really nasty chunks
why is it $100 by JimmyJoe RedSky	Feb 15th, 2008 11:45:55 PM
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
CLOVERFIELD MONSTER REVEALED!! (!!!)SPOILERS(!!!) by Doc Manhattan	Feb 15th, 2008 11:46:41 PM
His name is actually Gaston, and he's Emma Watson's pussy troll. Yes, the toy is life-sized.
So, Merrick, tell me... by LoneGun	Feb 15th, 2008 11:50:21 PM
...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.
Only $25 Million?..... by closeencounter	Feb 15th, 2008 11:52:39 PM
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.
I miss the Cthulhu Dance.... by EvilGeek1	Feb 15th, 2008 11:53:26 PM

^^^^ Somebody get this guy a drink. by Doc Manhattan	Feb 15th, 2008 11:53:39 PM
"Young urban professionals"... Shame on you, bitch.
I want a Snakes on a Plane sequel! by skywalkerfamily	Feb 15th, 2008 11:57:30 PM
MORE Snakes on a plane!
Doc Manhattan by LoneGun	Feb 16th, 2008 12:00:04 AM
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.
Do people get to see Cloverfield for free on St. by skywalkerfamily	Feb 16th, 2008 12:01:30 AM
Patrick's Day?
LoneGun, on its own terms it failed by JimmyJoe RedSky	Feb 16th, 2008 12:06:09 AM
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
where are the RED external eardrums? by Jubba	Feb 16th, 2008 12:06:55 AM
or whatever they were? and where are the starship troopers bug lice?
LoneGun, no youre a bitch cause this movie scared you by JimmyJoe RedSky	Feb 16th, 2008 12:08:05 AM

Does the movie always have to be "about" the... by 33.3rpm	Feb 16th, 2008 12:19:59 AM
...monster? Just 'cause it has a monster in it.
Yes, YES! POKE HIIM! STAB HIM! DEVIRGINIZE HIS TALKBACK INNOCENC by Doc Manhattan	Feb 16th, 2008 12:20:53 AM
LoneGun, a word of advice. If someone in a talkback calls you a bitch, take it like a man... ESPECIALLY if it's me, cause I'll straight Cloverfield your Central Park, homey.
Aliens VS This Weird thing! by skywalkerfamily	Feb 16th, 2008 12:21:22 AM
Get on it New Line!
JimmyJoe RedSky, if the movie didn't work for you... by LoneGun	Feb 16th, 2008 12:21:52 AM
...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.
33.3rpm, as much as I appreciate your name by Doc Manhattan	Feb 16th, 2008 12:23:45 AM
I gotta say yeah, monster movies do always have to be about monsters. Or else they'd be spoofs. Or Michael Bay films. Because apparently, Transformers was about a young Jewish boy's struggle with homosexuality.
Thanks, Doc. by LoneGun	Feb 16th, 2008 12:37:31 AM
That was a pretty funny post, actually. I will take your advice.
KillDozer, no. Just no. by TheLastCleric	Feb 16th, 2008 12:51:48 AM
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.
LoneGun, i couldnt resist - i was just kidding.... by JimmyJoe RedSky	Feb 16th, 2008 01:09:34 AM
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
was it just me by Campion	Feb 16th, 2008 01:22:48 AM
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.
Oh My God Merrick and co.... by moto	Feb 16th, 2008 01:25:52 AM
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. 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. 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. 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.
Crazy by blondeman	Feb 16th, 2008 01:26:30 AM
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.
The monster looked great in the film and that's what matters by GimpInMyPants	Feb 16th, 2008 01:38:05 AM
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.
moto, dude im in my 40s and i didnt like it by JimmyJoe RedSky	Feb 16th, 2008 01:44:54 AM
i wanted to see more monster - and had i, i still wouldnt have liked the movie (the monster stuff was its strength) - imo
Merrick- you're a tool... by Rubiks Doob	Feb 16th, 2008 01:46:06 AM
If this monster were any more exposed we'd have seen him balls deep in your vagina...
Yeah, I'm waiting for the DVD on this one by skywalkerfamily	Feb 16th, 2008 01:54:28 AM
There will probably be some unrated DVD with gory footage this summer.
WOW by igotbigballs	Feb 16th, 2008 01:55:21 AM
That sucks. This really makes me dislike the movie even more. You suck Abrams.
It's the perfect american monster by reagon	Feb 16th, 2008 02:03:29 AM
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.
Wow by kafka07	Feb 16th, 2008 02:06:59 AM
I'm even more glad now that I didn't waste my time and money on this movie.
That thing is TOTALLY posed wrong, and it makes a HUGE differenc by Playkins	Feb 16th, 2008 02:08:32 AM
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. Nevertheless, $99 bucks for that is a joke. The fucking Masterpiece Optimus Prime is only $69. Cloverfield-thing is a RIP.OFF.
Umm, if the monster by Fortunesfool	Feb 16th, 2008 02:24:04 AM
looks different everytime you see it...doesn't that suggest that there's more than one? 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
Looks a lot smaller in real life. by alucardvsdracula	Feb 16th, 2008 02:40:32 AM
Doesn't scare me. Monsters? I shit em!
NO MATTER WHAT ANYBODY FUCKING SAYS by Doc Manhattan	Feb 16th, 2008 02:54:10 AM
BLAIR WITCH SUCKED, YOU SHIT TARDS
Shit Sandwich aka Cloverfield "Film" by Tha Tohdouble	Feb 16th, 2008 02:58:08 AM
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!
AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THIS FUCKING POPPLE by Doc Manhattan	Feb 16th, 2008 02:58:47 AM
LOOKING MOTHERFUCKER THEY'RE PAWNING OFF FOR $99 ON 12-YEAR-OLDS WHO WEREN'T EVEN OLD ENOUGH TO SEE THE FILM. AND IF I EVER CATCH ANY OF YOU FANBOY ASSFUCKS WITH THIS DILDO ON YOUR MANTLE WHEN I SHOW UP FOR CHRISTMAS DINNER, I'M GONNA MOTHERFUCKIN BRAIN YA, I SWEAR TO FUCKING SUNSHINE!! THAT IS ALL.
Sigh... by submarinevoyage	Feb 16th, 2008 03:15:46 AM
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!"
But will the monster get off the island? by Pops Freshemeyer	Feb 16th, 2008 03:19:17 AM
Well?
They showed way too much of the monster. by Knuckleduster	Feb 16th, 2008 03:43:33 AM
CGI and "found" amateur video footage just doesn't mix.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzz by OttopartS	Feb 16th, 2008 03:49:26 AM

