Cloverfield (2008)

DVD Cover (Paramount)
Add to Collection
Sign up to add this to your collection
Add to Favorites
Sign up to add this to your favorites
Movie Stills - View all?
Stills Stills Stills Stills
Overall Rating 64%
Overall Rating
Ranked #316
...out of 9,892 movies
Check In? Sign up to check in!

Connections: Cloverfield

We don't have a synopsis for this movie yet. Check back soon or send us your own!
Lizzy Caplan
Lizzy Caplan
Jessica Lucas
Jessica Lucas
T.J. Miller
T.J. Miller
Michael Stahl-David
Michael Stahl-David
Mike Vogel
Mike Vogel
Review by Tristan
Added: January 19, 2008
1-18-08. A date which has been in the back of my and everyone else's mind since early July. It all started with a teaser trailer before the theatrical release of Transformers, in which audiences were given a glimpse of JJ Abrams newest project, a monster movie of colossal proportions. I wish I could lie and say I didn't get swept up in its viral marketing scheme, but my fellow readers, I did just that. I've been following every website and video clip, even up to the last week, when there's been a few almost every day it seems. The one thing I would not do however, is look at interpretations or sketches of the monster. If I'm going to pay to see this movie, I want to be just as surprised as the rest of the audience by its first appearance. So after paying my $9.95 and settling into my seat, I was treated to a disappointing Blair Witch Project meets Godzilla mash up that really didn't do it for me.

Rob Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David) has just been promoted to vice president, and is moving to Japan for work. His brother Jason (Mike Vogel), Jason's girlfriend (Jessica Lucas) and his best friend Hud (T.J. Miller) are throwing him a surprise going away party. Only trouble is, Rob's in love with Beth (Odette Yustman) and after a previous falling out, the two part ways on bad terms. Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, a large explosion and a horrific growl shake the city. The party goers all rush out into the street just in time to see the Statue of Liberty's head come rolling down the sidewalk. Nobody knows what is going on until they see a massive creature moving through the streets, destroying buildings, eating civilians, and generally causing a ruckus. The film follows Rob, Hud and their friends as they are trapped in the city and desperately trying to survive while making their way to the center of Manhattan to rescue Beth who's been trapped in her apartment.

Do you remember how you felt watching Jurassic Park for the first time? You couldn't believe how realistic the dinosaurs looked, and because of this you felt that there really were dinosaurs terrorizing the civilians. This is not - I repeat - NOT the same experience you'll have with Cloverfield. You'll get a few flashes of the monster which are pretty unsatisfying, and when you finally get a good long look at the thing, you're too busy being annoyed with what's happening off camera to fully enjoy it. So we've got a monster movie that focuses more on some annoying characters that decide to bumble around the city instead of hiding underground somewhere.

This is a pretty big movie for newcomer Matt Reeves to kick off his directing debut with. Most directors slip into the field undetected until they release a real masterpiece that gets them recognized for their talents. Reeves' resume consists of a few episodes for some generic television shows. The same can be said for writer Drew Goddard who, aside from a few television shows, hasn't had a lot of experience. He was however, a writer on the hit series Lost, which as most of you know, is one of the best shows currently offered up to our generation. While this movie is frequently compared to the Blair Witch Project, it really doesn't have much in common besides the hand held camera. The shots are very fast, and the movie moves along at an incredible pace. What's truly amazing about this, is the amount of work that must have gone into creating these visual effects while everything is filmed on a hand held camera. I don't know anything about post-production, but I would imagine this was a lot more difficult than simply tossing a CGI monster into a steadicam shot.

The actors, or should I say "people on screen" don't really offer up much emotion or any personality traits with which the audience can connect. Sure, Rob's trying to rescue Beth and his friends stupidly follow along because we all know that in a time of crisis, the best thing to do is run back into the chaos rather than cut your losses. So you've got a romantic angle, the wise-cracking best friend, and the newly de-boyfriended tag along. Not the most original character ideas, and the characters playing them were quite unbelievable.

Overall, this movie was pretty disappointing. After all the viral marketing hoopla, I expected it to be much better than it was, and have a little more meat to it. It will obviously do very well at the box office, but I would imagine it will die down very quickly. If you plan on seeing it, go to the theatre and see it, as that's really the only way it could be watched. When I stop and think about it, I don't know why it's getting such rave reviews, because it really wasn't all that impressive.

