E-Mail Post To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Cloverfield: "Movie Sickness"?' to a friend

* Required Field

Your Name: *

Your E-Mail: *

Your Remark:

Friend's Name: *

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

Friend's E-Mail: *

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

Image Verification: *

 Loading ...

1. musca
   January 24th, 2008 at 3:44 am

   Alex, you can skip the DVD as well as the whole movie was shot in shaky movement so there isn’t any good part. Unfortunately my local cinema does not have such warning so I wasted my $15 buck and couldn’t sit through it.

2. jenny
   January 24th, 2008 at 4:01 am

   same here, i get terribly motion sick and i had no idea the whole movie would be like that…
   i sat in my seat, looking at the chair in front of me the whole time…
   i thought eh, ill just look up when the camera isn’t shaking, but that just never happened and it got worse every time…
   the whole movie is just running around with a camera, and in my opinion, well, from what i heard not saw.. it wasn’t that great of a movie anyway

3. Peter
   January 24th, 2008 at 4:16 am

   I loved Cloverfield. Then again, to me it seemed like Call of Duty 4 but with a giant monster and better graphics. To be honest, I wish the movie had more shakiness on the action parts (i.e. more realistic movement) and the flashing on / off made me get into the movie more than the regular parts.

4. Rez0n8
   January 24th, 2008 at 8:06 am

   Not intending to be an advertisement, but there are these things called Sea Bands that will allow you to watch the movie - and do anything else that would give you motion sickness. My ex-wife swears by them - she could hardly ride in a car until we tried these things.

5. Toyouke
   January 24th, 2008 at 8:26 am

   Great, and I wanted to see this one. I had the same thing happen to me during the Bourne Ultimatum (or whatever the most recent one was). I can understand shaky cameras during chase scenes or whatever, but when two characters are just sitting down talking? Whatever.

6. Sue Dunham
   January 24th, 2008 at 8:29 am

   Personally, I hate that shaky style of camera work. It’s a cheap trick young directors learned from MTV. If you want to build suspense, that what the music score is for.
   [ Rant over. ]

7. Dan
   January 24th, 2008 at 8:34 am

   I didn’t realize this was such a nationwide phenomenon, but yeah, someone threw up at the showing I went to.

8. cabooglio
   January 24th, 2008 at 8:53 am

   That shaky-cam is nature’s way of telling you to avoid this movie. It was all hype… and this is coming from someone who was excited to see it and did so on opening weekend. I love J.J. (usually) but this was an idea without development. Put more simply; it sucked.

9. Geekazoid
   January 24th, 2008 at 8:56 am

   I got very sick watching this and barely made it through the movie. I understand the filmmakers were striving for ‘realism’ but this was a bit much. And some parts like the beginning party dragged on. But the movement was beyond the shaky blair witch type, it seemed like they were deliberately shaking the hand cam in many spots. I know they are greenlighting a sequel of some sorts so hopefully this time they’ll cut the excess shaky movements.

10. mindysan
    January 24th, 2008 at 9:13 am

    I had the same problem with Blair Witch Project and there was this movie about the war in Afghanistan that we rented where I also got ill. We rarely go to the movies any more, but if we rent this, I’ll keep it in mind. I am glad to know that I was not the only one who had these problems.

    I have not tried the sea-bands, but I heard that ginger pills work as well as Dramamine without the side effects (makes me very sleepy).

    Mindy

11. kacey
    January 24th, 2008 at 9:22 am

    Yeah, you can skip the whole thing. It was just lame and boring. Seasickness aside, it wasn’t even a very good movie… and supposedly they’re going to make a sequel?

12. Retrokatze
    January 24th, 2008 at 10:52 am

    I got a headdache just from watching the trailer and I’ve never been bothered by shaky cameras (like in Blair Witch Project)…

13. Vako
    January 24th, 2008 at 11:27 am

    I am disappointed that the whole thing turns out just to be a monster? How shallow. I do hope there are more intriguing surprises and plot twists in it than just a giant monster. That has been done to death. But then again, Hollywood makes most movies to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

14. sd
    January 24th, 2008 at 11:36 am

    about the cost of seeing a movie, i know your pain! im a jerk and usually just download a torrent. it may be wrong, but it made me happy i didnt spend $15 on that JUNO movie that wasnt very good either.

