Okay, now things are beginning to get a tad creepy. It seems the viral marketing has begun for this mysterious J.J. Abrams-produced "Cloverfield" flick. We already brought you the teaser website earlier today, and now two new sites have popped up. (Note: Did you notice the creature in between the two girls in that website photo? What the hell is that thing?) First, there's a blog that exists solely to point out how some dude named Ethan Haas was wrong. I'm not sure what it is he's wrong about, but the author seems obsessed with debunking anything Haas has to say. Now, once you're on that site, there's a link for another one -- EthanHaasWasRight.com. That site opens up to a graphic of a partially concealed ball (is that the so-called monster inside?), which features a number of odd symbols on its outer shell. There's also a city skyline in the background. Wait, there's more!

This isn't just a ball, it's a game. If you click on the ball, six symbols will pop up. Memorize the order in which the symbols pop up, then go back and click on those same six symbols. If you screw up, it will just repeat the pattern for you. Once you get that right, a grainy video featuring some guy (named Dan?) in a baseball hat appears. In it, he talks about how Ethan Haas predicted all this was going to happen, and that since we found the video, we're obviously in on the whole thing too. There's something about August 1st being an important day (missed that part), and then the video ends. Afterward, another game pops up; one that's a lot more intricate. There's three stars in the sky and some sort of oval-shaped puzzle (filled with symbols) in the center of the screen. If you wave your cursor over the star located on the far right, you'll see a sequence of symbols pop up on screen. That's as far as I got, as I'm not sure how to fit those symbols into the oval-shaped thingy.

I have no idea how this all fits into the film (I assume Ethan Haas will be a major character), but I do know that I'm having a ball with the little pieces they're unveiling each day. Most of the time the marketing turns out to be better than the actual film, but I'm hoping that's not the case this time. Head on over to these sites and definitely let us know what you think. Oh, and if you make it further than me, do share tips with fellow readers in the comments section below.

[via filmick]

Today brings more news about that mysterious J.J. Abrams project Cloverfield, which recently unleashed a bizarre kickass trailer in front of Transformers. Here's what we know so far: The film is due out on January 18, 2008, it's produced by J.J. Abrams' Bad Robot (Lost, Alias), Paramount Pictures is distributing, and it's apparently a monster movie shot from the POV of handheld video cameras. After viewing said trailer, our own Scott Weinberg said it looks like "The Blair Witch Project meets the Godzilla remake." Well, now, AICN say they know who's directing Cloverfield (or whatever the hell it's called): Matt Reeves. Who? Well, believe it or not, but Reeves was an executive producer and writer on the TV show Felicity, and he also helped the Mark Wahlberg flick The Yards and Under Siege 2. His only big-screen directing gig to date was on The Pallbearer, which he also co-wrote.

Keep in mind that Cloverfield is not the title of this movie; I believe it's the top secret name they're using right now to hide the real title, if there is one. AICN also claims that Drew Godard (Lost, Alias, Buffy) penned the script, and that the featured monster is something called The Parasite. With all the Lost folks involved, some fans speculated that Cloverfield could be a companion piece of sorts to the show. Personally, I'm in the camp that thinks this is a totally new flick -- I just can't understand all this secrecy. What do they have to hide? Is all this hush hush just a plot to drum up internet buzz for the project, or is there another reason why no one will talk about it? Regardless, I think a monster movie told from the POV of folks running around with video cameras has the potential of being a really fun ride, so long as the damn camera doesn't shake repeatedly and give me a headache. We already know there will be a host of major Star Trek XI announcements later this month at ComicCon, so look for more Cloverfield info to be revealed at that time.

We received a number of emails yesterday from people who had witnessed a mysterious trailer playing in front of Transformers press screenings. Not only is it completely bizarre to see any kind of advertisement before a press screening (in all my time doing this, I've never once watched a trailer at this sort of screening), but the film itself is one no one had heard a thing about. Well, that's a lie -- we have heard about Cloverfield before. Originally, word began leaking out of Hollywood that J.J. Abrams was producing a top secret project named Cloverfield, and that the film had already gone into production. Some folks immediately speculated that Stephen King's The Dark Tower was secretly filming under the name Cloverfield (you'll remember that J.J. Abrams became involved in that adaptation not long ago) -- one guy even started a blog claiming to be an actor in The Dark Tower, and confirmed that it was being filmed under the name Cloverfield. Well that was bogus; King's own assistant even commented here telling us so.

