Cloverfield Scores $41 Million Opening Weekend

I guess opening against nothing but 27 Dresses has its advantages. Cloverfield has opened with $41 million on its opening weekend making the penny pinchers over at Paramount VERY happy. With no other “guy” movies in theaters at the moment, Cloverfield managed to take advantage of its deceptive marketing campaign to score big January numbers.

There was a period of time that I started to wonder if we were going to see another “Snakes on a Plane” scenario where online fans were buzzing about it… but the majority of the non-online movie fans (still the majority) weren’t. It’s nice to see that didn’t happen as Cloverfield is a better movie that Snakes was.

I liked this movie, even after the second viewing (the flaws of the film stand out a lot more upon repeat viewings), and I think everyone should get out there and see it at least once (and only once). But just be aware of 2 things. 1) This movie is NOT about the monster. The monster is in it for about 5 minutes of the film and plays no material part to the movie… he’s just the backdrop to the real story. 2) The shaky handheld camera didn’t bother me at all… but a lot of other people are complaining that it makes them a bit sick, so just be prepared for that when you see it.

As of this posting, Cloverfield currently has a solid 76% over at Rottentomatoes with 90 positive reviews and 26 negative ones.

Comment with Facebook

66 thoughts on “Cloverfield Scores $41 Million Opening Weekend

  1. While the shaky camera was rather annoying and gave me a headache at times, the actual story of the movie was amazing. It’s so interesting to see a movie that leaves you thinking “How did this happen?” They made a lot of fake websites for things in the movie- such as Slusho, a fictional soft drink that contains a secret frozen ingredient found and harvested deep under the ocean by a japanese drilling company. This appears to be what has disturbed the monster, and it followed the oil drilling ship back to New York City, where it attacked.

    In the part where Marlena starts bleeding through her eyes and explodes- it’s actually kind of realistic. The venom in most parasites speeds up circulation, and the venom in those parasites must have been much stronger than parasites we normally see. It probably sped up her circulation and caused her heart to explode.

    Also, there were probably two monsters. See, the Cloverfield monster was downtown when a tail collapsed the Brooklynn bridge. There’s no way it could have been over there. There may have been a second monster in the water- when I first saw the thing collapse the bridge I thought it was a tentacle.

    There aren’t too many movies out there that are so interesting it makes you want to research how everything happened. It leaves out enough information to keep you guessing, but not so confused you just say “Screw it, I don’t care.” Cloverfield was a great movie. It’s about time a movie got us thinking. I kind of want to see it again a few times to see some of the things I missed.

  2. From what I noticed, this movie takes someone with an imagination to understand. If you done like the movie, maybe you are just simple minded.

    The way they filmed this movie was to put you in the persons place, see things from their point of view. I think they did that perfectly.

    If this happened to you, do you think you would have stood there to gaze at the monster? Chase it down to get a better look, so you can go tell all your friends you saw more then 5 minutes of the monster? NO you wouldnt. You would run and hide and be scared shitless.

    I was with a group of eight, and we all loved it. My brother is in Vegas, he is going to corner Mike Swick in the UFC Wednesday night. He is one of the pickiest people I know when it comes to movies… He already saw it twice..

  3. I said it in an early post, I totally agree with Serena, they show way too much of the monster.
    Spoiler.

    Did we really need the monster standing over HUD staring directly into the camera. I liked not knowing anything about the monster, and not really knowing what it looked like.

    I understand what John is saying, but I really don’t know what showing more of the monster would have done. Show it smash a few more buildings, have a chase scene a la Jurassic Park? The five minutes of the monster worked for me, might not have worked for others but like John always says this is why he loves movies everyone takes something different away from a film.

  4. It’s the trouble with text sometimes, John. The words are your choices, but the tone in which people read those words are their choices. They heard you being dismissive to the movie when you intended to be cautious. Not much you can do about it.

    -Calviin

  5. Hey Sfsilver

    You said:

    “(John) put his foot down that it would suck, fail, and that there was no reason to even anticipate seeing it.”

