edited by Jonathan Doyle

Cloverfield [BLU-RAY] (Paramount Home Entertainment, 6.3.2008) Disguised under deliberately goofy, yet deliciously edible-sounding, aliases such as Cheese and Slusho, Matt Reeves' Cloverfield was produced and rushed into theaters under an equally appetizing shroud of secrecy. From last year's incredibly elusive Super Bowl ad to the film's viral marketing campaign, Cloverfield had everybody scratching their heads and drooling in anticipation. Aside from the as-yet untitled title and the Blair Witch-ian visual style, the film's biggest appeal was the enigmatic creature who was last (un)seen hurling the decapitated head of the Statue of Liberty onto the crowded streets of New York City. All we knew about the mysterious beast was that it was big and angry. Now that the highy-anticipated project has come and gone, one question has fortunately been answered: Cloverfield was a major success. (continued)

Upcoming

November 12

Slumdog Millionaire

November 14

A Christmas Tale

B.O.H.I.C.A.

Dostana

The Dukes

Eden

House of the Sleeping Beauties

How About You

Quantum of Solace

We are Wizards

November 21

The Betrayal

November 30

Similar Obama Lead

email this story
read comments (11)
post a comment

The new Times/Bloomberg poll, released an hour and three quarters ago, says Barack Obama is currently holding a 12-point lead over John McCain, 49% to 37%. Throw in Ralph Nader and Bob Barr and Obama holds 15-point edge. That 15 point lead Obama had in the recent Newsweek poll seems less eccentric now. Whites are evenly split between the two -- 39% and 39%. 11% of former Clinton supporters (bitter) have gone over to McCain's side.

Knight's Target Audience<< previous | next >>Appaloosa A'Comin'

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 24, 2008 at 3:45 PM

comment #1

D.Z. says ...

Replace Nader with Ron Paul, and I'll agree. But Obama winning because of Perot-like competition isn't going to seem that impressive, unless he can seal the 2012 election the way Clinton did in '96.

Posted by D.Z. at June 24, 2008 4:05 PM

comment #2

D.Z. says ...

Well, actually, now that I think about it, the result would be more of a slap in the face of the Republicans, since they'd be losing to themselves, and not just some random Independent.

Posted by D.Z. at June 24, 2008 4:15 PM

comment #3

SaveFarris says ...

Both this and the Newsweek poll use the registered voters metric instead of the much more reliable likely voters.

Posted by SaveFarris at June 24, 2008 4:32 PM

comment #4

D.Z. says ...

I doubt it's a huge difference for likely voters, especially since prices keep going up.

Posted by D.Z. at June 24, 2008 4:54 PM

comment #5

D.Z. says ...

Affirmative action, Republican style? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/justice_inquiry_hiring

Posted by D.Z. at June 24, 2008 5:38 PM

comment #6

BurmaShave says ...

Yes DZ, I agree Obama won't be a two term President until he wins in 2012.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 24, 2008 6:59 PM

comment #7

jc says ...

Hey D.Z.

Does getting 49% of the vote in 1996 constitute "sealing the deal"?

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/summ.htm

Perot ran twice, Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote.

Posted by jc at June 24, 2008 7:51 PM

comment #8

D.Z. says ...

jc: Well, if Perot hadn't run, it probably would have been a landslide for Clinton. That might not necessarily have been the case in '92, though. But if you're going to be technical, the vote wasn't "popular" anyway, since it was a low turn-out that year; and what Clinton really won was the majority of the people who showed up for that election.

Posted by D.Z. at June 24, 2008 8:25 PM

comment #9