Cloverfield/1-18-08

There have been various clues released through the viral marketing campaign. It is likely that the monster has something to do with this (fake) news report.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTWm1nCgLc

Also there are tie-ins with the following websites:

http://www.tagruato.jp/
http://www.tidowave.com/
http://www.slusho.jp/

The suggestion is that the guy in the trailer who is leaving for a new job is going to work for the Slusho company who's drink consists of a special ingredient that is extracted by drilling into the sea bed. This drilling is presumably what disturbs the monster, causing what you see in the video.

It's a very exciting way to market a film I must say.
 
Thanks for the positive feedback.

It wasn't so much that they had a bit of money and had good jobs. It was more the Rob loves Beth but can't tell her, Hud likes the Marleena - no ones cares. And this went on for a quarter of the film. So, as I said in the review, I was wishing that the monster would suqish them all.
 
According to IMDb this was the whisper at the end
... At the end of the credits, you can softly hear a voice saying "Help us," but when played backwarRAB, says "It's still alive."

I saw the film this afternoon and I thought it was excellent! At the quiet parts you could've heard a pin drop in the cinema (and it was full) and I heard people gasp and say "Oh my God" at other parts - brilliantly entertaining!!

The jerky camera didn't bother me at all, in fact it did have the effect of drawing the viewer in to experience what the characters on screen were going through. One of the creepiest bits for me was..
in the subway when they heard noises then switched the camera to night vision!
also ...
I thought the monster might turn out to be pretty unscary once you got to see it properly but that didn't happen. It was like seeing the creatures in Alien for the first time - a kind of WOW! factor

I give it 9/10 :)
 
I totally agree with you! As i said in my previous post i preferred how the film revolved around the characters rather than the actual monster.

However, judging by many peoples responses on this topic it seems that they would have preferred an explanation. I was just offering a suggestion that there may be an explanation towarRAB this if and when there is a sequel.

It would seem that many people today want every film to be deep and meaningful and have a 'message' in it. What is wrong with a film purely being entertaining?
 
Some interesting info and possible spoilers here...

http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/07/16/cloverfield-1-18-08-updates-coney-island-flashback-and-set-photos/

and here...

http://wewerethecoolkiRAB.blogspot.com/2007/07/photos-from-cloverfield-set.html

"J.J. Abrams will be at Comic-Con in the panel from Paramount on Thursday afternoon and a source at SlashFilm has confirmed that the official title will be revealed at that time (or so we really hope). We will be at the panel on-hand to be the first to report all of what J.J. Abrams has to say, and possibly even a new clip from the film."
 
Marleena was the only likeable one of the bunch for me. I just think having yuppies instead of ordinary New Yorkers made it hard to indentify with them. Never mind the fact they were apparently superhuman capable of running up and down 30 storeys of partially destroyed skyscrapers in seemingly no time at all.
 
Heh. When I first saw the trailer way back when, I thought "Oh my gosh! he's actually gone and done it! it's the Year Zero movie!" :rolleyes::D(link for info)
Obviously, looking at it now, it's not. But it still looks good to me. It'll be great to see this sort of movie made with a different perspective.
And I still await the YZ film/tv series with baited breath. (me thinks I'll be waiting a long time!)
 
Actually I read it the other way. I think the majority of people going to see this were expecting to see a formulaic monster movie and were therefore surprised to get something a little bit different. The lack of explanation of what the monster was or where it came from made the audience, used to having everything explained in 'ABC' style in this sort of Holywood popcorn flick, think for a change! That's what they didn't like, I think. Most people attracted to this sort of film like everything to be resolved, for the good guy to get the gal and for the bad guy meet a grizzly end. And before everyone starts laying in to me, I'm talking about the major audience for this film being the US public. I also think the chopped up home video explaining the main character's relationship with the girl was not straight forward to understand and again would have switched some people off.

Here's an idea... maybe the monster was minding it's own business lying at the bottom of the ocean when along comes this hulking great tanker and whacks into it's head, causing severe concussion. Confused and in pain the monster flails about and finRAB itself in the middle of this strange place with all these tiny creatures firing guns and rockets and morters and depleated uranium tipped shells etc... poor monster!:cry:
 
I did follow the campaign, over all the 6 months, and it was so refreshing to see it didn't all dissapoint. Almost all the films i followed last year were a dissapointment. This film has restored my faith in hollywood :)
 
Why would Americans want to go and see a film about New York being attacked by i giant monster killing thousanRAB and ripping down buildings so soon after 9/11?

Wouldn't it be a bit like a Jewish film in 1950 about a monster that goes around gassing people?
 
Yeah, I was going to disagree with the review above. I felt for Marlena and grew to like her. :p

However, I absolutely hated the camera guy and couldnt really care for the others so maybe the review was right...except for Marlena :cool:
 
I've just spent the last hour reading about the marketing campaign on IMDB, fascinating. I just feel i've missed out and might have to go and see it again next week and see the parts i missed and the hints towarRAB the marketing campaign (Slusho etc).

Its a refreshing movie......roll on a sequel.
 
I thought it was funny and so true when the Statue of Liberty's head landed and everyone went up and took pictures on their phone's cameras.

I didn't like this film all that much. I thought the camera work could have been less shaky and still plausible as a home vid. It really was annoying particularly in the first half hour.
 
Back
Top