comment #1

le corbeau says ...

It's a bigass monster wrecks New York movie with GenXers and shakycam. What is there not to know?

comment #2

JD says ...

It's a very good trailer, but the trailer (and the movie as a whole, presumably) is hurt by one major mistake: 2.35:1. Doesn't that aspect ratio kind of undermine the whole home video aspect of the idea? If they has any Gus Van Sant-sized balls, this would be shot 1.33:1, the way it's meant to be.

Side note: finally seeing this trailer, I noticed that Matt Reeves directed the film. Since he co-wrote The Yards, which is better than anything Abrams has ever been involved with, this should henceforth be referred to as "a Matt Reeves film," not "a JJ Abrams film."

I'm also gonna go out on a limb and say that this was at least partly inspired by The Host, which similarly used shaky, handheld cinematography for mass CGI carnage. I guess Spielberg did the same thing in War of the Worlds, but I don't like that movie enough to give him all the credit.

comment #3

Bilge says ...

The real clue in that trailer is the release date: 1.18.08. That tells you all you need to know about what this movie's gonna be.

comment #4

Mcflyboy says ...

Great point JD. Sure, the CGI wouldn't look as good (although it doesn't look all that great in 2.35:1) but if they're gonna make a gimmick movie like this, they should go all the way.

comment #5

bmcintire says ...

The fact that the trailer is cut at 2.35:1 does not necessarily mean the feature will be as well. Shot at full app (as pretty much everything is now), this can be trimmed to any aspect ratio desired. They may have matted the trailer as Scope so it wouldn't be a jarring aspect ratio change from one trailer to the next.
As for the release date, I'm not sure what to make of it. Pretty much NO film targets January as a release while it is still shooting. Films that are long in the can end up getting dumped there once it's been decided the picture is a dog. Is the date a red herring?

comment #6

mutinyco says ...

Looked like HD pushed for grain/visibility, shot interlaced. If they didn't want it at 2.35 they could've just gone with 16:9. The 2.35 looked wrong.

The only thing interesting about this is how major motion pictures are being infuenced by low-budget DV/HD filmmaking and "reality" entertainment. They've finally gotten the sublime effect achieved when you establish a documentary-style mundane reality, and then have that invaded by something completely absurd.

But yeah, release date is pretty telling. No idea why everybody's buzzing about this.

comment #7

rgmax99 says ...

The release date means zilch about the quality of the final product.

It's been posted many times before that any date post-Jan. 1 does not automatically mean the film is will be a financial dog. Hannibal, Ghost Rider, The Passion of the Christ, Norbit, even as far back as The Silence of the Lambs -- if it's a good film, the audience will come.

comment #8

mutinyco says ...

I think you've misstated your point. What you meant to say is that the poor quality of the final product doesn't mean it will be a financial dog. Of the movie's you've listed, only one would achieve any kind of consensus of quality -- the last title.

comment #9

Bilge says ...

"Hannibal, Ghost Rider, The Passion of the Christ, Norbit..."

The question isn't whether it will be a financial flop, but whether it will be any good or not. There is a reason why NORBIT was released in early February. And often, the audience comes even if the movie is bad. (Lest we forget WILD HOGS.)

THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS was one of a few notable exceptions, sure, and for all we know CLOVERFIELD may be another one. But I won't hold my breath.

comment #10

BurmaShave says ...

Say what you will about his sanity and his values, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is one of the best uses of the visual medium of the past ten years.

comment #11

Aunt Sassy says ...

"...a pseudo-knowitall talking to USA Today's Anthony Breznican about J.J. Abrams' Cloverfield trailer."

Hmmm...pseudo-knowitall. Now who does that remind me of?

comment #12

bmcintire says ...

THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, though it opened in NY and LA on January 31/February 1, had its national rollout on Valentine's Day, at date that became an "it" release date for the next few years (and predicating the release patterns for HANNIBAL and the egregious HANNIBAL RISING). Nothing about PASSION OF THE CHRIST's release pattern was navigable (or apparently to be successfully duplicated). As for the rest, they too were launched in February. Titles released in January are not "launched" in January - they are unceremoniously dumped there.

comment #13

BurmaShave says ...