NEXT MOVIE: Coverfield IN Hawaii!! by Mysterious Yobo	Feb 16th, 2008 03:55:42 AM

Two Words: Skinny Rancor by manicart1	Feb 16th, 2008 03:58:35 AM
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.
My reaction: Meh by Prof. Pop-Cult	Feb 16th, 2008 03:59:56 AM
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.
Skinny Rancor was the best jazz trumpet playerof the 30s by Mysterious Yobo	Feb 16th, 2008 04:01:12 AM
you know you stuff buddy
by manicart1	Feb 16th, 2008 04:07:30 AM
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.
Yah by blondeman	Feb 16th, 2008 04:16:14 AM
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. 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.
I liked the movie. by ZeroCorpse	Feb 16th, 2008 04:23:30 AM
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. 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. And don't get me started on people who think "The Grudge" and "The Ring" are good horror movies. They SUCKED. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
As disappointing as the film by Mr Writer	Feb 16th, 2008 04:24:07 AM
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.
cruse = crude by ZeroCorpse	Feb 16th, 2008 04:25:03 AM
No, the hillbillies didn't have cruise missiles.
Come on Mr. Writer by blondeman	Feb 16th, 2008 04:29:45 AM
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.
Blair Witch worked better than Cloverfield as far as creating fe by Mr Writer	Feb 16th, 2008 04:33:22 AM
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.
Looks Like My Girlfriend by Queefer Bukkake	Feb 16th, 2008 04:40:24 AM
But I make her put a bag over her head during sex.
Blondeman by Mr Writer	Feb 16th, 2008 04:41:08 AM
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.
Looks like a spazoid bat without wings... by KillaKane	Feb 16th, 2008 04:53:43 AM
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).
IT'S NOT A FUCKING LION!! by Maniaq	Feb 16th, 2008 04:57:37 AM
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? Having said that, I actually thought the parasites were scarier - maybe because there were more of them, I dunno. 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? 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??? 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?
Never Ever Satisfied! by FILMFUNK	Feb 16th, 2008 04:57:56 AM
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! 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! 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! 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. 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!
i bet that monster... by Y282	Feb 16th, 2008 05:03:13 AM
has no problem reaching its own prostate tho. eh? EH?!
Y282 by Varakor	Feb 16th, 2008 05:10:57 AM
now THAT's funny!!
Let's hope the Lost monster turns out to be better by abovo	Feb 16th, 2008 05:20:39 AM
I sure hope that Lost doesn't end up disappointing us as much as Cloverfield.
Galactus Saga shot like Cloverfield by messi	Feb 16th, 2008 05:21:56 AM
or part of it. Now that would have been brutal.
Anatomy by Moshi	Feb 16th, 2008 05:44:02 AM
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.
and that Zapruder film sucked too by scumbag	Feb 16th, 2008 05:48:54 AM
...no good shots of the shooter
Looks like that "Poltergeist" monster... by Anna Valerious	Feb 16th, 2008 06:13:18 AM
I say Tobe Hooper should sue.
Does anyone have a link to by henrydalton	Feb 16th, 2008 06:30:39 AM
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...
Was Too a Lion! by Gamerra_Presley	Feb 16th, 2008 06:39:53 AM
You just didn't see him-the lion talked and operated the camera....
So let me get this straight... by poeticwarriorII	Feb 16th, 2008 06:51:16 AM
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.
Yeah, not very aquatic by I Dunno	Feb 16th, 2008 06:53:07 AM
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.
this toy is very lithe by Kloipy	Feb 16th, 2008 07:15:54 AM

i love by Lemming	Feb 16th, 2008 07:18:17 AM
how a fucking kid's toy affects people's enjoyment of a film on this site. You couldn't make this shit up, seriously..
Its The GIANT NOSFERATU MOON MOUSE MONSTER! by LaserPants	Feb 16th, 2008 07:28:47 AM
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.
It looks slightly different to the onscreen monster by Fried Gold	Feb 16th, 2008 07:29:20 AM
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.
A bad looking toy from an overly long film by MrJJonz	Feb 16th, 2008 07:31:05 AM
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. 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
I wouldn't call it a kid by I Dunno	Feb 16th, 2008 07:40:08 AM