Review by bluemeanie
Added: January 18, 2008
When I first saw the trailer for "Cloverfield" I remember thinking - "It's Godzilla". I mean, what else could it be? J.J. Abrams tried to do the whole super secret marketing campaign, but what else is sending the head of the statue of liberty flying around like a ping pong ball? It sure as hell isn't Osama Bin Laden. He hates freedom, but that might be overkill, even for him. So, the big question has been - what does the creature look like? Is it Godzilla? Is it the StayPuft Marshmellow Man? Finally, those answers have been solved with the release of "Cloverfield", which has turned out to be the "Snakes On A Plane" of 2008, and the year isn't even a month old. The film comes to us from director Matt Reeves, who helmed "The Pallbearer" starring David Schwimmer. We won't judge him on his past endeavors; at least, we will try not to. What "Cloverfield" made me realize was - there's really only a few ways to destroy a city and we've already them all. You can either do it with a tidal wave, an earthquake, a creature, an explosion or a Garth Brooks concert. So, if you've seen one city destroyed, you've seen them all, right? Right. "Cloverfield" doesn't offer anything new in that department. I suppose it makes for good popcorn entertainment, but I can't help but feel like "Cloverfield" relied too heavily on what it thought was a cool device.

The picture opens with a color bar and the statement that the footage we are about to see was recovered from Central Park in New York City. We then head into some random slices of video from our main characters. We've got Rob Hawkins (Michael David-Stahl), who is moving to Japan for work. He's being thrown a surprise going away party by his brother Jason (Mike Vogel), Jason's girlfriend Lily (Jessica Lucas) and his best friend Hud (T.J. Miller). During the party, all hell breaks loose in the Big Apple. There are explosions, people being eaten and a whole lot of mass chaos and no one seems to know what it is - that is, until we see a huge ass three toed sloth tearing up the city. Houston, we have a problem. The film follows the group of friends as they try to make it to safety, and then follows them as Rob goes after the girl he loves, Beth (Odette Yustman), who is bleeding and trapped in her apartment building in the middle of the city. We basically get a lot of scenes of people running around with the camera going every which way, and then an equal amount of scenes of strained emotional acting, or should I say attempted emotional acting. The most realistic of all the performances came from the creature, whom I have nicknamed Sloth. And, no, not the lovable mentally retarded oaf from "The Goonies". This Sloth has a particularly nasty attitude.

What really could have driven this story was a human element. Maybe that was attempted, but it did not come off at all. You've got the lead guy, Rob, whose hands never get dirty - literally, his hands are almost always clean. You've got Hub, who is there for comic relief, and his jokes and witty banter during the most shocking situations is just plain ridiculous. And then there's good old Beth, who couldn't act her way through an Ed Wood film. The filmmakers were trying to make this film look like a realistic account of what would happen during an attack like this. It didn't work so well because everything these 'supposed realistic' characters did was cliched and formulaic. If people in real life are supposed to make the same stupid mistakes as people in fantasy, does that mean the human race is universally stupid? "Cloverfield" is "The Blair Witch Project" meets an amped up version of "Godzilla". I don't think the two blend well together. There was too much of the whole camera shaking around thing. I find it difficult to believe, during all they encountered, the camera did not somehow become broken or lost or messed up in any way. Not to mention, that battery has the longest life I have ever seen. And, since when did the mic from a camera like that every pick up so well? Realism takes a hike when you need to hear the damned actors.

There are a few good things about the picture - like I said, it entertained me. The most evident positives are the two leads - Michael Stahl-David and Mike Vogel. Why? Because they're hot, hot, hot - that's why. Neither is an exceptionally strong actor, but they can get away with it because they are absolutely adorable. As for the ladies, they don't fare so well. Odette Yustman is beyond awful in her role - she looks and talks just like Jessica Alba, and if any creature decides to attack any part of the United States, my hope would be that he would take Jessica Alba first and foremost, and then go straight for her look alikes. There is also a neat scene reminiscent of "Alien" where the Army guys try and quarantine one of them - need shadow movement. I also enjoyed the scene in the tunnel with the night vision. I've seen it before, but it was still nicely done. It's just so hard for me to totally appreciate the entertainment value of a film that throws logic out the window whenever it is given the opportunity. No one talks the way people would talk, no one acts the way people would act and no one points up to the sky and shouts, "Godzilla! Godzilla!" With a name like "Cloverfield", I was hoping maybe the creature was some sort of giant leprechaun, scouring the city for his missing pot of gold. What the hell does "Cloverfield" even mean? Was it some sort of government experiment, and if it was, why did they enlarge a three toed sloth? Was it an alien? Was it a dinosaur? Some times, questions are better left unanswered. Not this time.

