10 Cloverfield Lane
After a car accident, Michelle awakens to find herself in a mysterious bunker with two men named Howard and Emmett. Howard offers her a pair of crutches to help her remain mobile with her leg injury sustained from the car crash and tells her to "get good on those" before leaving the bunker. She has been given the information that there has been an alien attack and the outside world is poisoned. However, Howard and Emmett's intentions soon become questionable and Michelle is faced with a question: Is it better in here or out there?
- Category:Action, Drama, Horror, Mystery, Sci-Fi, Thriller
- Stars:Bradley Cooper, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, John Goodman, John Gallagher Jr.,
- Director:Dan Trachtenberg,
- Writer:Josh Campbell (story), Matthew Stuecken (story), Josh Campbell (screenplay), Matthew Stuecken (screenplay), Damien Chazelle (screenplay)
After surviving a car accident, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) wakes up to find herself in an underground bunker with two men, who claim the outside world is affected by a widespread chemical attack. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
10 Cloverfield Lane torrent reviews
(kr) wrote: Not bad, abit different frm ur boy meets girl & lives happily ever after, it shows u what can get in the way of tat!!
(de) wrote: This wonderful film, which I saw in 3D, is about one of the most important battles of the 20th century. In 1920, the Soviets invaded Poland with the aim of making all of Europe into a Communist empire. Bravely, the Poles defeated them on the outskirts of Warsaw, saving the democracy in Europe. It's an epic, with battle scenes, a love story and historical drama. It reminded me a bit of the 1960s film "Dr. Zhivago," but is shorter and has less memorable music. However, I believe the handsome stars in this movie, Boris Szyc and Natasza Urbanska, are equal to Omar Sharif and Julie Christie in attractiveness and acting ability.
(es) wrote: This is both interesting and entertaining. I do kind of wish it can feature a little less dinner conversation and on how they come up with materials... perhaps the process a bit more.
(mx) wrote: Great Movie. Sutherland Rocks!
(fr) wrote: What is a good movie?? A good movie is something that can touch your feelings and let you feel the sadness, the joy, the horror... that is within the movie. And this is the kind of movie I am talking about.
(br) wrote: Bad portrayal of the atrocities and hardships that took place back then. I lost interest about half way through. Only reason i gave it 2 stars was because it was actually filmed at Auschwitz. At least they got that right!
(jp) wrote: The Next Logical Step From Crunchy Frog Weekend movies are an adventure. Unless Graham and I go see something in the theatre, there is generally an attempt on my part to find something we can watch together at home. (And he's started taking a day or two of vacation every month, which doesn't help.) Now, we have movies we own but haven't watched just yet. Plenty of them. On the other hand, a lot of those are movies he isn't interested in. We have different tastes, he and I, and while there are plenty of movies we'll watch together, it's true that there are even more we won't. Sometimes, library movies fill the gap. Sometimes, Netflix. He's really glad to have invested in a pair of headphones, so he listens to things without me a lot. But it's always nice when we find something we can at least sort of watch on cold, rainy Sunday evenings. Ian Littleton (Tyler Butterworth) has just gotten a job as a management trainee at Chumley Chocolates. Thing is, Chumley has just been taken over by a conglomerate, and the factory is nearly totally automated. They aren't putting chocolate in the chocolates anymore, either. Ian goes into the factory to tell a group of workers that they've dropped the keys to their van, and he manages to dump them into the vat. The system is somehow so powerful that, within scant seconds, there's nothing left but eight hundred boxes of human-flavoured chocolates. Ian, Graham Chumley (Freddie Jones), and Mr. Farris (Jonathan Pryce) are unable to get them back. On the other hand, the town the chocolates were sent to is the only one in all of England where the chocolate wasn't universally reviled. The crunchy frog reference is not idle. The movie is based on a play by Michael Palin and Terry Jones. Or, based on Wikipedia, a television play which is essentially lost. (They have somebody's VHS copy, but the original was wiped on the grounds that people thought it was maybe in poor taste.) The movie itself was written by Paul D. Zimmerman and Andrew Davies, who I think deserve to have that mentioned a bit. It must be extremely difficult to work with or adapt things by the famous, especially when the famous are still alive. Davies adapts things for a living, but you know, Thackeray isn't exactly tearing up the charts these days. What's more, Thackeray isn't upstaging Davies' screenplay of [i]Vanity Fair[/i] with his newest project. If Palin and Jones had written this screenplay, it probably would have had more than a limited release, and I imagine Zimmerman and Davies knew that. Really, I think the one-hour version was probably better not because of its writers but because it was shorter. The movie gets a little bogged down with a romantic subplot. (Yes, Joel, it's true that only love can pad the film! Or, no, but it's true that they're more inclined to use love than anything else.) Ian gets involved with the girl in the quality control department--or, really, the quality control department--and the widow of one of the first guys to get put in the chocolate. I do think the battle between the old-fashioned chocolatier and the modern businessman is a worthwhile addendum to the story, and I wish it had been developed at the expense of the love story, or else that the girlfriend (I think Felicity, played by Sammi Davis) had been better integrated into that subplot. It felt a little scattered the way it was. Anyway, this movie kind of confirms Alton Brown's point that the word "chocolate" is better legislated in the US than Europe. It's not that US inspectors would notice right away that there was people mixed into the chocolate, though What's-Her-Name manages to do it pretty quickly herself. It's that the original "new formula," not Soylent Chocolate, wouldn't have been allowed to be marketed as chocolate in the United States. Legally, white chocolate can't even by called chocolate. (Cocoa butter, yes; cocoa solids, no.) [i]And[/i] it has to have 20% cocoa butter before it can be called white chocolate! Mr. Farris announces with great pride that there isn't a scrap of real chocolate left in the formula. Using fats and things is cheaper, and if no one wants to buy the stuff, clearly, the fault is in the marketing, not in the formula.
(ag) wrote: Want to see it! Will have to take into account!
(kr) wrote: Iron-hooked fury?? No shit!! An oater starring a sailor using a friggin' harpoon against a baddie with a six shooter? You're crazy if you won't watch this film.
(gb) wrote: No one seriously remember anything about this movie except for the fairly sweet VHS cover, and, of course, the fucking bishop of battle. One of my better moments of watching horror as a little kid was screaming USE THE GUN ON THE REST OF THE MONSTERS INSTEAD OF TWO YOU DUM DUM.
(gb) wrote: an really good movie