    Ummm… no. That’s nothing short of a total lie. These are my exact quotes:

    “The movie may rock, as a matter of fact I think it will, I’m just saying the marketing campaign hasn’t done anything to get me excited”

    And…

    “Will the movie be a legitimate 100 million dollar hit? I don’t know”

    How the fuck does that translate into me putting my foot down and saying the movie will suck and fail?

    I love how people rewrite history.

  6. Wow , a rock solid record breaking opening weekend, and not merely because as John so dismssively accounts, becasue it’s only competition was from “27 Dresses”. January openings are usually up against no real competition. The movie was entertaining and clearly had a very effective marketing campaign. I saw the film with a group of seven others and we all enjoyed it. None of us think it’s a classic, but it was a fun time at the movies. I don’t think the film had pretensions of classic status.

    The film succeeded to entertain, confound our movie experience expectations. Very fun.

    John took a position on this film a couple weeks back and his comments are generous considering how firmly he put his foot down that it would suck, fail, and that there was no reason to even anticipate seeing it.

  7. I’m gonna have to agree somewhat with alfie, but only in a certain point. The marketing. Let’s try looking at this forwards, not backwards. Start with the movie. We can all agree that the monster plays a big role in the movie, but only as the backdrop. It is not the main focus of the movie, but it is the motivation for all the other characters. So it’s a monster movie, but because it isn’t about the monster, we only get a few minutes of monster time. That makes sense. The main point of the movie is the people affected by the monster, so the more screen time you give to the monster, the less screen time you are giving to the actual plot. I’ve heard John and Doug complain for years on TMB about movies that make the mistake of losing focus on the plot. Transformers did it by including the damn hackers that nobody cared about. Superman did it by including a damn baby. Spider-man 3 was the worst offender by focusing on Mary Jane’s job instead of the title hero. It’s established as a cardinal sin, so Cloverfield avoid making this sin by focusing primarily on the main plot. This is how we get five minutes of a monster. All that said, how does one market a monster movie to people that doesn’t focus on the monster? Is there a way to market it a giant monster movie that doesn’t show a lot of the monster, and you will somehow be able to convey to the public that the monster is not the focus of the movie, or that it is only in there for five minutes? The best way I can think of is if they just came out and directly said, “Watch Cloverfield, a giant monster movie with only five minutes of the giant monster.” That doesn’t market. That doesn’t sell. So they tried marketing by just not including the monster in the trailer. They showed no monster.

    Personally, I believe that even if they showed any amount of the monster, or even just cut the trailer to show all five minutes of the monster, irregardless, people would think the giant monster has more screen time. Why? Because they always have. Historically, giant monster movies focus on the monster. Cloverfield was doing something that nobody else has done, something innovative to the story telling of this genre, but because it was part of that genre, nobody expected the innovation. Was it a great idea? YES. Some of you may have taken issue with the shaky camera, but that’s an issue with the camera work and not the story. If they smoothed out the camera work, it would seem less authentic, but the innovation of telling it from this new point of view would still stand as an excellent idea. The sin of Cloverfield is NOT that it made you think there was more screen time for the monster. It’s that the genre expects there to be more screen time. You expected more screen time. And without giving away too much of the movie (something else that I know has been complained about for years on TMB), there is simply no way the trailer could tell you that the monster has little screen time. The best chance they had was to focus the trailers on the main characters instead. Well, they did.

    But guess that’s just my opinion.

    -Calviin

  8. I can’t see how anyone can defend this trash movie with a straight face. The goal of the movie was to feel real. But with such plastic characters, such unrealistic lines, such unrealistic behaviors, and such unreal characters pulled right out of a Macy’s catalog, it fails totally.