I believe THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST was released on Ash Wednesday. That's the key to Box Office gold! Very navigable!

comment #14

mongstrol says ...

I am finding it hard to see the big deal so many people are making about this trailer. I mean, WOW!, NY landmarks are getting destroyed again. This has happened in movies (and their trailers) so many times at this point, that this is nothing new. Okay, there is the conceit that people are filming the events on their camcorders, but that is hardly fresh anymore either.

comment #15

le corbeau says ...

Yeah, people calling it the best trailer of all time-- no, Hitchcock walking us through the Psycho house or The Shining's elevator of blood would be the best trailer of all time.

comment #16

giantman says ...

It certainly isn't the "best" trailer of all time, but it is a refreshing change from the constant stream of unoriginal, derivative crap we've been forced to watch on trailers for so long now that I'm beginning to get old. I think that is the major reason people get excited about it, it is something different. That alone makes it interesting.

The movie will probably suck, but it'll have a big opening weekend when, without this trailer, it might have been totally ignored.

comment #17

aspiringcrackaddict says ...

I don't know but these guys seem to have dug themselves a very very very deep hole to drag themselves out of. I mean, yeah now they have everybody going what the hell is this movie ? everyone is searching for info on it, I mean what more could a marketer ask for? people are rapid shifting through the internet to find out more about your product.

But when those people realize that it's just another spin on Godzilla they are going to be pissed. I mean really pissed. Cause nobody likes to be Yanked buy a chain only to find out that Godzilla is doing the tugging.

Remember the last Godzilla ads? what was the reactions when people FINALLY saw him? FUCK THIS MOVIE!!

Unless they have somthing other than Yuppies with shaky handheld cameras up their sleeves the reveal promises to be very very very disappointing.

comment #18

le corbeau says ...

"it is a refreshing change from the constant stream of unoriginal, derivative crap"

I agree with the person who said it looked like the Coke "road trip" video that played in theaters some months back.

comment #19

giantman says ...

I was only referring to the trailer, NOT the final movie, cause the movie will more than likely suck wind. But the trailer is a good one, got our attention, we're talking about it for goodness sake.

comment #20

le corbeau says ...

Yeah, but what I'm saying is, "What's the big deal?"

Maybe it's the novelty of seeing young, attractive people from New York on a movie screen.

comment #21

giantman says ...

Speaking only for myself, I'm sick and tired of seeing the same old trailers over and over again with only the titles changing. Tentpole action flick followed by romantic comedy followed by stupid tv show remake followed by tepid family comedy followed by uninspired horror film without actual horror followed by touching drama about someone dying... at the very least this thing broke the mold on that, even if for only a moment.

comment #22

Krumly says ...

From JD: "It's a very good trailer, but the trailer (and the movie as a whole, presumably) is hurt by one major mistake: 2.35:1. Doesn't that aspect ratio kind of undermine the whole home video aspect of the idea?"

I say no, it doesn't. That's like saying all movies undermine the suspension of disbelief because they're not shot in the same "aspect ratio" the human eye sees.

Even if the final film is 2.35:1, ask 99.9% of the audience what's different about the images of the movie they just saw and their home videos. I'd wager not a one of them would cite the aspect ratio or even know what that means.

Just think of all the idiots who watch 1.33:1 video stretched-out to 16:9 on their home sets and don't get it when I say the image is stretched out horizontally.

I'm saying you have a point, JD, in technical terms, but I don't think it'll hurt the conceit of the film in the eyes of the majority of the audience (that it's shot on home video cameras by the characters in the film.)

comment #23

christian says ...

the original BLAIR WITCH PROJECT is the best trailer of all time.

no, no, don't argue --

i said GOOD DAY SIR!

comment #24

Hallick says ...

The trailer might've had more impact for me if it didn't resemble the series of commercials for that god-I-can't-remember-which-one video game console with home video footage of kids playing with real life versions of weapons from the games.