anyway i saw this and uh yeah it was pretty cool.  after watching it i bought a nokia phone and sipped on some mountain dew but i'm not sure why???

I did the same thing after watching Transformers.....weird.

There was a character in the movie who wore a slusho t-shirt as a in-joke.

There you go.

There is also a scene one of the last Heroes episodes in which a woman is drinking Slusho.

I really liked this movie.

although i thought after the monster was bombed when it jumped up and hit the helicopter was pretty lame

Man, that's ridiculously complicated and far-fetched (@Eric).

This movie totally does not hold up to a second viewing, btw, I went to see it again to try and catch the thing dropping into the ocean at the end and because a bud hadn't seen it and wanted someone to go with, and found myself very bored through pretty much the whole film.

I have to say that I went in totally blind to it (I only knew that it was a JJ film and that something mysterious was attacking NY) and I actually enjoyed it. Perhaps it didn't have an amazing thought-provoking story, but that really wasn't the point of the film. We were meant to see the events of the Cloverfield as they were seen by Hudd and his group of friends. We were not supposed to be omniscient, viewing the film's events from above and having everything explained to us. That's how a typical director would film this type of movie. Instead, we got to experience a different kind of feeling - the feeling of being right there amidst the terror and confusion, including the feeling of a touch of nausea. It definetely worked for what it was. The people who are disappointed in it are those who wanted this to be told from a different viewpoint or who unneedlessly hyped it up for themselves.

Am I a little disappointed in not knowing how the creature originated and what happened in the after-math? Of course, as I'm sure we're all curious as that is human nature. However, it would have been far more absurd to have an explanation thrown in at the end after the whole movie was told in a first-person narrative. How often in life are we going to have all the answers? If the answers would have been revealed to us we wouldn't have been able to connect with the protagonists as well as we were able to in this film. We only know what they know, nothing more, and we're experiencing close to what they went through in the process. Cloverfield is a hauntingly beautiful piece of a horrific life-changing experience shown through the eyes (camera) of an ordinary man caught in the middle of a situation he has no knowledge about. It truely is a movie experience like no other.

I have to say that I think this movie would make an awesome thrill ride at Universal Studios. Also, I <3ed Marlena and her sarcastic comments throughout the film. It's a shame she had to explode! ​

I went with 4 other friends and all of us hated it. There's a lot of arguing and I'm not going to repeat what people said here.

But basically, I think the idea was good, but it was executed VERY poorly.

I went with 4 other friends and all of us hated it. There's a lot of arguing and I'm not going to repeat what people said here.

But basically, I think the idea was good, but it was executed VERY poorly.

it was no the man from earth though

why exactly do you think it was poorly executed?  i'd like to hear it man i'm curious!

the acting was pretty bad and it all leads to a nothing story of some dude and some dudette who just can't love each other and it kind of annoyed me with smarm.

its okay but yeah I can see poor execution, especially considering how it nauseated people to watch (THATS THE AESTHETIC!!!)

my brother told me to watch this movie and i immediately strained/tore several important neck muscles holding myself back from punchfing him in face

j/k

actually i am expecting nothing from this movie but is it ridiculous/wild kinda like children of man or something? my mom really wants to go to the THEATRE sometime, probably to see this, so can i at least expect lots of ridiculous but vaguely interesting shit happening to help my eyes glaze over?

idk a lot of is 9/11 shit and i know you are an aficionado so you might not like it.

also it was waaayyyy hyped and it wasn't worth half of the hype.

idk a lot of is 9/11 shit and i know you are an aficionado so you might not like it.

well i may be able to at least tolerate it(which is all i'm aiming for) if it's more about individuals and doesn't make some gigantic spectacle out of PATRIOTISM and SACRIFICE which is what really got under my skin about 9/11. also bonus points will be awarded if tops of buildings fall on the annoying characters. and x10 bonus points if MUCH marshmallow falls on the bad guy.

actually from the sound of it i probably won't be able to PHYSICALLY get past the jumpy camera anyway, and i usually hate things that give me a headache that i do not find very rewarding, so it probably won't matter anyway.

also it was waaayyyy hyped and it wasn't worth half of the hype.

well fortunately i ignored all of that and what little i did see made me go PFFFFF YEA RIGHT(I HOPE THEY ALL FUCKING DIE)

it was no the man from earth though

why exactly do you think it was poorly executed?  i'd like to hear it man i'm curious!