C'est la vie, the first big 'blockbuster' of the year. I will give J.J. Abrams & Company kudos for running one hell of a strong marketing campaign. We'll see if it pays off in the way they hoped. I can't tell you not to see the film because I was entertained and it never bored me. It annoyed me from time to time, but I'd rather be annoyed and entertained than happy and bored. "Cloverfield" takes an overused sub-genre and really adds nothing new to it. What it does add was added back in 1999 with a little film called "The Blair Witch Project". The special effects are well done and the creature was intimidating enough, I suppose. But, really - you could make the creature a three hundred foot tall Shirley Temple and it would still be petrifying. "Cloverfield" does do one thing, however, that many films have never been able to do. It was able to show the world that no matter what happens - no matter what explosions you have to hide from, no matter what wounds you have to bandage, no matter what dirt you have to crawl through - you can still have spotless hands the entire time. "Cloverfield" - the secret is out. It's "Godzilla". You heard me. Raaaaar!

Nirrad #1: Nirrad - added 01/18/2008, 10:23 AM
4/10? Ouch, I'll be catching this later on tonight. I have no expectations for it, so hopefully I'll walk out of the theater happy.
Crispy #2: Crispy - added 01/18/2008, 10:55 AM
I didn't read your review for fear of spoilers, but in the last few months I've had a real sinking feeling about this movie. Namely, that it's more fluff and style over making a good monster movie. Judging by your low score, I may not have been right on the mark.
Ginose #3: Ginose - added 01/18/2008, 01:42 PM
Huh. I suppose I'll still go see it. Your opinion has been wrong before (though I almost trust you completely on this one).
grain of sand #4: grain of sand - added 01/18/2008, 07:44 PM
this was pretty cool, not exactly what I was expecting though. I'm not let down, definitely should only see this in theatres..
Nirrad #5: Nirrad - added 01/18/2008, 09:49 PM
Just got back from seeing it. I'm not sure what to say. After the first half hour or so I was thinking "lame, lame lame!" But then it finally got entertaining. I would have to say that I pretty much knew what was going to happen during select scenes, which is a shame. I went in with no expectations, and since I sat there and watched the movie, I would say it did it's job. A score between 5-7 would be accurate in my opinion. I also agree with grain of sand. This movie needs to be seen in theaters, as watching this on a DVD would seem lame.
waxtadpole3657 #6: waxtadpole3657 - added 01/19/2008, 01:21 AM
I had a lot of fun at this film. I never expected it to be anything amazing, but the experience was definitely a lot of fun. The creature looked really badass, and the film was actually pretty intense and terrifying at times. I just kinda wished it had ended 10 minutes earlier (surviving a helicopter crash? PUH-LEASE). All in all, it was a lot of fun at the cinemas. Oh, and kudos to the sound guys. 8/10
Mr. Mistoffelees #7: Mr. Mistoffelees - added 01/19/2008, 03:11 PM
I have been on the fence about this one but I'm going to see it tonight with the lady. One thing though waxtadpole: some people haven't seen the movie, so writing what happens in the end kind of kills a part of the movie.
waxtadpole3657 #8: waxtadpole3657 - added 01/20/2008, 01:29 AM
GOD DAMMIT I'm an IDIOT. I wish we could edit posts so I could put spoilers in my post. >_< Anyone reading this, DON'T read my other post if you haven't seen the movie.
Ginose #9: Ginose - added 01/20/2008, 01:45 AM
OMG! You ruined it for me! How could you!? This splinded peice of art would have been ten times more amazing if you hadn't...

...this one was actually pretty boring. Nothing happened that the trailers didn't imply would happen. Not to mention the "realism" of the shaky-cam got nauseating very quick. "The Blair Witch Project" wasn't even that fucking incomprehinsible 92% of the time. The acting wasn't awful or anything but... eh... I could have done with some of them being able to do something other than scream. I did love the effects though, they looked very nice (as was to be expected).