I wouldn't call it a kid's toy by I Dunno	Feb 16th, 2008 07:41:34 AM
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.
The whole sattelite/monster thing by Jonah Echo	Feb 16th, 2008 07:43:06 AM
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.
I thought they showed too much by HootDad	Feb 16th, 2008 07:58:34 AM
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.
POLTERGEIST MONSTER RIP OFF by blakes7	Feb 16th, 2008 08:02:17 AM
The monster is a total rip off of the "closet monster" from Poltergeist. http://www.jeffwestsart.com/im age_lib/Poltergeist.jpg
meh by purplepurple	Feb 16th, 2008 08:09:19 AM
meh
First by Custom_personality	Feb 16th, 2008 08:18:36 AM

The Poltergeist Closet Monster Would Kick Cloverfeld's ASS!!! by LaserPants	Feb 16th, 2008 08:25:54 AM
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) AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEE!!!!!
Varan was 'Kane' compared to this. by Gamerra_Presley	Feb 16th, 2008 08:27:40 AM
My fave part of Varan is that teleporting jeep across the beach. It's great.
Cloverturd : HD-DVD Genre Redefining Edition by quantize	Feb 16th, 2008 08:43:23 AM
In a texas bargain bin somewhere near Harry....soon
Where's H.R. Geiger when ya need him???? by geodesigns	Feb 16th, 2008 08:51:58 AM
He should've designed the monster. Nothing beats the Alien design.
I'll take Harryhausen's Ymir any fucking day. by Uncle Stan	Feb 16th, 2008 08:54:04 AM
It killed a fucking elephant, man! A GOD DAMN ELEPHANT, MAN!!
Odysseus: by heyscot	Feb 16th, 2008 09:01:52 AM
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.
It IS more or less a vampire bat skeleton.. by Rameses	Feb 16th, 2008 09:08:18 AM
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 .
Toy As Underwhelming As The Movie by grievenom	Feb 16th, 2008 09:08:57 AM
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.
actually, geodesigns, by I Dunno	Feb 16th, 2008 09:23:33 AM
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.
Goddamn, I am Batman by I Dunno	Feb 16th, 2008 09:33:14 AM
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? 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.
Pretty much a giant bat without wings by ebolamonkey	Feb 16th, 2008 09:39:12 AM
Somebody saw how creepy a bat looked walking around on the ground and made a movie out of it.
HD-DVD just died... by digitalcos	Feb 16th, 2008 09:54:50 AM
Where's the eulogy?
Y'mir and Varan by Jonah Echo	Feb 16th, 2008 09:55:05 AM
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.
The reason why we are all underwhelmed... by mooseaka	Feb 16th, 2008 09:57:12 AM
... 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. 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."
IT'S THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. END OF LINE. by uss cygnus	Feb 16th, 2008 10:00:20 AM
It's the Blair Witch Project In Manhattan with Godzooky. The Simpsons already did it. Who cares.
Harry now has to endorse Blu Ray and here is why... by Gus Van Rant	Feb 16th, 2008 10:27:25 AM
He has some huge titties!!!!
That's right mooseaka by reagon	Feb 16th, 2008 10:35:51 AM
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.
WHY DO I STILL by God's Brother	Feb 16th, 2008 10:38:59 AM
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?
Stop exaggerating by CarmillaVonDoom	Feb 16th, 2008 10:45:01 AM
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.
reagon by JimmyJoe RedSky	Feb 16th, 2008 10:46:50 AM
"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
Front view looks like a demented McDonald's "M" by GimmeABreak	Feb 16th, 2008 10:53:23 AM
That thing is goofy.
BMacsmith...in answer to you querry by DoctorWho?	Feb 16th, 2008 10:55:40 AM
..."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.
Bandai! by Hikaru Ichijo	Feb 16th, 2008 10:56:12 AM
It's not a giant monster until I own a hollow vinyl toy with three points of articulation and a tag dangling from it.
Post Harry's HD-DVD obit! by Kragmose	Feb 16th, 2008 11:07:59 AM
"This is horrible news... HD-DVD gone..."
Cloverfield was great because of what it didn't have. by heyscot	Feb 16th, 2008 11:08:41 AM
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.
what's this? by mrbong	Feb 16th, 2008 11:12:16 AM
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.
Gratuitous by Shozo

Talkbacks

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