Also apparently Greg Grunberg () is going to be in it too..

why is there hype surrounding this movie, its a fucking giant monster movie for fuck's sake and those trailers are fucking awful.

of course I shouldnt be surprised since most of you are the same fucking retards who thought Transformers was the best movie of the summer.

Seeing as the new Voltron movie is supposedly set on Earth....well...no, that still can't be it, but still. Maybe.

SEP, seriously, shut the fuck up. God knows you have no room to complain about taste. Period. Get the fuck off of the boards.

The movie deserves props if for nothing else than the secrecy about it, and the excellently done hype machine. If the movie even lives up to half the hype, it will be a good movie.

My taste is a hundred times better than the majority of you faggots at this site. Go drool over your 300 and Transformers movies.

Fucking done.

Last I heard, the script for the Voltron movie was confirmed after the teaser trailer. So I doubt this is that. Though I wouldn't be disapointed.

I have no idea if this movie is going to be good, but I am just as caught in the hype as the rest of you!

Even though I must admit that I liked the trailer, it's no indication of it being a good movie, at all.

Awful fucking movie. The only good things about it were the camera work (which really kept up the illusion - although the character's reasons for continually picking up the dropped camera were shit) and seeing the ravaged New York kind of tugged at my heartstrings.

It was impossible to relate to (or like) any of the characters, the dialog felt incredibly over-written (but that might've been the fault of the actors) the monster was an after-thought at best, the motivations of the characters it follows made no sense, and the ending was an absolute shit-out.

The audience I saw it with agreed with Zombie N-Word, but I really liked it. It's godzilla done proper. The set-up with the birthday and the interspliced clips of them at Coney Island were great, and the ending was straight-forward and powerful. Really lean running time, which was good because it was exhausting to watch. Very exciting stuff, especially the bit in the tunnel.

Eh, the coney island intersplices sort of pissed me off. It was almost as if it was just a cheap way for them to go "SEE! THESE CHARACTERS REALLY DO LOVE EACH OTHER! THAT'S WHY ROB IS SO WILLING TO THROW HIS LIFE AWAY!"

Seemed sort of cheap to me.

I think overall I'd be okay with the movie if the end had some sort of resolution. Maybe something like a miliary tribunial talking about the incidident, not that backwards talk bullshit I had to go online to find out about in the first place.

What's this about backwards talking?

I think they ended it the only way they could have ended it. The whole trick of the movie was limited the perspective to Hud's camera - we see only as much as it sees. So to toss in some non-POV stuff at the end to recap would not only screw with that, but it'd be kind of beside the point. Doesn't really matter what the monster is or why it's there, it's just a question of how these people dealt with the disaster.

I think you're probably right about the Coney Island stuff being a little cheap. But again, with just Hud's camera to tell the story, it's just about the only way you could convey any backstory, since nobody's going to spend much time talking about anything but the huge fucking monster.

And do your eyes feel like they just ran a marathon? I think I'm going to go stare at a wall, let my corneas cool off.

Wiki mentioned that at the end of the film (after the credits) a (backwards) radio transmission can be heard stating "It's still alive."

I see where you're coming from with that, but at the very least, I think a grainy shot of the camera showing the monster rising from the dust/ashes of Manhattan would've been ok.

That was another thing that bugged me - Hud. I understood his initial filming of the incident, but there were times where he dropped the camera and I just kept thinking "Why pick it up again dude, just run!" But that wouldn't have really worked for the movie. Maybe if he had dropped it in the street and someone else picked it up and we saw a different set of characters perspectives on the incident.

There were parts of the movie that made me feel sort of dizzy but other than the helicopter crash and the attack in the subways I can't really think of any.

It's a movie I look forward to watching on DVD so I can pause and shit to see stuff better. The standard DVD features should be pretty cool too. Supposedly at the very end of the movie in the Coney Island bit you can see a huge splash way off in the distance in the ocean, and that's supposed to be the monster landing.

No, it's a Tagruato satellite crashing into the water. This, in conjunction with the rampant undersea mining, woke the creature up.

The material used to produce Slusho drinks is some sort of biological lifeform or undersea nectar. Either or. It's unclear, specifically. It could even be the monster's blood, so to speak. Supposedly all this irritated the creature out of a long hibernation. The satellite crashing might have contained some sort of mutagenic agent of some sort--the viral marketting portion on the crash is hazy, at best. But it did seem to be the impetus for the events that took place.

It's not an alien. It's some sort of evolved undersea lifeform. In fact, there may be quite a few roaming about considering the fact that the early shots of the monster in the movie are extremely different from the latter shots. More over, the fact that the bridge was smashed indicates at least one other creature. The tail/tentacle that destroyed it is different from the tail of the monster that is clearly viewed towards the end of the film. There's also a placement issue--no way something deep in Manhattan could move that quickly to the bridge, get under water, smash it, then get back on land to harass people. Even more so considering the military probably would have been notified of the movement of Cloverfield from Manhattan to the main evacuation path.

I really liked it. I'm easily hooked on ARGs, so all the viral marketing made me a dedicated fan before we even knew what the movie was about. My only issue is the gigantic plot hole at the end. The creature ate Hud, whose upper body was dropped with the camera. They ran up to grab it, then fled under a bridge. Where the fuck did the creature go? Did it just fly off? Why didn't it attack Rob and Beth? Oi vei. Also, the fact that Cloverfield continually seemed to attack the main characters in specific felt a little forced. But, eh, concerns for another time.

I hope the manga wraps up some of the loose plot threads. I'm too analytical for this stuff to be left hanging.

Holy crap I really hated Cloverfield. I was really looking forward to this film because it's the only action film out there as of this moment.

But I couldn't get passed the Blair Witch Project style camerawork. It's supposed to be a roller coaster ride but it's more 'me getting dizzy' rather than 'me having a great time'. I think it could have been better with a mix between conventional camera angles and the documentary style.

The monster, after much hype was disappointing. It was a giant cockroach, whoop-de-doo. The main character was stupid as fuck. And the ending wasn't a twist, or a surprise, but was just a big wtf. The first 20 min of the film where they try and build up the story was worse than watching the Real World.

I'm really surprised it has an 8.1 rating on IMDB but then again, everyone is on JJ Abrams nuts because of Lost. My favorite part of the movie was seeing the Star Trek teaser. I don't like Star Trek but seeing it with a high budget and another director seems really refreshing. Hopefully it is far and away from what ST: the Next Generation was like Batman Begins was far away from Batman & Robin.

Uh, who are you? Did you change your name?

I don't even watch Lost and I thought this was good. I'm just a little peeved by the scale changes of the monster.

Yeah I changed my name. I used to go by red raider and I'll probably change my name again.

The camerawork didn't irk me as much as I had expected it to and I liked some of the smaller touches [I'm a fan of the video-footage-as-flashback mechanism Reeves/Abrams employs] but I don't get the impression that Reeves made the right choice in using the handheld camera style and sticking with one group of characters considering the clear focus of the movie to him is to stay away from "revealing" the scale and detail of the monster until near the end of the film the way they obscure it with buildings and such. I also don't like what I felt to be cheap references to 9/11 when their intent is more than anything to make a "national monster" like Godzilla [he even said as much when talking about the movie]. Personally I found the movie to be all over the place, but I expected it to be awful so it did exceed that.

And what's with this dumb "play the last words backwards to hear 'it's still alive'" bullshit? Who has the capabilities of playing that backwards right now? Are you sure people aren't just fetching for something "deeper" to what is clearly just a monster movie? That people aren't desperate for this to be like the Lost series? It's a monster movie. It's a fucking monster movie. Just because they sell it as some sort of multimedia experience through viral web sites doesn't make it something beyond what it is. If it's fun to you, fine, but come on, the backwards audio thing is really stretching it.

I didn't actually listen to the audio clip that Wiki linked too (since I don't care) but I do agree that the whole thing is stupid as hell.

I probably wouldn't be half as dissapointed by this film if it wasn't for all those damn sites (the one that weren't even connected, like that Ethan Haas bullshit) built up all the hype.

EDIT: Annnnnnnd, the link to the backwards shit isn't even on Wiki anymore, nor is the information about the "after the credits" stuff. Guess it was just someone fucking around.

I get kind of miffed about people complaining about the 9/11 references. Yes, 9/11 was a tragic event. But, it happened. Accept this. Let it go. Don't let it rule over your life for the rest of eternity--don't equate everything you see relating to the destruction of towers to 9/11 (Although, yes, I understand he was specifically going for a 9/11 feel in this particular film). It isn't anything that cheapened the movie, I don't think.

In a world where 9/11 didn't happen this movie has no emotional impact on anyone. At some points during the movie it almost seemed like someone had tried writing a movie about a terrorst attack on the city, got fed the hell up and just decided to toss a monster into it. You can basically replace every instance of Monster related incidents with Middle Eastern people.

I understand what you're saying, we shouldn't let 9/11 rule over our lives, but that is someone no one who was alive when it happened will ever forget.

When I complain about the 9/11 references, I'm not complaining that he's touching a sensitive issue, I'm complaining that he's touching a sensitive issue with, to me, no justification other than cheaply grabbing viewers' emotions by the balls and giving the film some air of importance that it doesn't really have. I would call that exploitation. I "let go" of 9/11 pretty early in the game, but thanks.

So - Am I the only one who thought the camera work, and the style it was made in, actually made the movie better?