All in all, just more proof that Americans have truly lost the ability to make an amzing giant-monster movie (especially when it had as much potential as this one did).
Ginose #10: Ginose - added 01/20/2008, 01:48 AM
Typo noted: 5.8/10
Edd #11: Edd - added 01/20/2008, 03:22 PM
I loved it. Three-toed sloth? What the fuck? It was an evil monster thing. 9/10
Nirrad #12: Nirrad - added 01/20/2008, 08:30 PM
This movie is gonna make mad money at the box office. It wade $41 million in just 3 days in theaters. The movie only had a budget of $25million, so I'm pretty sure the studios are extremely happy.
Tristan #13: Tristan - added 01/20/2008, 08:37 PM
That's your 3rd comment in three days. Keep it up and this will be the #1 viewed movie on the site.
I gave it a 7, I wasn't overly impressed, but I wouldn't mind watching it in theatres again. For all it's faults, it had a couple of standout scenes and aspects that are sticking in my mind.
bluemeanie #14: bluemeanie - added 01/21/2008, 08:01 PM
It still looked like a three toed sloth, evil or not.
Mr. Mistoffelees #15: Mr. Mistoffelees - added 01/22/2008, 09:19 AM
Usually I agree with one of two of the reviewers on this site, namely because I know a decent amount about film but they know more. However, given that I feel the acting was believable, no one made any horribly unintelligent decisions (who wouldn't try to say someone they're in love with?) and the action was well-paced, I have to say I had minor to no complaints about this one. Sorry blue, but I give it a 9/10.
bluemeanie #16: bluemeanie - added 01/22/2008, 12:11 PM
Everyone made believable decisions? The most glaring mistake of all -- when the chopper crashed and they survived -- knowing that the government was about to bomb the shit out of the place, why didn't they go back to the subway? Back underground? Having been to New York, there are several stops adjacent to Central Park, and being New Yorkers themselves, they would have known that. Maybe it wasn't a lack of believability, but a surplus of stupidity.
BuryMeAlive #17: BuryMeAlive - added 02/11/2008, 05:27 PM
SPOILERS: I sure have learned one thing this year thanks to this and AVP2 - surviving a helicopter crash is really fucking easy.
billie #18: billie - added 03/17/2008, 09:27 PM
why did so many people have such a bad reaction to this amazing movie? and you better not say, "...because it wasn't amazing."
bluemeanie #19: bluemeanie - added 03/19/2008, 10:23 AM
But, what better response than the most logical -- it was NOT an amazing movie. Done to death. Nothing utterly original. Mediocre acting. You need more? I think that is quite enough.
billie #20: billie - added 04/01/2008, 12:29 AM
you can't have amazing acting in something that is suppose to be all real and shit
BuryMeAlive #21: BuryMeAlive - added 04/01/2008, 06:24 AM
Cloverfield was real? It really happened? I had no idea...
bluemeanie #22: bluemeanie - added 04/01/2008, 10:12 AM
you can't have amazing acting in something that is suppose to be all real and shit

That is such a ridiculous comment. "The Blair Witch Project" was supposed to be real and the acting was phenomenal. All of Christopher Guest's films are -- technically -- 'supposed to be real', even though they're not -- and his actors are always amazing. You can't say it's OK for the actors to be bad just because they're supposed to be real. That is absurd.
Chad #23: Chad - added 04/09/2008, 10:38 AM
I skipped reading the reviews and comments on this site until just now, as I wanted to be totally surprised during my first viewing. Wow, I'm shocked at some of the comments on this page, as I thought this was an excellent movie. It was extremely realistic (except for that helicopter scene, as mentioned above), the monster looked great, and the way the story was told was perfect (read: we see what the characters see and we didn't get the obligatory "scientist pops up out of nowhere to explain everything" scene). With the exception of the lady who played Beth, I had no problems with the acting; they may not have been award-winners, but they acted realistically and kept me in the mood.

Oh, and about the audio / video thing bluemeanie mentioned in his review - yeah, that might have been stretching things a bit, but it wouldn't have been a very exciting film if the battery had died or if the camera broke thirty minutes into the movie, and it would have sucked if we couldn't hear a damned thing the characters were saying. A bit unrealistic, yes, but that was mandatory in my humble opinion.

