10 Cloverfield Lane - Viral Mystery-Box Advertising Delivers
- Thread starter Marter
- Start date
Neat, I had been hoping that this would be as good as the trailer made it seem. It's definitely a "What's in the box? WHAT'S IN THE BOOOOOX?!" type of film...the problem with movies marketed that way is that when you find out what is in the box it could turn out to be a solid brick of gold or a giant pile of shit. Glad to hear that it's the former with this one, John Goodman has always been one of my favorite actors and it seems like forever since I've seen him in anything.
Wow, seriously what a way to sell me on a movie! I already wanted to see it because of the cast and "bottle" feel of the trailer, but after reading the reviews, I might have to see this for the way it was talked about.
I also like the "anthology" idea behind this too, as mentioned in the review. Even if it ties in tangentially or thematically, it reminds me of certain game series that tried new things- your USA Mario 2's, your Zelda 2's, your Castlevania 2's, your Silent Hill 2's. Hell, certain movies have done this too- Alien/Aliens, The Terminator/T2: Judgement Day, Batman Begins/ The Dark Knight.
I also liked the original Cloverfield. It hasn't aged well, it's clearly a post-September 11th movie.
I also like the "anthology" idea behind this too, as mentioned in the review. Even if it ties in tangentially or thematically, it reminds me of certain game series that tried new things- your USA Mario 2's, your Zelda 2's, your Castlevania 2's, your Silent Hill 2's. Hell, certain movies have done this too- Alien/Aliens, The Terminator/T2: Judgement Day, Batman Begins/ The Dark Knight.
I also liked the original Cloverfield. It hasn't aged well, it's clearly a post-September 11th movie.
So, no more giant monster horror? Ahhh, well. Pass, I guess, unless it's on Netflix and I have no actual horror movies to watch.
I saw this last night, basically the same thing here: everything in the bunker is really good, the ending is, mm, maybe I'll appreciate it more as time goes on. Good news is the bunker is 90% of the movie so it's a win for me.
ALIENS!
There's a weird spaceship that's half organic and there's a shiny scaled fast-moving worm-bear monster.
Here's what I think about the ending, if you care.
With Cloverfield in the title, even if you know it's only tangentially related, there are things that are expected, not saying they *have* to be there, I was just expecting them, you know? But honestly, I don't know what I expected outside the bunker. I was hoping for the monster but figured it could go either way, and if I wasn't going to get it at least acknowledge that it existed, that the old monster had at least happened at some point in history.
It didn't even make that connection but I think I'm okay with that in a way because it's called Cloverfield. Maybe I'm hangin' on the title pretty hard here, but if I had gone into this movie with Cloverfield-ish expectations, the ending would have been REALLY STUPID. But you know, simply because it shares the name, I think I'll let it get away with it because I was expecting something, if Michelle had gotten up top and everything was fine and normal, I probably would have really disliked that more than what we got.
TL;DR: It was aliens, the monsters not mentioned, the ending's unexpected not in a good or bad way, just unexpected.
I will say, one thing I did really like about the ending, the last shot is gorgeous. It's nighttime, Michelle is driving towards, Houston or Dallas, I can't remember. Anyway. it's dark, you see almost nothing other than the car and the city and some lightning bolts. On the right side of the frame, the lightning occasionally lit up the silhouette of a HUGE spaceship, it was really cool.
And as long as I'm here, I saw two connections (or references?) to the first movie. The first is a Slusho sign, which for those who may not remember is a fictional slurpee-like drink that exists in the universe. And the second is the alien spaceship makes a roar that sounds a lot like the monster, maybe it made other sounds that came from the first movie, but only one I recognized.
There's a weird spaceship that's half organic and there's a shiny scaled fast-moving worm-bear monster.
Here's what I think about the ending, if you care.
With Cloverfield in the title, even if you know it's only tangentially related, there are things that are expected, not saying they *have* to be there, I was just expecting them, you know? But honestly, I don't know what I expected outside the bunker. I was hoping for the monster but figured it could go either way, and if I wasn't going to get it at least acknowledge that it existed, that the old monster had at least happened at some point in history.
It didn't even make that connection but I think I'm okay with that in a way because it's called Cloverfield. Maybe I'm hangin' on the title pretty hard here, but if I had gone into this movie with Cloverfield-ish expectations, the ending would have been REALLY STUPID. But you know, simply because it shares the name, I think I'll let it get away with it because I was expecting something, if Michelle had gotten up top and everything was fine and normal, I probably would have really disliked that more than what we got.
