It’s pretty clear in one of the trailers that it is the head. There is a shot at the end when someone is in a helicopter and the headless statue is clearly shown along with claw marks on the shoulder.
Harry at AICN really likes it (!SPOILERS!) Harry knows what CLOVERFIELD is!!!
Brian
Oh man, that gave a big, loud laugh. 
Ive seen the trailer a few times already. Im not impressed by it, Im actually a bit hostile to it. Put me on the "Hate Shaky-cam" list too, its not original, it`s annoying and makes people sick, drop it already slackasses and show that you learnt something at the cinematography school.
It’s the head. There’s a 25-foot model standing in the fountain at work this fine morning. Torch present, head not so much.
Where the hell do you work?
Just a quick poll:
Does the hand-held camera movement really give people motion sickness (as opposed to,* it’s really annoying*)? Because, in all honesty, it doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
In fact, while maybe not original, I think it’ll be kind of cool here… combined with top-notch vfx.
It does not make me motion sick. (Which is not to say it doesn’t make someone else sick…)
I just hate it. I go to a movie to enjoy myself and it detracts from my enjoyment.
It doesn’t bother me in the slightest, either, but it really, literally gives my dad motion sickness. He can’t even watch hand-held camera movement for short periods of time on TV, because it gives him motion sickness so quickly.
Which is unfortunate, because I’m guessing that means he won’t be able to sit through this movie, and it’s definitely the kind of thing he’d be interested in.
Frankly, I think the movie would lose virtually all of its atmosphere if you took the hand-held cam away. The whole point is that you’re on street level with the survivors of this attack, right? It seems to me as though the entire sensation would be lost if the camera is steady the entire time and you have big sweeping aerial shots of the monster or whatever.
Although I suppose you could find a middle-ground, like how they shoot The Office, or something.
Now if Scranton was attacked by some mysterious creature and we had the Dunder-Mifflin perspective that might be all kinds of awesome sauce.
I don’t mind handheld style. In the old days, the kinds of shots you could get was limited by the fact that cameras were big, balky, delicate instruments. Now that cameras are light enough to go anywhere, you can do lots of shots that used to be impossible. The downside is that handheld is shaky. What I despise is too-shaky cam. That’s one of the reasons I haven’t warmed up to Battlestar Galactica. A lot of the in-ship stuff in Galactica is done handheld, but it’s really shaky, and the zooms are kind of sloppy. It really pisses me off. I assume it’s done to give it a documentary feel, but it’s shot by a professional cinematographer. My mother can hold a camera steadier than that!
In this case, extremely shaky handheld is totally approriate. It’s supposed to look like it’s shot by amateurs who are scared out of their minds and running for their lives.
Paramount. It has its perks at times
People like you make it so fun to go to the movies. A giant green lou ferigno type beast is setting the entire city on fire and you’re concerned with the REALISM.
Gotta be careful with that argument. Almost any genre film requires a certain amount of suspension of disbelief, but that doesn’t mean the film can do anything it wants, because of that conceit. A good rule of thumb is to break the laws of physics, only to set up the premise. Everything thereafter, should play close to reality (that is, if the movie is to be taken seriously).
I’m not going to post any spoilers, but just FYI:
Spoilers of the movie are out.
Spoilers of the monster are out.
Spoilers of the deaths are out.
Artists depictions of the monster are out (though with some speculation).
I won’t share spoilers because I have not seen the film, but from what I’ve read they seem credible enough. Enough at least to keep me very interested in seeing the film.
At this moment there are 7 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. Four ‘Fresh’ and 3 ‘Rotten’. Some of the critiques in the ‘Rotten’ reviews mention things I generally don’t like in movies of this, or any, type. Characters acting stupid in ways that characters only act in movies. An enormous creature that can somehow sneak up on people in broad daylight, ala “Jurassic Park”. Shaky and dark photography that makes it difficult to tell what’s going on. On the other hand, one reviewer praises the special effects. One says parts of the film are “intense.” A few confirm that it is “The Blair Witch Project” meets “Godzilla” as I speculated upthread. Best of all, it’s only 84 minutes with credits.
Quint at AICN also says it’s good but to lower your expectatins if the hype has whipped you into a frenzy.
ETA: HIs review makes me want to see it htough.
Heck, I’ll post some just for fun. Word on the street is that this illustration, which I saw in a Fark thread, is “pretty darn close” to what the monster looks like.
FOAF saw a sneak a couple of nights ago (no spoilers), and her comment was: “Not everyone made it to the bathroom in time to throw up.”
Since shaky-cam effects make me all kinds of queasy, I’ll be taking a pass on this one. The review on AICN does make it sound way cool, though.
I saw the movie last night at a sneak preview. It’s not a great movie, far from it. It’s got plot holes the size of Godzilla (who doesn’t make an appearance) and none of the characters are very likable, but it has several jump-in-your-seat moments (well, I jumped, at least). I thought the monster was very cool-looking and it’s always fun watching monsters stomp through big cities.
I will warn folks that if you’re the LEAST BIT sensitive to shakycam, you might want to avoid it, or at least, take an emergency barf bag with you. It’s nothing BUT shakycam! I have no sensitivity to shakycam whatsoever. I loved Breaking the Waves, Blair Witch Project, and Roger Dodger, and never had a second’s problem (ok, maybe a bit with Roger Dodger) but at this one I was constantly feeling like I was going to barf. It probably didn’t help that I was in the very front row, but I actually had to close my eyes several times to equalize.
Gaudere and I were at the same screening thanks to Equipoise’s generosity and I enjoyed the move a lot. I have an amazing ability to suspend disbelief which came in handy last night. There were a few points that made me go “huh?” but when they left the subway and abandoned the only “weapons” they had found, that pulled me right out of the movie.
You’d have needed a prybar to get that prybar out of my hands once I had used it.
All in all, I liked it but nitpickers will pull their hair out. I would pay good money for a sequel that answered some of the questions.