Cloverfield

authentic

authentic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
8,535
Reaction score
459
Cloverfield is the worst movie I ever seen due to motion sickness. I have watched it with friends, after 5 minutes of the movie, we (2 out of 5) stepped out of the theater, and cooled off. When we came back, and my friend told me there were about 20 people left the area. I believe they got the same problem as mine.
Motion sickness caused by that guy (forgot his name), who is carrying the hand held video camera and use it like 5 years old boy, and it is continued until the end of the movie. It is almost same as Blair Witch Project - shaking screen all the way.

I would NOT RECOMMEND you to watch that movie unless you don't have any motion sickness, or watch on the small screen- like on PSP, or small tv would be okay.

Here are so many negative comments about the movie due to motion sickness.
 
Some people just don't have a strong stomach. I saw the movie, didn't feel sick at all.
 
Then.... this is a movie I would NOT want to see. The ushers should hand out barf bags, if the movie causes this many people to get sick.
 
Banjo said:
A friend of mine works at a theatre, he told me they had to clean up quite a lot of vomit over the first weekend it was playing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my friend told me that there is a caution sign says: Cloverfield may cause you a motion sickness. Mine didn't have one, that's why.
 
Even if I was able to watch the movie without getting sick. The thoughts of others vomiting around me in the theaters would, and just not the thoughts it is the smell and knowing people are barfing on the floors and seats. I would hope they sanitize the theater before they show another flick. Just another reason why I would not see this movie in theaters
 
authentic said:
Cloverfield is the worst movie I ever seen due to motion sickness. I have watched it with friends, after 5 minutes of the movie, we (2 out of 5) stepped out of the theater, and cooled off. When we came back, and my friend told me there were about 20 people left the area. I believe they got the same problem as mine.
Motion sickness caused by that guy (forgot his name), who is carrying the hand held video camera and use it like 5 years old boy, and it is continued until the end of the movie. It is almost same as Blair Witch Project - shaking screen all the way.

I would NOT RECOMMEND you to watch that movie unless you don't have any motion sickness, or watch on the small screen- like on PSP, or small tv would be okay.

Here are so many negative comments about the movie due to motion sickness.
Click to expand...
Oooo, I bet it would be even better at the Imax with 3-D!

Sorry about that. ;)
 
I just saw the movie tonight. The first 15 minutes was very boring, which made me wonder whether I was watching the right movie. But, once the action kicked in, I could not look away from the screen.

I felt this movie was one of the best I have seen that can relate to the King Kong, Jurassic Park category. Sure, King Kong was more polished and had a better story, but Cloverfield has mystery, suspense and plenty of destruction and fast paced action. It felt realistic overall.

I can understand why the camera can cause motion sickness. But, in such circumstances, you can't expect the camera holder to be carrying a image stabilizer :) I have to admit, I have a headache possibly due to the movie :)
 
I see! Interesting.. Someday will watching cloverfild :)
 
that was the whole point , its on a hand-held camera , (well probably wasn't , may be simulated) but the that point was is to be a 'founded' video camera after the final hammerhead nuke.....as if it was watched in the army HQ's office.....in the future

nothing more , nothing less, that was the effect they desired to make , and i think they succeeded absolutely, also the way they showed how weak humans was set against the out of this world's aliens strength...... truely it would be this frightening....i frown on this who crave gore, because in some way those who judges horror movies but gores are dumb they are simply imh addicted to gore nothiing else, they even missed the whole point that evil, or monsters or what have they told stories of...is actually scary if it was real
 
Not impressed and won't watch it at all, I see plenty of negative feedbacks, well, thats the companys loss ---- loss in profit!
 
You havent gave it a chance to watch it?

