# Cloverfield sequel/spinoff, "10 Cloverfield Lane" coming out in March



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jan 15, 2016)

JJ did a DAMN good job keeping this under wraps.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Jan 15, 2016)

Just saw this on Facebook. One of the worst monster movies ever. And there has been speculation for years of a sequel. I can't believe it is finally happening.


----------



## A-Branger (Jan 16, 2016)

Emperor Guillotine said:


> Just saw this on Facebook. One of the worst monster movies ever. And there has been speculation for years of a sequel. I can't believe it is finally happening.



what!!!, cloverfield was awesome!

loved the concept of it, yes of course it has its "holliwood moments" but i love it



either way, this trailer its been done amazingly, great approach and editing, but... doesnt really tell me much about whats the movie about... which is still kinda cool, so no spoilers


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Jan 16, 2016)

A-Branger said:


> what!!!, cloverfield was awesome!
> 
> loved the concept of it, yes of course it has its "holliwood moments" but i love it


I watched it a few times as a kid, but that's about it. It just wasn't a good monster movie. It has way more than just a few "Hollywood moments" and it has a lot of straight-up BAD moments. The whole "POV handcam" or " found footage" thing has been done for decades. I'm pretty sure _Rec._, _Cannibal Holocaust_, and _The Blair Witch Project_ are the more prominent examples - all of which execute the film device better. And then of course, you have the more current examples such as: _District 9_, _Quarantine_, and the _Paranormal Activity_ franchise.


----------



## narad (Jan 16, 2016)

Sure found footage has been en vogue since Blair Witch, but Cloverfield stands out to me as one of the first to mix found footage with big budget special effects. The idea of a huge "event" taking place around you and constantly questioning your personal safety... that was a bit new for this genre, and the format was part of what kept you in the dark, so I thought it served the purpose well.

As for the youtube vid, the guy's name - Hud - is obviously not a Paul Newman reference but a play on heads up display. I forgot they were shooting digital so I never realized the artifacts that slowly unveil a bit of prologue are completely nonsensical, but honestly these "movie sins" don't really detract from the experience of the movie. We're not exactly nit-picking the film in the context of an academy award nomination ;-)


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Jan 16, 2016)

I really liked Cloverfield when I first saw it, I've gotten really sick of found footage films since so I doubt I will ever watch it again but the sequel looks like it has potential.


----------



## Lasik124 (Jan 16, 2016)

I enjoyed the first one.

This trailer was pretty confusing. Mixed feelings haha


----------



## A-Branger (Jan 17, 2016)

yeah Im a follower of cinema sins and /i have wathed that and also all the other movies you mention. But also remember Cloverfield was made in the early stages of those kinds of films, not now when people got bored of that kind of cinema.

the fact that was made using "find hand made footage" was the thing I love the movie the most. I remember when it was at the cinemas a bunch of friends hated the movie because "there wasnt enough explanation of what the monster was or where it came from".... I was like you idiots, thats the whole F point of the movie, that one day you are fine and sudenly BAM! a big Ass monster outside your door, what would you do now?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jan 17, 2016)

I dunno, 8 minutes for a Cinema Sins video isn't that bad.

EDIT: Also, it's ....ing Cinema Sins. They nitpick EVERYTHING. They've nitpicked the original Star Wars movies, The Incredibles, and other highly-acclaimed movies. I seriously hope you weren't serious when you posted that video.


----------



## A-Branger (Jan 17, 2016)

^^^ that


----------



## wankerness (Jan 17, 2016)

Emperor Guillotine said:


> I watched it a few times as a kid, but that's about it.* It just wasn't a good monster movie.* It has way more than just a few "Hollywood moments" and it has a lot of straight-up BAD moments. The whole "POV handcam" or " found footage" thing has been done for decades. I'm pretty sure _Rec._, _Cannibal Holocaust_, and _The Blair Witch Project_ are the more prominent examples - all of which execute the film device better. And then of course, you have the more current examples such as: _District 9_, _Quarantine_, and the _Paranormal Activity_ franchise.




So what ARE good monster movies? None of the others you mention there qualify. And those sorts of youtube videos are so bankrupt, all they do is teach people to focus on the most minor bull.... about whatever movie is popular so they can snarkily bring it up to anyone they encounter who liked something. They are horrible, lazy film criticism and they make them about EVERYTHING. It's the film equivalent of that "your fave is problematic" site where they list everything that could offend anyone, SJW or otherwise, that any celebrity has ever done. Though I think that site is tongue in cheek.

Cloverfield is a lot more prominent than Rec or Cannibal Holocaust, barely anyone has heard of those. I like Rec more than it and think Cannibal Holocaust was more "important," but Cloverfield is infinitely more rewatchable than any of the them. As for the others you mentioned, Quarantine is a bad remake, District 9 isn't found footage (it's just filmed like an Office episode or The Shield or something) and all of the Paranormal Activity movies blow chunks, besides the first, which is merely weak. I'd put it in the upper echelon of "found footage," and I think the effects sequences before they go into the sewer are some of the best ever committed to film. Great, great monster movie and one of the best uses of the found footage device. The opening 20 minutes is easily skipped on home video. 