So what is Cloverfield? Cinematical's own Scott Weinberg attended one of the aforementioned Transformers screenings, and here's what he had to say about the trailer: "We open with a bunch of teens partying. Apparently one of 'em is leaving town tomorrow and everyone's kind of bittersweet about it. Then they hear a giant ruckus and head outside to see a massive explosion in the distance. Out on the streets people are running around all panicky-like. Then the head of the Statue of Liberty lands in the middle of the street and the date of January 18, 2008, pops up. Oh, and it's all done with handheld video cameras. Basically The Blair Witch Project meets the Godzilla remake ... which means I can't wait to see it." When I asked Scott what he thought the film was about, he replied: "I'm told it's a monster movie." I immediately wondered whether it was a remake of The Host, but both Scott and I felt that would be an insanely quick turnaround if true. However, we did both agree that Cloverfield is most likely a fake title. So what's the real title? Will J.J. Abrams unveil it at ComicCon? And is this not a clever way to market a film, or what?

Looks like super-in-demand (and super-hot) Oscar winner Charlize Theron has her next gig lined up after she finishes with Paul Haggis' In the Valley of Elah and Alan Parker's The Ice at the Bottom of the World. According to Variety (via Coming Soon) Theron's gig after those films will be The Battle in Seattle which is being written and directed by Theron fiance, actor and freshmen helmer Stuart Townsend.

Theron's new co-stars in The Battle in Seattle, an ensemble political action drama set against the backdrop of the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting (and riots) in Seattle, are Ray Liotta, Martin Henderson of The Ring and the recent Flyboys, Andre' Benjamin from the recent Idlewild and Woddy Harrelson, who also appeared with Theron in North Country. Also according to Variety, Townsend will be trying to take a somewhat unique approach with his direction and will tell the story of the film from several different interlocking perspectives -- including those of the protesters, politicians, police and some of the delegates.

An interesting idea, and one that may serve the project well. However, not completely original, having been done very well many times in films such as Pulp Fiction, Crash , the upcoming Bobby, directed by Emilio Estevez and most any Robert Altman movie you can think of. Still, the premise sounds interesting and Theron has a talent for picking good, relevant material like Monster and North Country, so this might amount to something in the end. Plus, did I mention that Theron is super-hot? Let's not forget that.

The Battle in Seattle is expected to begin filming in November. No other casting news or a release date as of yet.

(See earlier news on The Battle in Seattle here and here.)

You know how I feel about the proliferation of film festivals all over the globe, but as this particular one happens to be in my own backyard, I guess I can make an exception ... this time. Which film festival gets this special treatment? Why, it's the Film Independent Los Angeles Film Festival of course.

According to Variety, the festival announced this week that on October 24 it will start accepting submissions for the 13th annual event, held June 21 - July 1 2007 in Los Angeles. The entry deadline for short films and music videos is Feb. 9, while the deadline for feature-length narrative and documentary films is March 1. And, if you act now (or at least before January 12) you can even get a discount on your entry fees. Not a bad thing considering the minuscule budgets of most of these films.

Some of last years fest winners include Steve Collins, writer/director of Gretchen, who won for best narrative feature and Amy Berg, writer/director of Deliver Us From Evil, (which our own Kim reviewed) who won for best documentary feature. Both winners received $50,000, money they will probably use to pay off all the credit cards they maxed out to finance their films. Oscar-winning actress and producer Charlize Theron, whose indie credits include Monster and the documentary East of Havana, was also awarded the Spirit of Independence Award for her commitment to artistic independence in film at the event.

