Metanet Forums

I just saw Cloverfield, i thought that it was pretty good. What do you guys think of it?

You're just a year and 9 months late.

I could've sworn there was a thread for this already. Maybe it was on the old forums.

Although you are quite late, it is an excellent movie. The docu-style of it works when it works, but fails sometimes. It worked here.

Brilliant movie indeed. I've watched it on several occasions.

Yeah, it had a decent plot, although the on-screen sexual tension between Costner and Houston was palpable. I thought the scene with the samurai sword was atrocious, and the ending scene where Costner's character gets shot on-stage was way too obvious, but all-in-all, it was a good movie.

The amateur-camera sytle is pretty good.

Definately worth watching.

Ampersand wrote:Yeah, it had a decent plot, although the on-screen sexual tension between Costner and Houston was palpable. I thought the scene with the samurai sword was atrocious, and the ending scene where Costner's character gets shot on-stage was way too obvious, but all-in-all, it was a good movie.

You're confusing Cloverfield with every Duran Duran music video.

87654321 wrote:

hhahahaa..

anyway, tis a good movie.

The only part that really seems to completely ruin the movie is at the very end just before the credits when the scene cuts back to when they were on the Ferris wheel and on the right side of the screen you can see something falling from the sky into the water. Before I noticed that I thought it was awesome because it was still questionable where the creature came from (whether it was actually from space or was lying dormant for many years underneath the ocean).

I think the one thing that redeems what I said above is the sound that the smaller creatures make. Whoever made the decision to have them sound like that deserves a trophy. Next to the perpetually-drunk guy that was the funniest thing in the whole movie.

Manus Australis wrote:The only part that really seems to completely ruin the movie is at the very end just before the credits when the scene cuts back to when they were on the Ferris wheel and on the right side of the screen you can see something falling from the sky into the water. Before I noticed that I thought it was awesome because it was still questionable where the creature came from (whether it was actually from space or was lying dormant for many years underneath the ocean).

I think the one thing that redeems what I said above is the sound that the smaller creatures make. Whoever made the decision to have them sound like that deserves a trophy. Next to the perpetually-drunk guy that was the funniest thing in the whole movie.

Just in case there's any confusion: It was lying dormant in the ocean. What you saw fall was a satellite that awoke the creatures slumber. The viral marketing campaign told us this.

At least, that's what I remember reading ohsomanymonths ago...

brighter wrote:

Manus Australis wrote:The only part that really seems to completely ruin the movie is at the very end just before the credits when the scene cuts back to when they were on the Ferris wheel and on the right side of the screen you can see something falling from the sky into the water. Before I noticed that I thought it was awesome because it was still questionable where the creature came from (whether it was actually from space or was lying dormant for many years underneath the ocean).

I think the one thing that redeems what I said above is the sound that the smaller creatures make. Whoever made the decision to have them sound like that deserves a trophy. Next to the perpetually-drunk guy that was the funniest thing in the whole movie.

Just in case there's any confusion: It was lying dormant in the ocean. What you saw fall was a satellite that awoke the creatures slumber. The viral marketing campaign told us this.

At least, that's what I remember reading ohsomanymonths ago...

That's even more lame. What a lame excuse to awaken a huge monster. And it took 2 weeks for the thing to wake up? LAME.

Manus Australis wrote: That's even more lame. What a lame excuse to awaken a huge monster. And it took 2 weeks for the thing to wake up? LAME.

YOU GO ON HIBERNATION FOR A GAZILLION YEARS AND TRY TO GET UP.

Flight wrote:

Manus Australis wrote: That's even more lame. What a lame excuse to awaken a huge monster. And it took 2 weeks for the thing to wake up? LAME.

YOU GO ON HIBERNATION FOR A GAZILLION YEARS AND TRY TO GET UP.

OKAY I WILL.

love, loss, and disaster, and how they all tie in together. a rather nice movie.

I had a headache from the handheld camera after watching the movie.
I've heard a sequel will be coming (Hopefully I'll see it and all my questions about the movie will be answered)
Overall it was a pretty good movie apart from the fact I got motion sickness.

^^Motion sickness was a very big topic in many of the movie's reviews,though it added to it in so many ways. The part where the chick was taken behind a curtain and literally exploded in a mass of blood and organs was pretty extreme. I almost threw up. I loved the movie, can't wait for a sequel.

Sadly, I haven't seen this movie yet....

Zephyr wrote:I've heard a sequel will be coming (Hopefully I'll see it and all my questions about the movie will be answered)

Movies are better when they provoke thoughts.

For example take one of the die hard films. For lack of a better choice, we'll just go for die hard 2. This movie basically involves bruce willis and samuel jackson running about new york trying to defuse a load of bombs. The clever plot twists, non stop action and the fact that the lead actors 'click' makes the movie very enjoyable. But once the credits roll, and you flick onto some other channel (or leave the cinema.. depends...), you don't give any thought to the movie any more, other than it was enjoyable to watch.

In contrast the movie 'stalker' asks a gazillion questions, and answers only a couple, and the answers that /are/ given, are vague at best. This means, that afterwards, you keep thinking about the sybolism of the movie, or the meaning of certain events.

oh.... this is about cloverfield? that was a good movie. Managed to get the ... what? satellite? hmmm :/


Ah well. It's worth a watch. :)

Aphex wrote:

Zephyr wrote:I've heard a sequel will be coming (Hopefully I'll see it and all my questions about the movie will be answered)

Movies are better when they provoke thoughts.

For example take one of the die hard films. For lack of a better choice, we'll just go for die hard 2. This movie basically involves bruce willis and samuel jackson running about new york trying to defuse a load of bombs. The clever plot twists, non stop action and the fact that the lead actors 'click' makes the movie very enjoyable. But once the credits roll, and you flick onto some other channel (or leave the cinema.. depends...), you don't give any thought to the movie any more, other than it was enjoyable to watch.

In contrast the movie 'stalker' asks a gazillion questions, and answers only a couple, and the answers that /are/ given, are vague at best. This means, that afterwards, you keep thinking about the sybolism of the movie, or the meaning of certain events.

oh.... this is about cloverfield? that was a good movie. Managed to get the ... what? satellite? hmmm :/


Ah well. It's worth a watch. :)

You fucking dumbass. That was Die Hard with a Vengeance.