I will not be surprised if this film has almost nothing to do with Cloverfield, he quite possibly just put the title on it to get people to freak out and postulate. The only reference to Cloverfield in the first film was that very beginning where they say it was the name of the military operation, so maybe it's just his nonsense title for what will be an anthology series (ex, how Halloween III tried to do that with that franchise). The title was originally nothing to do with the film and just the code name they used in the trades.


----------



## Duosphere (Jan 17, 2016)

Emperor Guillotine said:


>




I don't care about that type of video cause my opinion is what matters to me, if I like it, I like it no matter even if the whole universe hates it.
But I always watch those videos to see things I missed, some were so obvious but when you're enjoying a movie sometimes your focus is pointed to another thing.I'll never watch any movie searching for mistakes, just like with music I just let it takes me wherever it wants to take me.I never listen to music thinking about whatever scales they're playing etc, since I was a kid, every time I get a new album I turn off the lights and let it take me to..............paradise/hell.
I never watch movies trailers cause there's nothing more pleasurable to me then going to a movie only knowing its name.
Why the hell watch trailers?!
Let it surprises you


----------



## MoshJosh (Jan 17, 2016)

Haha totally loved the first one! Went in knowing as little as possible about it and left having enjoyed the film.

Really looking forward to this one. . . plus its got Dan Conner in it, how could it be bad


----------



## vilk (Jan 20, 2016)

Cloverfield is interesting in that I saw it in theaters and _thoroughly enjoyed it._
And have never even thought about it once or tried to watch it or even felt like I want to watch it again since. I still don't even care about seeing it again. But I would like to see the new one in theaters.

It's like a Universal Studios ride or something.


----------



## wankerness (Jan 20, 2016)

MoshJosh said:


> its got Dan Conner in it, how could it be bad


----------



## DanicaL (Jan 21, 2016)

John Goodman can make anything good. I loved the first movie, I hope they incorporate some of the first person visuals like they did in the first.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jan 24, 2016)

The ARG is strong with this movie, as well.

https://www.reddit.com/r/10cloverfi...piling_all_the_discoveries_made_today_in_one/


----------



## soliloquy (Jan 26, 2016)

A-Branger said:


> yeah Im a follower of cinema sins and /i have wathed that and also all the other movies you mention. But also remember Cloverfield was made in the early stages of those kinds of films, not now when people got bored of that kind of cinema.
> 
> *the fact that was made using "find hand made footage" was the thing I love the movie the most. I remember when it was at the cinemas a bunch of friends hated the movie because "there wasnt enough explanation of what the monster was or where it came from".... I was like you idiots, thats the whole F point of the movie, that one day you are fine and sudenly BAM! a big Ass monster outside your door, what would you do now?*




thats exactly why i have a soft spot for cloverfield. the very fact that you left the theatre with more questions than answers. the fact that you are just as confused as the characters in the movie. i thought it was brilliant

its also a movie that kept me at the edge of my seat for a better part of the movie. not too many movies do that for me.

and i also loved its advertising being so secretive where the commercials showed you nothing. even the movie hardly showed the monster.

compare that to godzilla where even if things are explained, i keep saying 'are you kidding me? oh wait, now you are explaining about how you're serious....are you KIDDING ME?!'


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Feb 7, 2016)




----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Mar 9, 2016)

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) - Rotten Tomatoes

Only a few reviews, but they seem more glowing than the original Cloverfield.


----------



## A-Branger (Mar 9, 2016)

its out on the cinema (at least in here), might go next week, or this weekend if I get paid early


----------



## wankerness (Mar 9, 2016)

It's getting better reviews, but they mostly all describe it as a claustrophobic chamber piece, which is the opposite of what I liked about the original. I'll probably wait for video if it's all claustrophobic and stuff, doesn't seem like something you need to see on a big screen if that's the case throughout.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Mar 9, 2016)

Given the spoilers I've seen (yes, legit spoilers)...


Spoiler



Yes, 90% of the movie takes place in the bunker. There's no giant monster. The ending involves aliens. It's a huge shift from a monster horror movie, to a normal horror/thriller one. I do think I get what JJ wants to accomplish though... He wants to make an anthology series much like the original plan with the Halloween series... although we know what happened there.


----------



## A-Branger (Mar 9, 2016)

wankerness said:


> It's getting better reviews, but they mostly all describe it as a claustrophobic chamber piece, which is the opposite of what I liked about the original. I'll probably wait for video if it's all claustrophobic and stuff, doesn't seem like something you need to see on a big screen if that's the case throughout.



Im ok with that. And thats what Im expecting. I dont see this movie being muhc related (of it all) to the previous one. More than, the reason the first movie happened is because at the end of this, X happen. Or this movie is taken place after first. Maybe they are not related at all, it just happen they like the name cloverfield. It still looks like a cool movie

and no, I havent read HeHasTheJazzHands spoiler. I wanna watch the movie first


----------



## bostjan (Mar 10, 2016)

I enjoyed the first film. I'll check this one out. I'm not going to expect it to be the Citizen Kane of horror movies, so to speak, but I expect that I will find something enjoyable about it. This is coming from a guy who enjoyed films like "Zombeavers," "Rubber," and "The Stuff."