TL;DR: It was aliens, the monsters not mentioned, the ending's unexpected not in a good or bad way, just unexpected.
I will say, one thing I did really like about the ending, the last shot is gorgeous. It's nighttime, Michelle is driving towards, Houston or Dallas, I can't remember. Anyway. it's dark, you see almost nothing other than the car and the city and some lightning bolts. On the right side of the frame, the lightning occasionally lit up the silhouette of a HUGE spaceship, it was really cool.
And as long as I'm here, I saw two connections (or references?) to the first movie. The first is a Slusho sign, which for those who may not remember is a fictional slurpee-like drink that exists in the universe. And the second is the alien spaceship makes a roar that sounds a lot like the monster, maybe it made other sounds that came from the first movie, but only one I recognized.
Saw an advanced screening, I like this movie.
It's a hell of a lot less messy than Cloverfield, both in terms of the plot and it's camera work (obviously). It's also far more ripe for a sequel too, which I would completely go to see. I reckon it's the best film Abram's been involved in, it's certainly my favourite.
There is totally a giant monster, in fact there are several, but they're not more Clovers, they are somewhat less giant than that. They have more in common with the The Combine's synth weapons or with Tyranids than Kaiju. In fact the way they operate is very Combine.
In fact, think the fact that Howard is both every bit as evil as he initially seems and he is completely telling the truth about the apocalyptic situation outside makes the film even better.
Of all the people to end up with in the middle of an alien invasion, you get a crazy murderous kidnapper. Talk about a rock and a hard place. While I'm at it, the hound-thing's face, oh dear God the hound thing's face.
I also like that for once Mr Abrams Mystery Box actually had something in it.
It's a hell of a lot less messy than Cloverfield, both in terms of the plot and it's camera work (obviously). It's also far more ripe for a sequel too, which I would completely go to see. I reckon it's the best film Abram's been involved in, it's certainly my favourite.
<spoiler=WARNING, completely spoilerific, no reading unless you want spoilers>the December King said:
There is totally a giant monster, in fact there are several, but they're not more Clovers, they are somewhat less giant than that. They have more in common with the The Combine's synth weapons or with Tyranids than Kaiju. In fact the way they operate is very Combine.
In fact, think the fact that Howard is both every bit as evil as he initially seems and he is completely telling the truth about the apocalyptic situation outside makes the film even better.
Of all the people to end up with in the middle of an alien invasion, you get a crazy murderous kidnapper. Talk about a rock and a hard place. While I'm at it, the hound-thing's face, oh dear God the hound thing's face.
I also like that for once Mr Abrams Mystery Box actually had something in it.
Damn 
On one hand, I'm super excited to see this movie. The trailer looked really cool and the reviews are giving it pretty glowing
praise.
On the other hand...
I loved CLoverfield. Like...loved it a lot. Like...A LOT a lot. I am happy that the film is expected to be good but I am incredibly disappointed that it's not a true sequel. Even with the "traditional" camerawork versus shaky-cam, I'm sad to hear that it's barely Cloverfield related. All well, I suppose Cloverfield itself didn't really need a true sequel anyway as it was pretty well self-contained.
On one hand, I'm super excited to see this movie. The trailer looked really cool and the reviews are giving it pretty glowing
praise.
On the other hand...
I loved CLoverfield. Like...loved it a lot. Like...A LOT a lot. I am happy that the film is expected to be good but I am incredibly disappointed that it's not a true sequel. Even with the "traditional" camerawork versus shaky-cam, I'm sad to hear that it's barely Cloverfield related. All well, I suppose Cloverfield itself didn't really need a true sequel anyway as it was pretty well self-contained.
I love John Goodman. I got to meet him backstage on SNL when I was there back in '98. The man is huge, and actually an awesome human being. I was walking down the hallway backstage and he was coming in, he took up the hallway and I stepped to the side to let him pass when he turns aside and said "no, sir you go first." I got to talk to him a bit afterward as well and he was funny, smart and just overall like a giant teddy bear type.
I've always liked him since then for treating me like a person and being so down to Earth. So I'll think about seeing this in theaters (budget may preclude it). I was hoping this would turn out well.
I've always liked him since then for treating me like a person and being so down to Earth. So I'll think about seeing this in theaters (budget may preclude it). I was hoping this would turn out well.