Especially of note for aspiring filmmakers looking for exposure is that the Los Angeles Film Festival is a qualifying fest in all categories for not only the Independent Spirit Awards but for the Academy Awards' short film categories as well. So indie filmmakers, dust off those scripts hidden in your drawer, borrow your parents' video camera, gather your friends, find a barn and start shooting because the next Academy Award for short films might just go to you. (And if it does, Cinematical wants a spot in that acceptance speech.)

My first posting here on Cinematical was about a month ago when I shared news of the first Region 1 DVD release of Gojira, the Japanese film that was drastically re-edited for its U.S. release as Godzilla: King of the Monsters. According to DVD Drive-in, Classic Media is continuing the coolness with its DVD release of the Big G's second outing (and his last in black and white) 1954's Godzilla Raids Again (Gojira no gyakushû in Japanese), or as it was called during its 1959 U.S. release, Gigantis the Fire Monster. Not as somber as its predecessor and with less of an emphasis on the nuclear weapons metaphor, this film truly set the tone for kaiju films for many years to come, with Godzilla squaring off against another monster (a spiny fellow named Angilas) for the first time. As with the Gojira disk, each version of the film will be featured on a separate disk of a two DVD set, with the Japanese version presented with English subtitles. Godzilla historians Steve Ryfle and Ed Godzizsewski will provide an audio commentary as they did on Gojira, with other extras including a photo gallery, international poster gallery and the Japanese theatrical trailer.

And of course, just as soon as Tokyo recovers from the devastation, it happens all over again with Classic Media's release of the Japanese version of 1964's Godzilla Vs. Mothra which is being released on a two-disk set with its American release version Godzilla Vs. the Thing. In this film Godzilla comes home to find that someone has chewed holes in his favorite sweater, and large urban areas are trampled as our hero tracks down the moth responsible. OK, not quite. In this film Godzilla is still a badass and not the heroic creature he became later in the series, and when the world needs saving its up to Mothra to make things right. Extras include another commentary from Ryfle and Godzizsewski and a photo gallery, international poster gallery and the Japanese theatrical trailer.

The differences between the Japanese and American versions of Gojira were quite profound, so I'm curious to compare the different versions of these two films as well. Both of these two-disk sets will release on November 7. In the not too distant future Classic Media will be releasing the likes of Ghidrah the Three-Headed Monster, Monster Zero, Godzilla's Revenge, Terror of Mechagodzilla, Frankenstein Conquers the World and War of the Gargantuas. Conspicuously absent is Godzilla's third film King Kong Vs. Godzilla which received an Americanization just as drastic as that of Gojira. Maybe there are rights issues with King Kong, but I'm still hoping one day for a side by side comparison of the U.S. and Japanese versions.

AMENDEMENT: As commentor Andrea points out, the general releases of Godzilla Raids Again and Godzilla Vs. Mothra have been pushed back until this coming spring. However, the original release date will be honored at the Godzilla on DVD website.

As Hollywood prepares for its latest surge of biopics, yesterday's New York Times featured a very interesting article that posed the folllowing question: When it comes to acting in a biopic, is is better to mimic or transcend? As the Times points out, back in the day, there wasn't much of a debate. Despite not looking much like their characters, folks like Robert Redford (All the President's Men) and Warren Beatty (Bonnie and Clyde) had no problem convincingly portraying historical figures without dramatically alter their appearances.

However, you can't help but be blown away after witnessing the transformations Nicole Kidman (The Hours) and Charlize Theron (Monster) completed as part of their respective takes on Virginia Woolf and the real-life serial killer Aileen Wuornos. Sure, Theron did a nice job of capturing Wuornos through her acting, but let's face it -- there's no way she would have won an Oscar without all that make-up.

Some would argue a great actor shouldn't have to completely change his or her look in order to capture the essence of a person. This past year, Philip Seymour Hoffman (who looks nothing like the writer) dazzled as Truman Capote, despite barely changed his appearance for the role. Same goes for Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon when they took on Johnny Cash and June Carter Cash in Walk the Line.

So, I ask you: Is it important to you for an actor (or actress) to change their appearance when starring in a biopic, should they look nothing like the person they're portraying?