    Another person said this in another thread, and he/she was totally right:

    “Just like Titanic is a love story with a boat in it, Cloverfield is a love story with a monster in it, except Titanic showed you a lot more of the boat”

    Amen

  9. I know I should be feeding the livestock, but I’m going to skirt responsibility and post. (Lucky youse.)

    This film, from the moment the first portion is projected…about it being from a camcorder, changes the rules about what we might have expected to see. (And sets out new ones. Some, won’t be liked by particular movie-goers.)

    When we have a hand-shot movie, we essentially have reportage. It’s ‘real life’.

    And to a certain extent, ‘unscripted’.

    So the dialogue sucked. Often. Consistently.

    And the characters…they were annoying. Often. Consistently.

    And their ‘arcs’? There weren’t any.

    The storyline? Hardly any.

    The ‘problem’ I see as I’ve been reading boards is that the vast majority of the nay-sayers wanted a conventional film. (It’s what they EXPECTED). They wanted great characters, great dialogue, a zippy storyline, some cool plot-points, TONS of the monster…and a ‘satisfying ending’.

    But that’s not what the filmmakers set out to accomplish…and all the railing about how it ‘sucked’ because it didn’t/doesn’t have those elements… Well, for me, it comes across as baby caterwauling.

    This film would have been an entirely different one if it were either a) executed using a premise other than it being a story of a guy wanting to get back to his gal during a monster attack, or b) if it had been conventionally delivered, in Hollywood studio fashion. With all the elements conforming to usual expectations. But this is the reality tv version of ‘Big Brother’. The Hollywood version of ‘Big Brother’ would be slicker, it would have a more cohesive storytelling tone. Real life is boring. It’s not exciting. And even when it is, as in ‘Cloverfield’, it has real people in it, speaking (essentially, within the parameters of the approach) unscripted lines, acting in non-Hollywood ways, and often annoying the viewer with their everyday, not-all-that-uncommon behaviour.

    But that’s not the film Reeves et al set out to make. And in delivering what they delivered (a result I was very happy with), they’ve pissed a lot of people off.

    What makes me laugh is that time and again, those who rail believe they’re having one discussion…when in fact…they’re not. They’re having another discussion entirely.

    Kudos to the filmmakers for, at the very least, getting people riled up.

    Over an imaginary monster’s 15 minutes.

  10. the movie theater where i went had signs up saying, ” Waring, Cloverfield may cause motion sickness”

    It didnt really bother me too bad. I really enjoyed the film, I thought the monster was pretty sweet looking, wasnt that dissappointed with that. the beginning of the movie was slow but okay, the middle of the movie was pretty sweet. However, the ending, the very ending of the movie i didnt like at all.

    Okay this was on wikipedia

    “Matt Reeves said he would like to do a sequel, to explore other people who recorded their experiences during the monster’s attack. He had added the end scene with the UFO dropping in the water to specifically hint at a future exploration of the creature’s backstory”

    I dont remember any UFO dropping, was i just not paying attention. When did this happen?

  11. There’s a paper in the UK called The Daily Mail. It’s scare-mongering rubbish and I only read it to see how annoyed it can make me.

    I’m now in the same position with The Movie Blog. Seriously… like others have said, I can see how you’re trying to say it’s not *about* the monster in that it doesn’t tell us the monster’s backstory, but this is a monster movie in most people’s eyes. The way that you’re unwilling to see it from that point of view, to the point of being arrogant to your readers, is quite a sight to behold.

    And the marketing told you you were going to see more than five minutes of the monster? How come? They didn’t show you the monster in the marketing! And had there been 20 minutes of monster footage in it, I’m sure there’d be plenty of bitching about how unrealistic it was that they just hung around and stared at the thing for half the film.

    So what, you didn’t see the monster that much. You felt its presence in every single frame, and that’s what made Cloverfield such an excellent ride.

  12. jarred…I have been saying from the get go that my guess is we will either not see the monster at all or just see glimpses of it. I have been sayign that for ages…so have plenty of other people.

    so no we are not liars…we are just right.

    I was totally surprised we saw as much as we did…i mean after all the trailers purposely showed us very little so I don;t see how anyone could think they were deceptive when they never…not once made any promise that we would get all monster all the time…in fact I think the ads made it quite clear the film was going in another direction.

