Cloverfield

[Gemini Cricket]

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...

[sleepyjeff]

Just got back from the movie.

I liked it.

[blueerica]

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

[Alex]

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

Spoiler:

it is reversed audio and when you reverse it back it clearly says "it's still alive." Whether that was Rob talking or audio from a nearby walkie talkie (and thus staticky) seems debated. You can hear the audio reversed here. The sequel implications are even stronger and I dislike it for the same reasons stated above.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Alex

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

Spoiler:

it is reversed audio and when you reverse it back it clearly says "it's still alive." Whether that was Rob talking or audio from a nearby walkie talkie (and thus staticky) seems debated. You can hear the audio reversed here. The sequel implications are even stronger and I dislike it for the same reasons stated above.

Spoiler:

After hearing it again, I would agree with that assessment. However, in the theater about 10 of us all hear "now what". I also don't recall the vocal part of the clip being longer than 2 words. "It's still alive" is only 3 words. Either way, it's open for a sequel. I'm still hung up on the lack of a conclusive ending, and I hope that any sequel does answer those questions I want to know. But as BE pointed out last night, I think I really want to know because of the unanswered questions of Lost. Which isn't fair to the movie (which I did enjoy)

[Gemini Cricket]

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

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Alex

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

Spoiler:

it is reversed audio and when you reverse it back it clearly says "it's still alive." Whether that was Rob talking or audio from a nearby walkie talkie (and thus staticky) seems debated. You can hear the audio reversed here. The sequel implications are even stronger and I dislike it for the same reasons stated above.

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Spoiler:

After hearing it again, I would agree with that assessment. However, in the theater about 10 of us all hear "now what". I also don't recall the vocal part of the clip being longer than 2 words. "It's still alive" is only 3 words. Either way, it's open for a sequel. I'm still hung up on the lack of a conclusive ending, and I hope that any sequel does answer those questions I want to know. But as BE pointed out last night, I think I really want to know because of the unanswered questions of Lost. Which isn't fair to the movie (which I did enjoy)

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

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

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.

[innerSpaceman]

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.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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?