Nothing indicates a significant amount of time. Also a voice in the credits whispering "Its still alive." There is no definite answer

reply

I just got back from seeing it.

Quite well done; really the only thing that bothered me is that the beginning text stated that the footage was recovered off an SD card but it was pretty clearly a tape (not only do they say "tape" in the movie, there's rewinding and accidental recording over the Coney Island bits, which wouldn't happen with an SD card).

Thankfully this does clear up one point: it was definitely not a nuke, and thus you're all silly for arguing about it

To those wondering about blast radii and such for purely scientific purposes, this is a good tool: http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html . Try 10 KT (large tactical nuke) over central park; you'd barely even get broken windows outside of Manhattan.

Try that with 50,000 KT, which is 50 megatons, the blast radius of the Tsar Bomba, the biggest nuke ever built. The results are certainly devastating but the direct blast radius is not as large as some people think.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nukergv.html

That's a pretty decent read if you want to know what high-yield TNWs/low-yield strategic nukes are capable of.

Anyway, a nuke would have sent off an EMP and would have made any electronics worthless.

Third page now. too lazy to bother with spoiler tags anymore.



In order for us to be watching the film, the military would first have to find it. They just evacuated and bombed the hell out of the city. When the film ends, it is at the bottom of a pile of rubble in the middle of Central Park. There is destruction all over the city. It could take them weeks or even months to find it. Even if they are still fighting the monster, it will have definitely moved away from New York by the time the clean up starts. By the time we see the film, the Manhattan battle is over.

The voice at the end was just a teaser for a sequel. It's like ending a film with "The end...?"



My group realized this. We figured it might have been copied when the military finally found the film sometime later, or it could just be a huge oversight.

Uh.. You typed 60 characters as opposed to 18.

You're bad at being lazy. :p

Shut up. :p

I dunno, it doesn't mean the monster is dead.

1.It left. They recovered it during later recovery efforts.

2.Some private was eating an MRE under a bridge in central park and finds a camera, stuffing it in his cargo pocket. This while the monster is gone or on the other end of Manhattan.

3.It's a movie.

4.Monster is still active, but far enough away that the Army sends CSAR in to look for their downed guys. They check under the nearby bridge and find the camera, then get the **** out of there.

Found this. Not sure if it's official or just recreated based on what is briefly shown in the movie, but it looks pretty accurate. Looks more like a space alien than a sea creature to me.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with that picture.

The clearest picture I have found of the creature:



Actually, I've decided that this movie is pretty much "unspoilable". Everything that I've read about the plot seems to fit in with most of what people were saying it would be about. I'll rent it when it comes out. Not that I don't think it's worth seeing but I prefer to watch movies at home now.

It's definitely one of those movies that is going to be better in the theatre. Just something to think about.

I don't really enjoy movies any more in the theater versus the house. Of course I have a decent home entertainment system so that helps. And with a movie like Cloverfield where there is the amatuer camera jerk effect, a smaller screen actually makes it more enjoyable to me.

KILLJOY!

The best shaky cam I've seen is in Battlestar Galactica, where it isn't really shaky at all. The camera is a little unsteady to give the viewer the feel of being in the scene, but none of the bull**** like the newer Bourne movies or Cloverfield.

It's trendy and poor cinematography, no exceptions. Shaky cam sucks balls.

I barely noticed the shakiness of the Cloverfield camera. There are maybe 3 points that I can recall off the top of my head where hey had incredibly shaky shots. (Camera being pointed at the ground and stuff)

Trendy? Maybe. For Cloverfield / Bourne Identity... mostly not.

Cloverfield is a "Content fits the form" type of thing. It would have been lame if it was just a standard film following the people rather than a handheld camera.

I hated the shaky cam in the bourne movie(s?), but it works in cloverfield. I really liked the style in battlestar galactica, even though i hate the show.

Agreed with MB, mostly.

Shaky cam in standard movies? Stupid. (This includes Bourne, imo)
Shaky cam in a movie FILMED FROM A HANDHELD CAMERA: Makes sense, and works well.

And I agree. I think people are just jumping on the bashing bandwagon. There were very few parts where it was violently shaking, and most of them were when they were running and it was pointed at the ground. I also don't believe people are actually "getting sick" from it. I think that's bologna and you need to be shot with a tuna.

I felt like throwing up right after they run down into the subway after being roared at by the monster . But I think it was more to do with how close I felt to the action, and after an encounter like that I would probably puke my guts out. I was actually expecting Marlena to throw up when you see her in front of the camera.

So, the shaky-cam isn't too overbearing in the theaters? That was basically my only concern with dishing out the money to see it on the big screen, but if it's not that bad, I'll probably be seeing it after Rambo this weekend...