  13. I felt as if I got just enough of the monster through out the film. It was just freaky enough that my daughter and I were shrinking in our seats and the mood in the theater was positive. The kiddo did get a bit queasy towards the end, but I was perfectly fine. It’s not a perfect film by any means, but I feel it accomplished what it set out to do. It told a story from the POV of a group of friends experiencing a disaster.
    Side note: whatever type of battery Rob had for his camera…damn, it was the ultimate energizer bunny – it kept going and going…LoL.

  14. I just got back from seeing the film again (sorry John, I didn’t listen to your podcast xD) but i actually didn’t mind it at all the second time and caught several things i didn’t the first (namely our good monster friends nemesis for whenever flick #2 shows up, heres a hint, its in the last 3 min of the film).

    Yes, the camera was more bothersome, and yes, some of the things were more rediculous (Hud basically been through hell and practically lost most of his limbs but damn if he isn’t going to center this next shot) to name just a few.

    Overall, I have to agree with Serena, there was too much monster, and far too early. A full reveal would have been better at roughly the last quarter of the film if at all. Still, I feel that it was a solid fun action-y film and gave me exactly what I payed for. Oh, and besides, it still had Rob, and he’s like our main dude.

    -Beejag

  15. I just saw it. I’ve never been sick in a theater before, but I had to stop eating my popcorn during this. That shaky cam was making me physically ill.

    Movie sucked, BTW. Awful acting, a SHITTY looking monster(no wonder they hid it), and the first fifteen minutes almost knocked me out cold. MEH.

  16. Michael:
    I’m saying that the filmmakers that branch out and try something different are the ones that have the potential to give movie audiences something unique and break new ground.

    Personally, I have more respect for someone for trying something new and different, even if they fail miserably at it, than someone who is successful at meeting the status quo.

    So, in a sense, I guess I am saying that it is ok to suck as long as you do it differently — because maybe next time, you’ll get it right.

  17. I said it once and I’ll repeat…

    It was good enough to get John to see it twice in about a week’s time. It just wasn’t as good for him the second time through. THAT’S ALL HE SAID…that was correct at least…

  18. What the F*ck? Were people watching the same movie as me? If you’re not going to have the monster in the movie at all, then you better make sure the supporting love story is great. And it wasn’t. I like what the other guy said about the characters being beer commercial douche bags. That’s exactly what they all were.

    2/10 Don’t bother with this drivel.

  19. @Dingo

    “please don’t waste any more money on rewarding filmmakers for producing innovate or different visions of films”

    So what you’re saying is, it’s ok to suck, as long as you suck differently?

  20. Yes, as Mitch said, please don’t waste any more money on rewarding filmmakers for producing innovate or different visions of films. Go directly to your local Cineplex and put down some money on the re-tread, remake of the week, like Rob Zombie’s Halloween, AvP: Requiem, or any of the various other bits of Hollywood debris that have littered the moviescape this year.

    /sarcasm

  21. Mitch said “Even my 9 year old was bored…He said, so where is the monster, where is the action.”

    So are you suggesting that you and others complaining about the small screentime of the monster have the mentality of a 9 year old? The movie had tons of action whether or not the monster was in a scene or not it was still hitting the fan

    Jarred said “Anyone who says they didn’t think there’d be more of the Cloverfield monster than there was is lying. Flat out.

    No they are not, most people expected that they were not going to show the monster at all. Look through the comments section of old cloverfield posts on this and other sites.

    @Michael: At my theater response was very positive. Once the haters get over the fact that they were wrong about this movie being another snakes on a plane they would realize what an awesome movie this was. ;)

  22. It’s been awhile but, isn’t this the movie that John got a nasty letter about when he posted a clip of it without permission. I think I remember him vowing to never show a clip from that (which ever) production company again. Then again, I could be wrong.

