Anxiety said:

lol you know exactly what i meant. stop playin lol

Christopher said:

i know exactly what you meant but i'm the wrong person to be responding to with all that mess.

need i remind you, i saw 'glitter' in theatres.


on opening night.

i love me some hoity-toity art film just like the next culture hag, but i do love some super inspired teeeee-rash.

i saw pootie tang in theatres too. i was going to show up for that wearing a turbie twist, but we couldn't find any on the way.

I saw 3 minutes of Pototie Tang, and it looked brilliant!

Anxiety said:

thats cool but still it sounds like your being to elitist cause u gotta dumb it down to enjoy it cause its beneath you or somethin lol.but then again....i liked TROLL 2 and everyone knows its the dumbest movie ever made.

I've seen it twice and I'm hoping to see it again!

Didn't like it!

wildgoldenhoney said:

If it wasn't for my date and our back seats, I'd left after 30 minutes.
[Edited 2/3/08 23:49pm]

rushing07 said:

My sis got nauseous and ran to the restroom.
And scared my 12 y/o nephew!

.
[Edited 2/3/08 23:54pm]

wildgoldenhoney said:

Neeh. I thought it was just silly.

Ah, at least two peeps did not like it.

There's balance in the force now.

HamsterHuey said:

Hey...what about me? That makes 3.

noimageatall said:






No one reads my posts. I'm going out to the garden to eat worms

I liked the attack scenes and the sound effects were great but I hated the
dumb love story and the melrose place cast, plus it gave an annoying headache that lasted hours. Disappointing

garganta said:

ok...4...

noimageatall said:

A) Look at yer own profilename. It fits.
B) Worms are quite nutritious.

noimageatall said:

Aha. The hype. I never expect ANYTHING from hyped movies. So it was actually kewl for me.

SPOILER


























I loved how they all DIED. Very un-American.

HamsterHuey said:

HamsterHuey said:

But did they??

noimageatall said:

Yeah, I heard about the 'help me' at the end of the credits, which I missed. Cuz I wanted a beer.

But if one or both are still alive, then they can die in the sequel.

Die! Romance DIE!

HamsterHuey said:

Garganta was right too. It was like Melrose Place meets CGIzilla.

noimageatall said:

Oh, I did not READ this thread. I mostly only read the first and last post. Reading everything takes up too much time.

Like the second poster; I had NO expectation, so to me it was all a rollercoaster ride.
The way they get knocked off, the way there's NO explanation about the monster, it just IS.
I actually liked the CGI; I never had the feeling I had with some other bad with CGI where you can see it's fake.
I loved the handheld cam. Took a while to adjust too.
I liked the fact it was all running. From one blood splatter to another. Woohoo!
I love how here in Holland the audience was a bit flabbergasted, but in a good way.
And I thought the Melrose stuff was fun, in a way. It was almost the right balance between 'just' another monster movie and an actual story.
Anyways. It is what it is and it was fun in the cinema, but it is not a movie I would wanna see again, except to scroll through the small things I read about, like in the Coney Island material, something can be seen dropping into the ocean in the background.

Was there a POINT 2 this movie? Waste of time and $.

rushing07 said:

It was pointless. And when it was over, we were like, "is that it"? What a waste, not really an ending.

Graycap23 said:

Does there have to be a point to it? It's a movie released to the public as an entertainment. If you didn't like it, then yeah, I suppose you did waste an hour and a half and a few $$$.
But it seems to be making a fair few dollars and a hell of a lot of people (including myself) are loving it.

I find it amusing when a movie comes out that's a little unconventional and those who can't get to grips with that element simply dismiss it as pointless.

I think Cloverfield will go down as an all-time great cult movie.
You can simply accept it as a monster movie that's fun but has no explaination, or you can delve into the internet and start to piece together puzzles (courtesy of the viral sites) that give you clues as to the monster's origins.
Or you can just dismiss it as pointless and move on.
All are good.

Haystack said:

I have no problem with your viewpoint. My issue is, this is/was an incomplete idea and that is NOT a good thing.

Haystack said:

Yep.
I get easily bored with conventionality in films ( there is just SO freakin' much of it)
& appreciate when a movies tries to color outside the lines a bit.
Even if it the form of unconventionality doesn't work, I can at least appreciate the effort.

Graycap23 said:

the point or idea:

Man cannot be mature enough to focus declare his love... events push him out of his comfort range... man becomes mature enough to focus and declare his love.

All done in a brand new context for this story archtype typically done in a teenage summer camp setting or musical.

ufoclub said:

Man dies....

I just saw this yesterday.

It was exactly what I expected it to be...and more.

After reading the reviews (and the posts on this thread!) I wasn't expecting a spectacular sci-fi extravaganza. It was meant to resemble a camcorder taping, and it did.

What I did NOT expect was to be riveted to my seat for most of the movie, and walking out of the theater unnerved.

Maybe because it was shot through the vantage point of an individual that I became engrossed in the happenings - almost as if it had been ME behind that viewfinder.

I give it a solid 2

ufoclub said:

lol....the point: shoot a stupid ass flick with no plot and make as much money as possible.