Not quite a perfect film, but I loved it. 9/10.
bluemeanie #24: bluemeanie - added 04/09/2008, 01:56 PM
It was unoriginal. Everything is tried has been done before in a plethora of other films. I can't enjoy a film with zero originality and a film that goes along as if the audience has no common sense whatsoever. Much better films about monsters attacking cities.
Chad #25: Chad - added 04/09/2008, 04:18 PM
Everything has been done before to some degree - you name any recent horror movie (that I've seen), and I could name off a handful of movies that it borrowed from. I'll concede that this borrowed liberally from other "big monster" movies (Godzilla and The Host, mostly), and of course, there's the whole Blair Witch camera thing... but is that really a bad thing if the movie works? Also, I enjoyed The Host more than this one, but aside from that, this has to be my favorite of the "monster versus city" releases.

Difference of opinion, I suppose, but I'll definitely be purchasing this.
bluemeanie #26: bluemeanie - added 04/10/2008, 10:09 AM
Yes, difference of opinion. But this whole "Everything has been done before" attitude from people is so old. Everything has NOT been done before to some extent. You can take an idea that has been done before and do something original with it. And you can come up with completely new ideas and concepts to. The well has not been tapped out yet, but this film sure makes it seem like it has.
Chad #27: Chad - added 04/10/2008, 10:54 AM
In that case, how many monster movies have you seen that feature the "you are there" style of storytelling besides this one? None that I've seen.
bluemeanie #28: bluemeanie - added 04/10/2008, 12:06 PM
How many? I would consider both "The Blair Witch Project", but especially "The Last Broadcast" to be 'monster movies', most notably the latter. All this movie is is "The Blair Witch Project" meets "Godzilla". It's really just an American remake of "Godzilla", minus Matthew Broderick, and the creature is lame. It looks like a damned three toed sloth. Ain't nothing scarier than that.
Tristan #29: Tristan - added 04/10/2008, 02:17 PM
It doesn't look like a three-toed sloth, and what are you really hoping for? If you have some amazing monster all drawn up in your head, I'm sure we'd be glad to hear about it. It's 2008, all the monster ideas have already been done to death. They needed a monster to look as though it came from the sea, and that's exactly what it looks like. I kind of regret only giving this a 7/10 now, because aside from the helicopter scene and a bit of bad acting, it was very entertaining. I think the "no mad scientist with a plan" angle was a fresh change, and as far as being from the point of view of the people living in NY at the time, I'd say they did a damn fine job. After re-watching it, and giving it some hard though, I'm going with an 8/10.
Chad #30: Chad - added 04/10/2008, 03:20 PM
The creature looked great, but I can see where you're / he's coming from with the sloth thing, can't deny that one.

Anywho, those two movies did the "you're there" thing before this one (remember how I said everything has been done before?), but it's never been done with a monster movie (and by monster movie, I mean a huge monster that can attack a city) - that's the point I was trying to make. And to take a quote from you: "You can take an idea that has been done before and do something original with it."
Mr. Mistoffelees #31: Mr. Mistoffelees - added 04/10/2008, 04:00 PM
This is quite the controversial movie. I still think it was a great movie, it had a a few flaws and things that one can squabble about, but overall I felt that the monster movie genre was somewhat refreshed with this outing. I know I'll probably get flak, but that's just my opinion. I've seen the old third-party perfect camera angles before where everything feels so set up and focused all the time, this one made me feel like I was either watching a real attack on tape or there myself. It was both fun and frightening, especially the subway scene.
bluemeanie #32: bluemeanie - added 04/10/2008, 04:04 PM
The key word there is 'original'.
billie #33: billie - added 04/17/2008, 11:01 PM
that's totally not what i meant. i just mean it was suppose to look real. if angelina jolie was in it, it totally wouldn't be the same
C L #34: C L - added 05/25/2008, 03:07 AM
This was better than I had been led to believe, and I actually hadn't read any of the reviews here until after I just watched it. If I hadn't just seen [REC] last night I would almost certainly have given this a higher rating, but still , I enjoyed it, I felt like the actions the characters took were realistic, the helicopter crash notwithstanding, and it was just a good monster movie, not as good as "The Host", but still : 7/10.
Greg Follender #35: Greg Follender - added 05/25/2008, 02:52 PM
This was basically a piece of poop painted in dazzlingly bright colors...