The idea was good: take a monster movie and actually do a different viewpoint than ARGH BLOW UP THE MONSTER GO MILITARY!

The whole group trying to survive was great, but the acting ruined it. Also, they tried to take the movie seriously even though it was too ridiculous most of the time (as others said, go after the girl who I barely love and risk my life!). Showing the monster quite ruined it too. I don't see how everyone is like "they showed it at the end." I'm pretty sure you could see it was stupid looking about 20 minutes after the initial explosions and stuff.

The acting just wasn't good, the "plot" was ridiculous (and cliché with the save this girl thing) and it was just not well done.

The acting just wasn't good, the "plot" was ridiculous (and cliché with the save this girl thing) and it was just not well done.

I thought the acting was fine, like, it wasn't OMFG AWESOME ACTING THESE GUYS SHOULD GET 20000000000000 AWARDS good, but it was good enough for the kind of movie. The ""plot"" as you said it, might have been ridiculous, but I think it was well done for what the hell it was, probably only because it wasn't a traditional monster movie, like many have said.

The only thing that made me a bit annoyed was the fact that beth? I think her name was, was able to run around, and fucking MOVE AND YELL AND STAY FUCKING ALIVE after losing a shit load of blood, like, she was impaled, and I doubt that it missed her lungs or something. Hell, she even survived a helicopter crash, and shit AFTER BEING IMPALED THROUGH HER CHEST? or did I miss something

Also the 9/11 stuff is bullshit imo, new york + any kind of building blowing up = 9/11 I guess. Maybe I'd have to be american to get it.

Also, at the beginning, there are some words on the screen about the military having the camera in posession. That could mean that something in the movie has relevance to where the monster came from????

Yes better watch the movie 27 more times to figure out what

Also the 9/11 stuff is bullshit imo, new york + any kind of building blowing up = 9/11 I guess. Maybe I'd have to be american to get it.

or not retarded? just looking at wikipedia:

Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times wrote that the film is "pretty scary at times" and cites "unmistakable evocations of 9/11". He concludes that "all in all, it is an effective film, deploying its special effects well and never breaking the illusion that it is all happening as we see it."[48]

Todd McCarthy of Variety called the film an "old-fashioned monster movie dressed up in trendy new threads", praising the special effects, "nihilistic attitude" and "post-9/11 anxiety overlay", but said, "In the end, [it's] not much different from all the marauding creature features that have come before it."[49] Scott Foundas of LA Weekly was critical of the film's allusions to the September 11, 2001 attacks and called it "cheap and opportunistic". He compared its "stealth" attempts at social commentary unfavorably to the films of Don Siegel, George A. Romero and Steven Spielberg, saying, "Where those filmmakers all had something meaningful to say about the state of the world and […] human nature, Abrams doesn't have much to say about anything."[50] Manohla Dargis in the New York Times called the allusions "tacky", saying, "[The images] may make you think of the attack, and you may curse the filmmakers for their vulgarity, insensitivity or lack of imagination", but that "the film is too dumb to offend anything except your intelligence." She concludes that the film "works as a showcase for impressively realistic-looking special effects, a realism that fails to extend to the scurrying humans whose fates are meant to invoke pity and fear but instead inspire yawns and contempt."[20] Stephanie Zacharek of Salon.com calls the film "badly constructed, humorless and emotionally sadistic", and sums up by saying that the film "takes the trauma of 9/11 and turns it into just another random spectacle at which to point and shoot."[51] Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune warned that the viewer may feel "queasy" at the references to September 11, but that "other sequences […] carry a real jolt" and that such tactics were "crude, but undeniably gripping". He called the film "dumb", but "quick and dirty and effectively brusque", concluding that despite it being "a harsher, more demographically calculating brand of fun", he enjoyed the film.[52]

LOOK AT ALL THESE NOOBS WHO COULDN'T FIGURE SHIT OUT...

edit: man I love this Salon.com review.