  23. I hate to bring up this comparison, since it’s been brought up a hundred times already, but the polarizing reaction of the movie reminds me a lot of the effect that the Blair Witch had on people — they either loved it or they hated it. This seems to be true for Cloverfield as well…. People seem to be perturbed at the lack of a visible antagonist, although Cloverfield at least gave its monster some screen time (although clearly not enough for some).

    I quite liked the flick, but I’d hardly call myself an apologist. Sure, it may have had its flaws, as every movie does, but I think it absolutely accomplished what it set out to — construct a movie that puts the viewer at ‘ground level’ of a classic, monster-destroys-a-city type of movie. I think it’s a successful movie in that sense and, as the weekend numbers are showing, a commercial success as well. That’s what history will show.

  24. Pretty darn bad and BORING to boot.

    When I heard comparisons to that other overhyped, snooze-fest, Blair Witch Project, I should have known better.

    Even my 9 year old was bored…He said, so where is the monster, where is the action.

    DON’T WASTE ANY MORE MONEY!!!

  25. What is with all the Cloverfield apologists? History will show this movie sucked balls. It’s a horrible movie, with horrible camera work (and yes, I know it was supposed to be that way, but it still sucked), horrible acting, and the theater I walked out of in San Diego almost everyone was grumbling about how they felt ripped off because that ugly boring grey godzilla wannabe was was inly in it for like 2 mins. A joke of a movie, and once the apologists get over their own hype, they’ll see it too.

  26. Sorry to say it, but John it totally right on this. Except for him saying it was still a good movie, because it wasn’t, it was crap.

    Anyone who says they didn’t think there’d be more of the Cloverfield monster than there was is lying. Flat out.

    This movie was about a bunch of beer commercial douche bags, acting lousy with terrible lines and a stupid love story.

    This movie blows on every level.

  27. SPOILERS IN THIS POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Why so negative, John? The movie just broke the box office record and you are trying to spin it as a result of being against 27 dresses and a “deceptive marketing campaign”. If I’m not wrong you were complaining about how the marketing is not exciting and “does not show anything”. I don’t know what you has against this movie but I just saw it again today and I completely disagree. I don’t think the marketing campaign was deceptive at all. What specifically in the trailer implied to you about the involvement of the monster? I mean in the trailers you don’t see the monster, they don’t even show you the big cool CGI city destruction sequences (looking down from the helicopter shot, looking up at the monster, news shots, Beth’s apartment, Brooklyn bridge) and all the viral marketing except the taraguata oil station video has been very personal, focused on the back story of the various characters and does not even mention the monster.

    This is definitely a monster movie. As alfie pointed out every problem the characters have to overcome is a direct result of the monster being there. The love story is just the catalyst. I’m sure JJ, Matt Reeves and the gang were sitting around a table thinking “ok we have got this this monster, what credible motivation should the characters have to go into the city instead of leaving with the army?” when one of them said “What if we have a love interest trapped in the middle of the city?” If you think about it the total amount of Rob + Beth story is less then 6-7 minutes of the total movie (if that) and only serves as a motivation for the characters to go into the city.

  28. I have to say, John, I agree with Alfie on this one. I truly don’t understand your viewpoint on this notion that the movie was NOT about a Giant monster destroying Manhattan. I mean, how far do you take that argument? Generally speaking, most monster/horror movies (or most genres) are about people in extraordinary circumstances and how they respond, escape, or resolve said circumstances. To me, Cloverfield fulfilled that criteria, and it doesn’t matter how much screen time the monster had. I mean, is there a specific amount of time you need the monster to have in order for it to “be about the monster”? Had we had another 15 mins of monster face time, would that have fulfilled your criteria?

    Honestly, I know the movie had its flaws, but I would hardly say one of them would be that it wasn’t about a giant tentacled monstrosity ravaging New York.

    Sorry John — usually your opinions seem well thought out and reasonable, but this notion that the marketing was deceptive is just out in left field as far as I’m concerned.