That story is awesome and I couldn't help but hear his voice when I read it.Imperioratorex Caprae said:
There have been proposals that 'Cloverfield' should become a franchise in itself, that each movie henceforth carrying the Cloverfield title should be independent, but keep some things consistent across each entry using the name:
1. Keep the tone of it being a thriller, not HORROR
2. Focus the experience to one area, a 'site' if you will, carrying the 'cloverfield' name
3. Focused scripts, non-excessive amount of characters, no massive amounts of world building
And honestly, I could dig Cloverfield being a sort of Twilight Zone styled 'new story, same feel' franchise that allows smaller groups or writers with really compelling screenplays to get their shot at getting it noticed.
A film I don't get to know a fuckton about, has a clearly ambiguous implication (Because most people outside of those invested themselves in the ARG had next to no clue that a MONSTER was behind the attacks) of how things got to where they were with one hell of an intense and divisive ending and either a strong premise or a really good set of actors. In the case of 10 Cloverfield Lane, the scripts and the delivery outshines its predecessor and I cannot implore enough that even as a huge fan of the original, you should see this 'blood relative' because I DEFINITELY could 'feel' the lifeblood that was cloverfield within the film.
1. Keep the tone of it being a thriller, not HORROR
2. Focus the experience to one area, a 'site' if you will, carrying the 'cloverfield' name
3. Focused scripts, non-excessive amount of characters, no massive amounts of world building
And honestly, I could dig Cloverfield being a sort of Twilight Zone styled 'new story, same feel' franchise that allows smaller groups or writers with really compelling screenplays to get their shot at getting it noticed.
I know exactly where you're coming from friend, I had my hopes for this as well. But as time went on, I reeled my fondness in and opened up my mind to the same approach I went at Cloverfield with:tippy2k2 said:Damn
On one hand, I'm super excited to see this movie. The trailer looked really cool and the reviews are giving it pretty glowing
praise.
On the other hand...
I loved CLoverfield. Like...loved it a lot. Like...A LOT a lot. I am happy that the film is expected to be good but I am incredibly disappointed that it's not a true sequel. Even with the "traditional" camerawork versus shaky-cam, I'm sad to hear that it's barely Cloverfield related. All well, I suppose Cloverfield itself didn't really need a true sequel anyway as it was pretty well self-contained.
A film I don't get to know a fuckton about, has a clearly ambiguous implication (Because most people outside of those invested themselves in the ARG had next to no clue that a MONSTER was behind the attacks) of how things got to where they were with one hell of an intense and divisive ending and either a strong premise or a really good set of actors. In the case of 10 Cloverfield Lane, the scripts and the delivery outshines its predecessor and I cannot implore enough that even as a huge fan of the original, you should see this 'blood relative' because I DEFINITELY could 'feel' the lifeblood that was cloverfield within the film.
Is it just me or science fiction fans are more forgiving and open minded about sequels and reboots than they are with original movies? One example would be the hate that Jupiter Ascending got and the praise that Star Wars 7: A New Hope Again got. When you come down to it, both movies had archetypical tropes. Yet, when Star Wars did it, it was comforting and reassuring for the fans.
The reason I brought this up. I wonder how many people would have seen this movie without the name "Cloverfield" attached to it? Honestly, I would be more interested if it wasn't attached to Cloverfield. While I like the original movie in a "It surpasses my low expectations" way. I wasn't clamoring for any sequels or anthology of it.
How well did I think they integrate Cloverfield with this movie? If you watched it and didn't know it was part of the Cloverfield universe, you still wouldn't know that it was part of the Cloverfield series.
If you are looking for excellent acting from a small cast with a tight, suspenseful script. See this movie. I am already reading articles advocating for Oscar nomination for John Goodman. It's not hyperbole. He is that good. The other 2 actors are great as well. I thought Marter really undersold how good John Gallagher Jr. was. I do not see Mary Elizabeth Winstead in enough movies. She has never gave a bad performance.
Highly recommended for people who are not fans of Cloverfield.
The reason I brought this up. I wonder how many people would have seen this movie without the name "Cloverfield" attached to it? Honestly, I would be more interested if it wasn't attached to Cloverfield. While I like the original movie in a "It surpasses my low expectations" way. I wasn't clamoring for any sequels or anthology of it.
How well did I think they integrate Cloverfield with this movie? If you watched it and didn't know it was part of the Cloverfield universe, you still wouldn't know that it was part of the Cloverfield series.
If you are looking for excellent acting from a small cast with a tight, suspenseful script. See this movie. I am already reading articles advocating for Oscar nomination for John Goodman. It's not hyperbole. He is that good. The other 2 actors are great as well. I thought Marter really undersold how good John Gallagher Jr. was. I do not see Mary Elizabeth Winstead in enough movies. She has never gave a bad performance.
Highly recommended for people who are not fans of Cloverfield.