CLOVERFIELD monster revealed?

Posted by Matt Holmes

So a good number of people have now seen CLOVERFIELD at special advanced screenings around the U.S, some of which thankfully are talented artists and have generously drawn out what the monster looks like for us.

This can most certainly be considered as a spoiler and it’s been the best kept secret in Hollywood for a while now, and if you can just wait a little longer then don’t look below or indeed read any comments that might be attached to this article.

SPOILERS… DO NOT CLICK BELOW IF YOU WANT YOUR FIRST LOOK AT THE MONSTER TO BE STARING AT YOU ON A GIANT SCREEN

The look of the monster falls exactly in line with Harry Knowles description from his review

“I think it might’ve been a four-legged beastie… it has a tail, it has teeth and freaky eyes like that horse that died in ANIMAL HOUSE. It’s kinda of a grayish-yellowish-off-white looking thing. But more important than the creature is what this fucker does. He basically goes bug-nuts”.

Looks a little reminiscent of the monster in the Korean movie THE HOST.

It may not be as awe-inspiring as GODZILLA, but those who have seen it say the context the monster is used and how it movies is the scary and cool part.

cloverfield011208.jpg

source - bloody disgusting

categories - Horror, Movie News

Matt Holmes

Further Reading

4 Comments »

  1. looks like the rancor monster from Jabba’s palace

    Comment by shane420SF | January 13, 2008
  2. Honestly, that’s WAY more inspiring the Godzilla. Godzilla was nothing more than a up right walking lizard mixed with a Dinosaur…if Godzilla wouldn’t have come before this monster we’d be singing a different tune.

    I like it, and can’t wait to see it in action.

    It’s funny that everyone is hating on Cloverfiled because of the said ‘hype’ surrounding it, but ironically it’s THOSE same people that are actually generating the hype.

    Comment by Facts | January 14, 2008
  3. My husband and I went and saw CLOVERFIELD, and it was a pretty good movie until the end. Then it sucked,we just couldn’t beleive it ended like that. But whatever. RECOMENDED!

    Comment by cambria | February 5, 2008
  4. Both my wife and I finally got the chance to go and see the movie after it came out a few days later. All i can say is that if this movie had been shot with the typical movie camera production setting it would have definitely been unrealistic and hard to relate to the characters. ths simple fact that you were able to technically be the camera man, to run and feel afraid (especially in the subway) and the fact that the surround sound and the visual being portrayed as if you truly are there, made it believable to the point that you hoped to God that something like this wouldnt happen for real.

    The movie hurt like hell on the eyes for the first 15 minutes and i dont recommend eating anything before going in because you will get motion sickness like hell. But it is definitely worth the money. However once you have seen it once, there is no need to see it again. I dont believe that the impact of the movie will be the same. Just my opinion.

    Comment by Casey | February 14, 2008

Leave a comment

Obsessed With Film © 2008