  29. so an ad campaign that kept the moster totally secret and only showed you a tiny glimpse of it once….marketing that went out of its way to not show you the monster at all was deceptive when the resulting film doesn;t show you all that much of the monster.
    do you not see how silly that sounds???

    i think your expectations where deceptive john..not the marketing.

    can you please point out anywhere in the marketing of this film where they promised to show you a ton of the monster? the monster is not on the poster. it was not in the teaser….you saw it for a flash in the other trailer….ans that some how was deceptive??
    give me a break…

    i was actually surprised how much you did see the monster as I figured the only original way to go with a monster movie would be to not show all that much.
    i think it was totally obvious to nearly everyone that this was not going to be your standard monster film. they were going to do something different.

    and are you seriously tyring to snidely dismiss my argument or try to mock me for swearing??? seriously….the movie blog…again i ask do you actually ever listen back to your podcast???

  30. “my criticisms are true”

    Your criticisms are opinion. Just like everybody else’s criticisms and praises are only that: Opinion.

    To me, the marketing was not deceptive at all. I went in there expecting to see a film about a monster attacking New York and I got it. I got it; and amazingly enough it was told in such a way where I wasn’t talked down to like a kid and got details over explained to me, but was brought along for the ride with characters I enjoyed.

  31. Hey Beejag,

    Well, there are 4 major reasons for the low budget.

    1) The novelty of how they shot it. That’s great, but you can’t do that again really.

    2) Only 5 minutes of the monster. Without showing the monster, there wasn’t much visual effects costs

    3) Easier effects. The lower quality the film footage is, the easer doing the effects are.

    4) No named actors in the film. I actually like that.

    So it’s great that they had a low budget, but the cost of that low budget was my biggest complaint about the film… next to no monster.

  32. Hey John,

    I was just curious to get your thoughts on something (im not sure if perhaps said something about this in another place,) but what were your thoughts on this film having a completely satisfactory plot, cast, and special effects, with a budget of only 35 or some million dollars, whereas the norm today is 160-200 million dollars.

    I for one enjoyed seeing a film done well (i’d give it an 8/5 out of 10,) with good effects and action at such low cost by todays standards.

    -Beejag

  33. to be fare i like the movie i really did, but the ending leaves everybody thinking differently. when i went to go see Cloverfield i was set to see a movie: story- begining, middle, and end. i didnt get that at all, i was jumped into this action, scary world of “oh my gosh!!!” whats going to happen next, but on the other hand…. its blair witch 2008 to me.

  34. Hey Alfie,

    Swear, yell “fuck” and say “unbelievable” all you want. Marketing made you think you were going to see more than 5 minutes of a monster. I’m right… as always.

    And all your belly aching about “I am surprised you are so against video game movies john because it sounds like thats what you want” just confirms everything I’m saying and proves I’m right. The movie was NOT what the marketing made it out to be. You’re defending that, and that’s fine, but it still proves I’m right (yet again).

  35. i have just noticed your claim that the film took advantage of its “deceptive marketing campaign”
    how in the fuck was it deceptive??? because it didn’t focus the trailer on the fact that there is a love story going on?? thats deceptive to you? that makes the marketing deceptive??? dear dear sweet lord…..unbelievable.

    are you seriously that put off by film have anything to do yucky girl germs that you consider the marketing a big lie??
    again you really need to get out of your childlike “girls smell” frame of mind john because calling the marketing deceptive because there is a love story is quite possibly the most ridculous thing you have ever written. and thats including the time you called brendan fraser a great actor.

    again I am not saying the film is a masterpiece…it won’t be on my top ten of the year (unless the year is really really bad) i am not saying it is the greatest monster film of all time…it definitely has its faults but not being enough about the monster well, i just can;t see how you could see it that way.

    I am surprised you are so against video game movies john because it sounds like thats what you want….no story…..just 90 minutes of mayhem with no characters no story arc…nothing to draw us in just an effects showreel.

