Cloverfield was a government name like Manhattan Project for the monster or the tape... It's at the very beginning of the film.

I don't know if I believe this bit of YouTubery...

Just got back from the movie.

I liked it.

As my faith in the general movie-watching public was confirmed as low... my faith in the LoT movie-watching community has been affirmed.

In searching for something else I've found online that the generally accepted version of the post-credits sound is:

Cloverfield, Cloverfield, Cloverfield... it's the word of the day here in our building. Me included. I can't stop talking about this film.

:)

OK, I am quoting myself because if Alex's link is correct, then it is much more conclusive then what i thought it said.

I saw it last night - I enjoyed it but the camera movement realy made me dizzy and I had to look away several times. It was alot of fun, though. I'd like to see another pov of the events as a sequal - that'd be cool. One without the camera movement. Kinda like Dawn of the Dead etc.

i believe you'd find that this is a stupid story without the camera work. The fact that it was not merely a gimmick, but used so cleverly to accentuate the action and humor that otherwise would have been far less effective is what I liked most about this movie.

Think of the scene where they get in the middle of a pitched battle between the army and the monster on some block in midtown Manhattan, with Hud stuck across the street from Rob and the girls huddling in a doorway. That scene filmed 'conventionally' would have been 1/10th as exhilerating.

Much of the movie used the handheld to great effect ... and the gimmick became the film's greatest asset.

Exactly. That scene, and the subway sequence had me totally holding my breath BECAUSE of the "gimmick". I'm annoyed with people who are saying that the movie didn't explain enough.

Ummmmm you're looking at this from the point of view of some "regular" NYC yuppies, so how in the world will it all be "explained"? How would they be privy to that kind of information? It explained EXACTLY what their experience was.

I mean, say this same movie was about 9/11. Would a person at ground zero know EXACTLY what happened, where the planes came from, who was on the plane, why they hit the towers, etc. etc. 6-7 hours afterwards? Ummmmm NOBODY knew.... I think explaining any more than they did in the film would be a cop-out. Ambiguity can be great in films, and this movie had it in spades. I hate it when they add scenes to explain too much (see, for instance, the brilliant Donnie Darko (original theatrical version), versus the craptastic Donnie Darko Director's Cut, which basically explained everything in a re-edit and completely killed what made the original good to begin with). What would have been added to the film if they had made up something like... "the monster came from the sea, when radioactive waves hit it!" ummm ok, so what?