Discussion Cloverfield?

A. Didn't see it but I'm happy you found a movie you enjoyed at least. *Thumbs Up!!

A. i LOVED it it was soo good

A. eh it's not amazing, but it is good, i liked it

A. I just saw it. It sucked. And trust me, I'm not "to" (too) young and dumb to "uderstand" (understand). And I "no" (know) a good movie when I see one.

A. wow that takes alot of guts lol i only saw it 1 time and was disapointed. reasons i didnt like it 1. didnt like the camcorder filming thing, cause the movie was like 93% running and it shaked 2 much. 2. they should of showed more of the monster when i saw it perfectly was like only 4 10 seconds. but since your a fan i should tell u that they will make cloverfield 2 and i herd it will also b filmed by a different camcorder that was recording everything that happen to the monster why he was attacked at the end.

A. Yeah, I saw it tonight. NICE! You're right about people who say it sucked. If you had a problem with the camera shaking, that's a YOU problem. The film's conceit is that it was found footage captured on a camcorder. The monster's appearance was handled perfectly. First in brief glimpses, then from angles, next from a distance, finally up close. Besides, the movie's not about the monster, but Rob, Lilly, Beth, Hud, Marlena and Jason's attempts to survive. I wouldn't argue with someone saying the film didn't live up to their expectations. That's a subjective point. But to say it "sucked"? Hardly. Had the special effects been cheesy, not first rate, or if the acting had been sub-par, OR if the monster had never been shown, but left to the viewer's imagination, THAT would have sucked.

A. there will be a second 1