Company loss? what do you know? hows this detail below set you back;

From a tight budget in commerical film-making of $25 million was translated to a Gross revenue Domestic of $80,048,433 (that is in USA only) then from Foreign premiering it yeilded a nice profit of $90,469,519 and the Worldwide total profit amounted to $170,517,952, all from an initial $25 mill, which is bugger all compared to say Spiderman 3which costed $258 million reaping a massive revenue of $890,871,626 but of course they relied on well known actors and big-time producers and the scripts was handled out prior to production and so forth. I am very impressed with the clever, 'small time' production tactics which the teams emplyed in making Cloverfield. Surely it seems to say smaller input gives out smaller returns, but when you look closer at the proportion of it, that is the ratio between what it costed to make and how much they made; it is actually huge!, Big dividends for each of those worked in the making of Cloverfield.

as Quoted from the Wiki; "The casting process was carried out in secret, with no script being sent out to candidates. With production estimated to have a budget of $30 million, filming began in mid-June in New York.[11] One cast member indicated that the film would look like it cost $150 million, despite producers not casting recognizable and expensive actors."
 
Cloverfield----> that's suck!. I'm very disappointed. I don't have motion sickness nothing that's weird. I watched it on DVD anyway.
 
I just watched a couple of months ago, I enjoyed it and had no motion sickness. :)

Just in my opinion.
 
Grummer said:
You havent gave it a chance to watch it?

Company loss? what do you know? hows this detail below set you back;

From a tight budget in commerical film-making of $25 million was translated to a Gross revenue Domestic of $80,048,433 (that is in USA only) then from Foreign premiering it yeilded a nice profit of $90,469,519 and the Worldwide total profit amounted to $170,517,952, all from an initial $25 mill, which is bugger all compared to say Spiderman 3which costed $258 million reaping a massive revenue of $890,871,626 but of course they relied on well known actors and big-time producers and the scripts was handled out prior to production and so forth. I am very impressed with the clever, 'small time' production tactics which the teams emplyed in making Cloverfield. Surely it seems to say smaller input gives out smaller returns, but when you look closer at the proportion of it, that is the ratio between what it costed to make and how much they made; it is actually huge!, Big dividends for each of those worked in the making of Cloverfield.

as Quoted from the Wiki; "The casting process was carried out in secret, with no script being sent out to candidates. With production estimated to have a budget of $30 million, filming began in mid-June in New York.[11] One cast member indicated that the film would look like it cost $150 million, despite producers not casting recognizable and expensive actors."
Click to expand...
The reason why they did well at first was because of their promotions.

It's like Blair Witch Project. ;)
 
well maybe so, but i still think they were trying to do a david vs goliath stunt against the Big Budget blockbuster , and i'd agree not bloody bad at all , both in the film AND the scales of profit they made from the initial budget. I hate it when diumb gullible crowds insist on big-everything, the hypes, i mean cloverfeild was made to be 'as close as realistic it could have been IF such an alien attack occurred so unexpectedly like this film, so the starts -first half an hour- was boring, was intended to be so, so it is the 'normal' everyday bullshit video-making of 'normal people' (while they weren't exactly normal in my books, just some spoilt upper middle class teens turned mid-20-late 20 somethings gone into yuppie-dom types) thats 'normal' to them, they are mildly classed as successful wankers.

but yeah great flick i like it, amid a few really corny spfx which reminds me of a film with Mel Gibson in it, "Signs" an alien was in a rubber suit LMAO, but yeah that part of an evidence that they did some means to keep budget down, like using cheap rubbers with cheaper maybe in-experienced custome artists. Still not bad , its still hard to belivev that for $25 million whioch is a fuckload of lot of money, and yet still ended up with some 'high-school-grade calibre in overall end-product of the final cut in their long painful efforts in film-making. I still amazed - in any one's language $25,000,000 is HEAPS , so like if you won a lotto of say $10 million you're aren't gonna have a chance to make a decent motion picture. Just to show how highly competitive and difficult to gather all the right resources like finding contacts, executing deals to make contracts would actually probably cost a few millions, maybe for a Spiderman 3 calibre film, the very task of allocating resource could possibly exceed the cost of the entire Cloverfeild's production!!!
laught at me i dont care, but thats what I have -appreciation when many shitheads don't.
 
Back
Top