  36. SPOILER

    i looked at the ocean at the end because I read something about it. I saw a decent sized splash far out in the ocean. It caught my attention because it didn’t look normal. But I couldn’t tell what made it and no one in the film reacted to it.

  37. Everyone just remember that this movie was good enough to make John see it twice in (I think) the same week. I’m sure I will enjoy watching it a second time but I think I can let it wait.

    By the way, did anyone catch the hidden stuff after the credits? Kinda creepy.

    Also SPOILERS!!!

  38. You don’t have to defend the movie. I liked it, but my criticisms are true. But just because it has flaws (and boy it does) doesn’t mean I didn’t like it, or that it’s not good. I’m not the kind of guy who will just say positive things about movies I like (just listen to my DVD commentary of The Transformers).

    I call it as I see it. And I am always right. Jesus told me so last night.

  39. john, ive gotta say you really seem to be talking kind of negatively about this movie now. oh, and it IS a monster movie, just a low budget one.

    i understand you liked it less the second time, but it is a very original movie with a original type of ending that i LOVED, and i certainly think it deserves its money.

    i only say this because it seemed like quotes like “deceptive marketing”, “opening only against movies like 27 dresses has its advantages”, and “no other guy movies out” left people with no choice. the marketing was perfectly fine, because it showed the lack of information about everything that the characters and the movie itself had. also, the monster was in it a good deal, and we got several money shots.

    i dont know why but this post of yours just made me feel like defending the movie. whatever though, no big deal.

  40. SPOILERS AHEAD AGAIN…SORRY BUT FOR THIS DEBATE SPOILERS ARE ESSENTIAL.

    no material part to the movie???

    jesus john….

    how can you seriously say that…

    I kind of get your “its not ‘about’ the monster argument….I get that in a weird picky and anal away but to now go as far as to say that the monster plays no material part to the movie is crazy.

    the entire storyline, plot EVERYTHING that happens happens because of the monster. every motivation…every decision…every single thing that takes plays is because of the monster. that makes it rather material for me…..

    MORE SPOILERS. BIG TIME SPOILERS BUT I HAVE TO INCLUDE THEM AS I CAN;T BELIEVE WHAT I AM READING HERE.

    John here are my questions to you from another post. please answer them this time without mentioning the monster.

    I mean it should be easy to do since the monster plays no material part to the film

    1.what is it that happens about 20 minutes into the film that causes every single thing that happens for the rest of the film right up till the final frames?

    2.the film begins with a farewell party. It gets interrupted and ends early. what causes this?

    3.why does rob need to find and rescue beth? where is she and why is she there?

    4.why is one sixth of the film set either on the streets on the run or hiding in tunnels and buildings?

    5.why does the statue of libertys head come off?

    6.the military arrive in the city at one point. Why are they there? What brings them into the film?

    7.why does the bridge collapse blocking one of their main ways of escape?

    8.the characters decide to take the subway track to get off the streets and make there way to beth. It goes well for a time but they have to flee that as well. How come? What happens to themon the tracks that makes them give up on that plan?

    9.How do most of the main characters wind up? what is their fate and what causes them to reach that particular fate?

    again because if the monster plays no material part to the film it should be incredibly easy to answer these questions without mentioning the beast at all.

  41. I for one was one of those people that got sick…really sick and walked out 3/4 of the way through…

    Wasn’t a bad movie…not great but entertaining. But damn that movie made me sick.

    It’s not a major flick to see in the movie theater if one is not up to it. It’s one those films that could wait for DVD. In my opinion its not a must see.

  42. I saw a whole family walk out within 15 minutes and there were only about 20 people in the theater to being with. Personally, I had no problem with the shaky cam. I only noticed it getting really really bad at times, but usually it was when Hud was running and there wasn’t a whole lot to see at that time anyway.

  43. A bit sick? I spent the whole movie crumpled into a ball clutching my stomach with one hand, holding my lips together with the other. If this hadn’t been so effectively scary and realistic, I probably would have walked out (a lot of people around me, including one person I was with, did).

Leave a Reply