Comments on: [Spoiler Alert!] “Cloverfield” screened last night- what did you think?

By: JAMIE BOLAND

JAMIE BOLAND — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:53:16 +0000

HELLO EVERY ONE I HATE THISMOVIE IT IS NO GOOD AND I AM GAY

By: Anthony

Anthony — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:45:17 +0000

If the director of cloverfield is reading this please make another one I beg u and can i star in the next one and what the hell is the black smoke in lost. O and if there was a message tht was sent saying ur al pricks tht was my m8. Cloverfield is the best i really felt sorry for marleena who exploded she didnt diserve tht. I need to c the satellite

By: TheHeretic

TheHeretic — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 03:30:43 +0000

“I don’t understand how anyone could have NOT liked this film, what are you, stupid?”

Well maybe I am but a movie involving crap dialogue, lack of acting talent, and simply trying to sell itself via the sizzle without the steak doesn’t work for me. Maybe you are too stupid to understand what makes an actual movie tick? Is that enough closure for you?

By: Anthony

Anthony — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:15:15 +0000

Really cool send me the website to c the image of the satellite I really want to c the 2nd one

By: Anthony

Anthony — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:12:42 +0000

I luved tht film i hav to c thge sattelitte thingy

By: Josh B

Josh B — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 05:51:09 +0000

After watching this film this evening, I truly feel stupider. Geeks will love it and ponder ways the plot could have been better. The sci-fi world will say an alien dropped from the sky. But normal, ordinary folks, like me, will say, I want a beginning, middle and end. This had a beginning throughout the movie. Yeah, I want to see the monster and the damage created by it. I want to see people getting squished between the toes of the beast. (Hence, Jurassic Park) As #18 Post, Chris, stated, I am stupid for wasting hard earned money on a flick that did’nt even tickle my senses. BOOOOOOO!!!

By: Jon Sholly

Jon Sholly — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:06:58 +0000

One thing I couldn’t help but think about after seeing it was that they could’ve told the exact same story with the same amount of confusion and mystery without the gimmick of using a shaky hand-held video camera. Is it a cop out to use the it-seems-so-real-because-it’s-shot-on-video trick? It IS effective, but it seems lazy at this late date. That said, I thought it was really pretty good and I can’t wait for the DVD to come out so I can see more footage from other cameras in the city. I can only assume stuff like that will be added as extras.

Oh yeah, the shaking camera did make me sick. Thought I might even barf! Ugh. . .

By: JULZSTI

JULZSTI — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:56:22 +0000

rumor of more of these monsters are coming…. obvious the hype got to us and we’d had to watch it. the freaken movie is flat, not suprising, no plot, and the only thing i got from it is a headache to the shakey camera. some ride… (barf). But get this, even though it sucks, a cousin of mine who knows this guy who is a co. worker of Abram’s he said he’s gonna make an another one. from an another random person in new york who found Rob’s camera. either way i can say this info is sketchy. Im not sure how its gonna happen. but the next one might come out late this year or in 2009. theres defitnitly a sequel. thats what i know for sure. GET THE DVD SKIP TO THE END AND HEAR A RADIO TRANSMISSION AFTER THE CREDITS.

By: ishkabibble

ishkabibble — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:05:41 +0000

this movie was absolutely terrible. it was barely over an hour, it cost 8 dollars to watch and just absolutely sucked. i am a big fan of Lost and think its a great tv show and very original but the movie was so cheesy and boring. i really dont know how anyone could have liked it. i still dont believe people actually liked it- i think they are just too ashamed to admit it because they like jj abrams to much. aside from how it was a monster movie, it was not practical at all. and the impracticalities are very easy to fix. poor editing. the cameraman was not funny, just very corny questions and comments. i could’nt believe people laughed at him. also, why would he hold a camera while being chased by monsters? wouldnt his arm get tired? and why did every single character care more about Rob than they do themselves?

By: David Bruce Murray

David Bruce Murray — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:17:18 +0000

I’m happy to suspend my disbelief and go with the filmmakers regarding a monster tearing up jack in New York City.

It’s another thing entirely when the movie tells me, “Everything you’re seeing was captured on a hand held video camera.” That is a rule the film makers made for themselves. The viewer shouldn’t be expected to suspend disbelief on an area they dictated earlier in the film.

It’s ironic that the fans who really like the film accuse those who don’t of wanting a Hollywood formulaic blockbuster. That isn’t the case at all for me. The concept of blending several successful techniques fairly well WAS successful. Combining point of view reactions to a cataclysmic event, consumer grade format for filming, and the monster genre is a fresh approach. I applaud their bold intentions. It was the lack of quality actors, poorly written dialog, and failure to embrace the video format that fell flat.