Comments on: What a Conincidence! Abrams Says Cloverfield Was Made To Watch On DVD JUST As DVD Is Coming Out!

By: HisDivineShadow

HisDivineShadow — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:46:10 +0000

This film is WAY better on dvd.
I even care to watch the party scene.

The shakey camera trauma is less noticable.

I give it an A+

By: kanthan

kanthan — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:52:35 +0000

*sorry I ment to say it wouldnt be the same

By: kanthan

kanthan — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:51:56 +0000

rubbish this film was made for the cinema, It was a truly scary experience seeing it on the big screen especially with the awsome blistering sound. It would be the same on the small scale.

By: Shane

Shane — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:58:56 +0000

Hey, he’s probably right, and there is logic to his statement, it would be better on DVD than the big screen. If Michael Bay was trying to convince me that was the case with Transformers, I’d call BS. But for Cloverfield, I can see it being better on a small screen.

I don’t think that saying it now is whoring out the DVD… more that it would be extremely stupid to tell the general public to just wait for your movie to come out on DVD! It would be just as stupid as if Michael Bay were to come out and say how Transformers was way, way cooler on the big screen and totally sucks on DVD, and to not bother buying it.

By: Grundy

Grundy — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:09:24 +0000

Oh my God, he’s trying to sell the DVD of a movie he helped make. How could he.

By: brad

brad — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:08:11 +0000

John, you do have it in for this film. What a punk you is! Kidding of course.

Actually, Rougepirate has it absolutely correct. When I reviewed this DVD I think it was 17 or 18 minutes that I instantly skipped over. It made the film out to be something like 52 minutes long (minus end credits). Once you have seen it once a lot of the fun is lost and that opening is rather painful to watch a second time.

By: Gutpunch

Gutpunch — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:09:16 +0000

It’s far fetched.
There is plenty of backstory for the monster in Cloverfield,none of it was used in the film thats all because they didn’t want to explain why the monster was there and because it was viewed from people who wouldn’t have access to that information to begin with.

If you hunt down the websites created for the viral campaign you’ll find plenty of clues as to where the monster came from.

By: Chisox

Chisox — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:40:26 +0000

I just started watching Lost because of recommendations from friends. While watching it something dawned on me. Could it be possible the Lost jungle monster is the Cloverfield monster? That would account for the lack of back-story in the movie. Somebody let me know if this is farfeched.

By: John

John — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:34:13 +0000

Agreed Dingo, It is one of those films. Much like Napoleon Dynamite.

By: dingo101

dingo101 — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:31:46 +0000

Fair enough, John.

For the record, I wasn’t discounting your comments, and apologize if that’s how you read my post. I tried to temper it by saying “to the casual observer it seems … blah blah”.

Honestly, I find it fascinating when movies like Cloverfield seem to create such polarizing viewpoints — it seems people either love it or hate it.