I can't even begin to note all the unrealistic moments in this film because the word limit in these comment boxes won't allow it (running sequences with a woman whom just moments earlier had her lung pierced by a piece of rebar and laid bleeding unchecked for far over the few minutes it would have taken to die from hydrostatic shock)...), but suffice it to say, that even aside from the ridiculous hand-held camera accuracy we as an audience are supposed to swallow... this film had plenty other of problems to contend with!

I live in New York City folks... and the way that critter moved was beyond implausible... downtown,uptown, crosstown... then instantly downtown again... it just didn't make any sense. I understand that they were wary of repeating locations used in prior films released at the time, but better care could have been taken.

The acting was practically nonsensical at points... sure, I MIGHT have the temporary insanity to try and rescue an EX while fleeing for my life from an unknown monster bent on killing everyone around me... but I seriously doubt that anyone else (especially a few folks that had just seen their friends/boyfriend/loved ones brutally slain in front of them) would follow me into a half-wrecked building that was on the precipice of falling into ruin to risk their lives to assist me in locating a past fling who was probably a crimson smear among the carnage that was once her apartment building!!! Please people... just because it looks gritty and cool, doesn't mean that it makes any sense!

With even a modicum of insight (and perhaps a better script) this could have been something quite special... maybe. Why did we have to see it all from one group's perspective? Why couldn't the "file contain multiple views or observation experiences from varied sources to imply a wider sense of panic?

PS: The monster is a rip-off of Orga, the critter from "Godzilla 2000".
Greg Follender #36: Greg Follender - added 05/25/2008, 02:59 PM
Sorry about the rant... but as a champion of the "monster attacks city" genre, I felt that I needed to speak my piece.
This is easily the slickest representation of the theme, that's for sure... but that's about it.
The whole thing screams "TV Director" to me... but again, this is all my humble opinion.

I'm glad a lot of you folks liked it though... it's box-office earnings will serve as example to the good folks at Toho that the giant monster (kaiju) film is still viable these days! I want to wash "Final Wars" from my palate as soon as possible...

I give it a 6 out of 10... and only that for the convincingly obscured special effects.

Kari Byron's Sex Cyborg #37: Kari Byron's Sex Cyborg - added 06/18/2008, 11:58 PM
. . .

Optimus Prime #38: Optimus Prime - added 01/20/2009, 03:57 PM
One of my favorites of 2008. 10/10
Crispy #39: Crispy - added 04/16/2009, 12:43 AM
I think all of you people crying foul on the realism were expecting too much. When it comes to these giant monster movies, a very healthy suspension of disbelief is a must. And yes, that includes character logic. And as for Beth and her lack of acting skills, I'm willing to forgive her there because she's hot as hell. As per usual with "you are there" flicks, I hated the approach (BWP is the only time I've appreciated it), but the "flashback" gimmick to the day at Coney Island was a pretty cool idea. I didn't like the creature itself though; I thought it was too spindly and the inverted front legs made it look really awkward. All in all, the movie was mildly entertaining. It exceeded my expectations, which were extremely low. I'd probably go about 5.5 or a 6.
Greg Follender #40: Greg Follender - added 04/16/2009, 08:59 PM
Lotsa problems with those flashbacks even still being within the film proper if it was filmed the way the story purports it to be...
It's not so much that folks expect "realism", so to speak... it's just that utter stupidity and bad storytelling tends to bog down the narrative.

If the film didn't try so hard to project a sense of "you are there realism"... then it's complete failure to achieve this wouldn't be so glaringly noticeable;)

Still, your rating matches mine... we're on the same page.
Lucid Dreams #41: Lucid Dreams - added 07/11/2010, 02:52 AM
It was ok, but the acting was awful, and the monster looked stupid. However, I would have loved to see Lizzy Caplan naked on here. 4/10
Sign up to add your comment. Sign up to add your comment.
Recommended Movies
Monster 10 Cloverfield Lane The Cloverfield Paradox Them! Annihilation Overlord Bride Of The Monster Beware! The Blob Creepozoids Cleavagefield Pitch Black Godzilla, King Of The Monsters! I Am Legend Snake Outta Compton Godzilla The Stand Fatal Contact: Bird Flu In America Dinocroc
Layout, reviews and code © 2000-2022 | Privacy Policy
Contact: Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Review Updates