Not what I was expecting at all, but wow was that an entertaining movie. Two thumbs up

This is really good news to read. I've been sooooooo skeptical of this movie ever since it was dubbed a close relative sequel to Cloverfield.

not sure if we discussed it here but the original script contained 0% cloverfield.

Brief discussion happened here.

Does it have anything to to with Cloverfield after all?

No, completely different movie. Takes place in present time and was no talk of a previous attack.

Is it a psychological thriller with an unseen monster (or epidemic) outside the bunker and it just deals with the paranoia on the inside? Or is it one of those 'it was all in your head" there never was a threat BS concept films i.e. poor writing?

The trailer reminds me a lot of Hidden (2015), which had an alright and unexpected twist, but the monsters outside part of the twist should only be done once. If the same type of thing goes down in Cloverfield Lane, it's going to ruin it for me right there.

Sorry to be so vague, but don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen Hidden yet. Not that I necessarily recommend seeing it.

I've never seen a review like this before from the New York Times that basically says "I'm not going to tell you anything about the movie except that it's 'spectacular' and you need to see it before reading about it."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/movie ... .html?_r=0

It was pretty decent. I feel like more could've been done, but yeah. As far as a cloverfield tie in, to me, there was one. Either way, still a fun movie. Goodman steals the show for sure.

^^100% agreed... for anyone going solely based on title and possible OG tie-in, instead consider alternate title "10 JOHN GOODMAN Lane" and check your expectations accordingly.

But I LOVE when someone gives that guy a big, juicy role to sink his teeth into, so I was loving this one a lot! I also loved the other two actors - they all did a really great job. Some seriously scary scenes, but also a lot of funny parts. Thought the ending disconnected a bit, but was still fine with it overall, just because I'd enjoyed the rest so much.

LOL! Yeah I might have to see this eventually. John Goodman is definitely a great actor.

This is a very predictable story, still it managed to keep suspense and a few good punches. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is awesome,
the musical score is superb (unfortunately not on CD yet).

I wish they'd somehow acknowledged their "influences" though..

This was a cool read about the ending: http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-director-of- ... 1764626525

Meh, I want them to uphold El Eternauta's undeniable influence on the film.



^ this short illustrate the first pages of the book.

I need to actually leave the house and go see this movie. I didn't at first just to screw with Calvin but now it's more because I can't help but be a hermit during allergy season. But damn if I don't love me some Goodman!

I enjoyed the film for the most part. Wife and daughter hated it. This is how I'm putting the film together... in a nutshell (aka my head)

Goodman (Howard) is a conspiracy theorist/wacko, pedophile who had a bunker built to fulfill both vices. He happened upon Michelle on way to bunker to wait out the pending alien apocalypse. Decided he didn't want to spend that year or two rubbing one out to Sixteen Candles, so he ran her off the road and kidnapped her. Emmett may or may not have been involved beyond helping Howard build the bunker. I'm leaning towards him being his cohort, but the lesser than (à la Leonard Lake & Charles Ng). Then again, Emmett may or may not be relevant in the grand scheme of things. Doesn't matter a whole lot since his role was almost filler/fodder for me personally. You have the tension while in the bunker for the better part of the film, supposedly never really knowing if this is just some psychological game or for real. We find out Howard was telling the truth, (sort of) and there is an alien invasion (lame). Though, in my opinion the invasion part is lame, it could help explain a connection to the original Cloverfield film. Indulge me...

Simply, there are/were other attacks around the country/world. Who's to say in the larger areas they didn't unleash this giant potato bug looking creature onto said cities like that smaller creature-like monster in the corn fields to do their bidding? It's certainly a very plausible connection, is it not.

Anyway, that's what I'm taking out of it and that's how I would make the connection to the other film... if there even need to be one. Should there be a 10 Cloverfield Lane... Uuuuuuuhhhhhhhh _ _!

Guess I will be the lone voice (of possibly reason, possibly curmudgeoness - nah, make that definite curmudgeoness) and say that I thought the film was a big stinky turd that they are trying - awfully hard - to polish into something it is not. There was a core of an okay movie there, and it could have had some potential, but they squandered it. I was not at all impressed. And this has nothing to do with whether this movie had (or you think it had) and connection to the Cloverfield or not, to me that is completely irrelevant. It was just not executed well, was thinking it was faarrr more intelligent than it actually was, and only solidified once again in my mind what a hack Abrams is. I am not saying he is a Snyder, but come on, are people really falling for this time and time again? Abrams is nothing but the 'new' Shyamalan, something I have been saying for years. He gets way too much credit. He does have some filmmaking skill, and can produce a good story, but he gets waaayyy too full of himself in his latest projects believing his own hype and trying to outdo himself, that ultimately the work suffers. And possibly the worst thing about this entire project is the disservice it does to an actor like Goodman who put himself into that role and delivered it, only ultimately to be played into this marketing scheme. Worst movie ever, of course not, not by a long shot. Not even the worst in cinemas right now even. But I think some objective criticism is fair, and warranted in this case.

Abrams didn't direct it, but I think you may be speaking of him as producer on this one.

I liked it up until she got out.

When she got out and heard the birds chirping. The screen should have gone black leading people to speculation.. To me the ending seemed a bit tacked on.

It kinda was.

^^that's the problem, people want stuff spoon fed to them. "Oh no, I have to actually think about the movie? This is dumb."

The ending was the whole, we are going to scrap this, oh wait tie it into Cloverfield in a small way to keep it afloat.

Interesting that people are so divided on the ending. I thought it was incredible.

I loved the ending. A buddy of mine had a theory about the ending.

^^^^^

You and your friend need to look up 8 posts and re-read mine