----------



## zappatton2 (Mar 12, 2016)

bostjan said:


> I enjoyed the first film. I'll check this one out. I'm not going to expect it to be the Citizen Kane of horror movies, so to speak, but I expect that I will find something enjoyable about it. This is coming from a guy who enjoyed films like "Zombeavers," "Rubber," and "The Stuff."



Can't get enough of the stuff! But yeah, I agree, looking forward to seeing this, interested to see if they tie it in to the first Cloverfield.


----------



## Xaios (Mar 13, 2016)

bostjan said:


> This is coming from a guy who enjoyed films like "Zombeavers," *"Rubber,"* and "The Stuff."



"It's been reincarnated as a tricycle!"


----------



## A-Branger (Mar 17, 2016)

well I jst came back from the cinema and......... I love it!

love to see movies being different to the norm. Couldnt figure it out things that were happening on the movie, like "oh so now X guy is going to do A or B", or "I bet you Y guy is going to actually be the bad/good guy here later on", "he/she is gona do this/that"..... but nop, I end up surprised pretty much most, if not all the time

I know there would be people who would hate this movie, as there wont be much explanation for them. As the original Cloverfield, the actions on this movie just "happens", no back story, no explanation, its just is. Which I love, but some would hate.

I like the ending, I know some wont like it either.

I walk out of the cinema happy


----------



## bostjan (Mar 17, 2016)

A-Branger said:


> well I jst came back from the cinema and......... I love it!
> 
> love to see movies being different to the norm. Couldnt figure it out things that were happening on the movie, like "oh so now X guy is going to do A or B", or "I bet you Y guy is going to actually be the bad/good guy here later on", "he/she is gona do this/that"..... but nop, I end up surprised pretty much most, if not all the time
> 
> ...



Thanks, you just sold me on the movie. I'll probably see it this weekend.


----------



## A-Branger (Mar 17, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Thanks, you just sold me on the movie. I'll probably see it this weekend.



just dont come back to kill me if you didnt like it


----------



## A-Branger (Mar 17, 2016)

also I notice after the movie. Im guessing this was made on purpose.

the looks of the main character with the chick of the last movie













no idea what would be the reason for it. Maybe the director has a fetish? hahaha


----------



## wankerness (Mar 18, 2016)

They had different directors, and Lizzy Caplan doesn't look anything like Mary Winstead! I guess their hairstyle is roughly similar in those particular screenshots, and they both are wearing a tanktop, but the characters sure have no parallel, Lizzy's just the angry hot hipster that


Spoiler



abruptly gets gorily exploded after being on screen for all of about 20 minutes.


----------



## A-Branger (Mar 18, 2016)

wankerness said:


> They had different directors, and Lizzy Caplan doesn't look anything like Mary Winstead! I guess their hairstyle is roughly similar in those particular screenshots, and they both are wearing a tanktop, but the characters sure have no parallel, Lizzy's just the angry hot hipster that
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



yeah I know they dont look the same same. But they made it look pretty close. Including the hairstyle (which its a main feature and one easy to change), and the jeans + white tanktop. Again they could have chosen hundreds of different clothes combinations, specially when you already have a chick with the same hairstyle and looks

and for the one of the previous movie, thats what she wears for the whole movie. In this new one, she wears that for about 80% of the movie too.

I just find it interesting that they choose to do that. At this high hollywood movie level, they think about every detail of a movie. Its not liek they say to the chick "yeah just come to the set like whatever you like that day"


----------



## MoshJosh (Mar 19, 2016)

Went to see this with my wife today and I really liked it. It was very suspenseful, and just over all a cool flick. If I had to make a complaint, I'd say I'm not in love with the ending, but it worked.


----------



## extendedsolo (Mar 24, 2016)

I went on Monday and saw this. Just when I think I have the movie pegged as to what will happen and what to expect it takes a left turn. Which is good is this case! 90 minutes of tension/fun movie. If you don't catch this one in the theater and are a sci/fi fan, check it out after for sure. John Goodman is amazing in this one too.


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Mar 24, 2016)

I loved this one! Very tense, full of twists and leaves a lot for you to speculate on. The last 5-10 minutes were crazy.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Mar 24, 2016)

I haven't watched the movie yet, but the more I hear about the ending, the more I think of Knowing. 

And that ending was... something else.


----------



## russmuller (Apr 10, 2016)

I purposefully didn't read anything about this movie beyond the synopsis and score on Rotten Tomatoes. I didn't expect it to have much in common with Cloverfield, except for the appearance of a SLUSHO sign somewhere. I went and saw it in the theater yesterday and was thoroughly pleased. John Goodman's performance was EXCEPTIONAL! So creepy! I did NOT see that ending coming.


----------