15. Dan
    January 24th, 2008 at 11:44 am

    DO NOT go see this movie if you’re hung over. Went with some friends the night after some drinking to see this movie with no idea what it was going to be like. I’m not usually affected by motion sickness or anything, but the movie literally made me vomit. I couldn’t even watch the movie all the way through, i had to stop watching the screen at times and focus on something fixed like my shoes or the back of the seat infront of me.

16. Thomas
    January 24th, 2008 at 11:56 am

    Just don’t see the movie period. It sucked. The first 30 minutes is like being at a party with a bunch of people you don’t know, who also suck. After that its like Godzilla vs. The Real World.

17. Video Game Dork
    January 24th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    I liked the movie because the monster ans situation was creepy.

    HOWEVER - shaky cam is a BLIGHT upon cinematography. I can’t agree more with ‘Sue Dunham’. A movie shot from the perspective of a hand camera (like Blair witch and this movie) is understandable. But they exaddurate it SO much. youtube videos aren’t as shaky! (and don’t most modern digital cameras have auto stabilization?)

    Its a cheap trick to make things look more *exciting* (or so they intend) and all it does it make it so you can’t see what’s happening.

    STOP USING SHAKYCAM, MOVIE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!

18. amanderpanderer
    January 24th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    I know at least 3 people who had to leave prior to the end of the movie. It induced a migrane in one of them. I get a bit sea-sick so I’m waiting for the small screen…I think my tiny television screen should at least limit the nausea.

19. priscilla
    January 24th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

    I didn’t mind the shakyness and don’t know anyone, personally, that did. Other than that… the movie was OK. Wasn’t really about the monster. it was more of a love story.

20. gabriel
    January 24th, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    Agree 100% with priscilla.

    I think many people are missing the point with the movie. The story is about how normal people would face their worst nightmare(s).

    What I also liked about the movie, was the strange, yet accurate reactions of what people would do in after seeing a massive object come crashing down in front of them: take out their cell phones and take pictures.

    IMHO, the camera itself is an integral part of the storyline and adds to the personal interaction with the film

21. Rachel
    January 24th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

    i realize the whole concept of the home video camera was an important part of the movie but they could/should have stabalized it a little. its a cool idea but the execution is a different story. i’m not usually one to get motion sickness but this movie had me looking away from the screen every 20 seconds just to keep my dinner. i kept hoping the battery on the camera would die or it would get dropped so the movie would switch to traditional filming, but to no avail. it sucked. i left with a headache and nausea. i think the movie itself could have been better overall, too.

22. The Manticore
    January 24th, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    didn’t bother me at all. only nausea I felt was at the part where…well. nevermind. it was just gore that made me feel sick, not motion.

23. Joe Cool
    January 24th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    The movie was horrible, good thing I saw it for free on the internet……

24. Geekazoid
    January 25th, 2008 at 1:11 am

    lol @ Joe Cool

25. Taylor
    January 25th, 2008 at 1:43 am

    Wow, I’m absolutely amazed by the amount of people who didn’t enjoy the movie… I haven’t talked to anyone yet who didn’t love it. I usually get horrifically carsick and I didn’t have any trouble with this movie…
    At any rate, I’m assuming most of you who are saying that the “shakycam” is a cheap trick have not seen the movie…. it’s pretty essential to cinematography and, in my opinion, adds a lot to the film. If the camera had been perfectly steady it would completely ruin the feeling of immersion that this movie quite successfully creates. And stabilization or no, there’s a lot of running going on and I dare any one of you to hold a camcorder steady while running for your life.
    And no, camera techniques could not have been swapped out for a suspenseful score because there is no score.
    One of the main points of the film is the realism involved. The people are just average people who just happen to have the camera on. You view it as it is shot, hence there is no score whatsoever.
    Anyway, theres my essay on the topic.

26. Vako
    January 26th, 2008 at 4:34 pm

    I’ll wait until it comes to the discount theater. It really does seem like a shitass movie. And I will be high on dramamine when I see it.

27. Lina
    January 28th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

    I haven’t seen it yet, but I know some people who have.They thought it was good. I agree with Taylor, while there are people dying around you, you’re running for your life and all that it would be pretty impossible to stead a camera. And you’d probably be shaking all over from fear too.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT