the little monsters in the subway did remind me of the aliens from Resistance - the glowings eyes & the way they look.

The movie was ok. The camera work didn't make me sick but just got annoying. Nothing great but not abosuletly horrible. 

Is it the one pictured here? http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/01/12/cloverfield-monster-revealed-in-fan-art/

I don't think that's the "real" thing, maybe a prelim, as the "louse" in the film had a head that with notable vertical compression.

The lice reminded me of zerglings.

i really enjoyed this film. Its definitely a monster genre piece and nothing more, but it's "fresh." The movie brought alot of things to the table in a genre that has become fairly stale.
Just some thoughts:
1)It didn't follow a protagonist that some how knows how to defeat the monster, or someone who eventually would defeat the monster, or one who is military, or responsible for the monster's creation. Instead it follows a protagonist that would normally be the extras in a monster flick. And the perspective was great.
2)It was an amateur cameraman style filming, and the director did not forget this. There are scenes in the movie that are so subtle, but amazing at the same time. Despite its disorienting nature, the filming was perfect.
3)The monster wasn't some asinine allegory, and the story stayed far away from any kind of moral. The monster was simply an inhuman killer.

I rent from Netflix. Wont see this in 6 months

Just got back from seeing it. I think it was great. In fact, I plan on seeing it again, maybe even more than once. It was like the Blair Witch Project, except not boring.

I kid (sort of). Blair Witch was alright.

The little spider things gave me massive Resistance flashbacks. They were an nice addition. It really adds to that "nowhere is safe" feeling, because after seeing the spiders once I forgot about them, so once the group went down the stairs into the subway I thought it was going to get boring. I'm actually kind of glad I forgot about them though, because it was such a surprise at a moment when I thought things were going to be dull.

Overall, I'm kind of ambiguous about the monster. The thing with Blair Witch is that the movie never actually showed something supernatural, but it maintained that atmosphere. That wouldn't have really worked well with Cloverfield though, because it's on such a larger scale, so I was okay with it. But I do think that maybe they shouldn't have shown the entire monster. Bits and pieces here and there, maybe even a shot of the head would've been okay, but I think it kind of ruined the "fear of the unknown" aspect of it by showing full body shots.

Oh well. It was still an awesome movie.

The movie is HORRIBLE. There is no story. No character development. They are all motivated because they are "friends". One of the main characters isnt even a friend, she didnt even recognize/know Hud the camera man. The shaky camera and abrubt ending are gimics. There is absolutely no story telling here. The action is horrible. (survived a helicopter crash?? and a bridge collapse??) but yeah the monster looked cool.

People praising the camera work and story telling, while calling this a brilliant monster movie remind of the art critics you praise a piece of art and come to find out the art is elephant dung and some paint the artists threw at it. This movie is the brainfart of a first year film student. barely over an hour, but without a story how are you supposed to fill up all that time??

the movie was 1 hour 20 minutes long and without the party scene it would have been under a hour. well what did that party scene add? that they were friends? how long? where/how did they meet? what made their bond so strong? none of those are answered.

what we do learn is that one of the characters slept with this other girl and they have to find her later as the movie goes along. when this guy's "friend" finds out about the secret love making what does he do? tells everyone at the party!!
So yeah a real tight group of friends. Someone in this thread called it a love story?? He had sex with her 1 time 2 weeks ago, she has a boyfriend, and he was 1 day from moving to other side of the world - quite a stretch from what we were shown in the movie to call that love.

but everything in this movie is a stretch? 7 hours of record time on that camera?? the military let them keep recording? when he turned around in the subway, why wasnt the light still on on his camera?? they accidentally waltz into the military compound without any detection till they are 50 feet away?? they find the girl, she has a piece of metal sticking through her chest - they pull her up- then she walks with them - doing an outdoor building to collapsed building transfer?? where was everyone else in her building? dead people? the monster never moved from 1 borough of NYC while being bombed, shot, shelled, rocketed, napalmed, and trapped in/around huge buildings??????? why is it called Cloverfield?? what exactly did the shaky cam bring to the table? please dont say realism....



Anyone praising this movie is braindead and will say anything is great when exposed to the right marketing.

90% of current gen video games have MUCH better story telling and character development then this movie. The Darkness/Resistance both blow this turd out the water.

You don't like the movie. Fair enough. I'll buy that.

...but Resistance? How does Resistance have a better plot than this movie? Especially in terms of character development?

By the way; is your PSN ID a reference to the Patriots? 

What i liked most about this movie is how they tried to make it beliavable. That is to say u see the movie through the eyes of the regular, everyday citizens, instead of the military. And the movie does a really great job at keeping the illusion of reality.