Oh man, that part got to me too. It was definitely the most genuinely scared I've been at a movie, ever.

Well, despite my saying I wouldn't go, I just returned from an early night screening.

I thought it was great fun! Definatly not a masterpiece or anything grand, but I feel the movie succeeded very much at what it was trying to do. I can't say I was scared per say through out the viewing, but I certainly had an amazing rush of adrenaline at several points in the movie.

The aforementioned monster roaring down at them before they ran into the subway, and the ending when Hud gets eaten where two points where, well, I recoiled from the screen.

It was hilarious hearing people around me shriek in horror.

Them not noticing the monster approach (by sight or sound) killed that scene for me.

What about the tentacle?

You mean its tail?

I think I may watch it again when it comes out on video. On a smaller screen and with lights on, I most likely will not get sick.

I don't know any space monster with octopus tentacles.

I don't see how that's relevant, given the Clover-monster doesn't have tentacles either.

Also: see War of the Worlds for famous tentacled aliens

You are somehow starting to make even less sense.

I just kept thinking how much harder the CG must have been with all that camera-shaking.

Many motion-trackers died to bring us this film.

Damn, Look at the size of it. It must be capable of running extremely fast.

No kidding. Didn't like that scene at all.

Loved the movie... What I want to know is howcome so little attention was paid to those little things that fall off it... clearly they can shred someone pretty quick and even if they manage to leave you alive you seem to undergo some sort of in-body chemical reaction that causes your guts to swell extremely fast and pop you like an teenager zit.

Also, was it just me or does there seem to be a size change from the point where they look down on 'it' from the top of that building when rescuing (liz was it?) his woman, where it appears to be 10-20 stories high, and the vantage point from him looking up at it in the park.... doesnt seem but maybe 5 or so stories high there. I realize it was walking upright when they looked down on it, and it was in a more 'gorilla-ish' stance when they were in the park.... secondly... why does it seem that the monster is always chasing them? Dramatic effect? I mean they travel some good distances but the monster is always RIGHT THERE. Why would he follow their chopper then eat (or chomp on at least) the Hud guy?

Good movie... i think we need to see Godzilla Vs. Clover....

Hmmm, I honestly felt everything was in scale. Looking up at something that large from under, I would imagine would be difficult to see. I thought the way the features were rather dark and blurred made it seem extremely tall and huge to me.

I was more annoyed by how long it took them to realise he was even there. I liked how Hud just froze though, just, couldn't move anymore from the fear.



Wow, I actually felt the exact opposite and thought they did an amazing job at making it feel like random encounters rather than the monster knowing he's in a movie and chasing the main characters. Remember that they were the ones who chose to return to save Beth, and she was in the vacinity of the attacks. To me it felt like the monster seemed to go back and forth about the same area almost as if it were protecting what he'd made "his territory". Plus they don't travel that huge a distance, especially from army make-shift evacuation center to Beth's place. Mannathan(sp?) isn't that huge a place, especially not for something that huge thats being gunned at and bombarded.

I think the one problem I had was when the monster jumped out at the helicopter from the fumes. Still I take it as the monster saw a threat from above because of the bombs, but obviously he didn't spot the planes so he jumped out at whatever else was up there, which happened to be their aircraft.

As for the ending, remember how the monster seemed to just be trotting along. When Hud looks up, the beast isn't looking down at him. He's looking over the city and its only after a few moments that the beast kinda leizurely looks down, and it even looks like he takes a while to focus on Hud. "Say...what do we have here... what a odd little think...SNACK!"

I agree it was probably the toughest part to wrap out heads around, since its obvious they wanted to show you the monster up close...

But god them that visuals and sounds when he chomps down at Hud/Us... that was awesomely freaky.

So little attention was payed to those little "terrible" things because their main focus was to run away :p

As for the scale issue, I guess that can be attributed to the size of buildings in new york. Once you take the buildings away you dont have a reference for how big the monster is. Also, considering how well the 3d was done, I dont think theyd screw up the scale.

I really dont think that the monster was chasing them either. Lower manhattan is big, but its not that big. Its about 4 miles from the lower tip of manhattan to central park, and they're heading UP to midtown which is where the monster seems to be wandering around a lot.

I thought the same thing about the thing reaching out to the helicopter but if you look at his arms, they are significantly longer than your average beasty... and they weren't that high yet...

Although I think if I had been that pilot I would have been flying AWAY from the monster, not along side it.

Aye, well I guess you could attribute that carelessness to the complete relief and joy that must have surged through their body when they thought the monster was dear.