Calle Cloverfield 10

Full disclosure: The year is 2007. A trailer hits cinema screens advertising a mysterious film named "Cloverfield." Nobody knows what it's about, except that it's riding on the wave of the found footage genre, and that it seems to depict a giant monster attack on New York. Speculation immediately breaks out all over the internet, but nowhere more fiercely than on the IMDb forums, with many folks being caught up in the genius viral marketing. I myself was one of those people, along with my wife. Yes, we met on IMDb's Cloverfield forum. She moved from the US to Australia a few years after, we got married, and we've lived together happily ever since.

Yes, that is the power of film; it can bring people together in the most unlikely ways possible.

So, it's with some excitement that we were blindsided by the brief and vague advertising campaign for 10 Cloverfield Lane. Does it have any connections to the original Cloverfield? What's JJ Abrams playing at here, exactly? Without giving too much away, it's not a direct sequel, but rather a sequel in tone. I'm assuming Abrams is going for an anthology style series here, with each entry being a different story tied together by their themes and science-fiction setting. It's clearly a marketing thing, but if that means we'll get more films like this, I'm certainly okay with it.

10 Cloverfield Lane eschews its predecessor's found-footage trappings, and immerses us in a classic style bottle thriller. The setting is limited and claustrophobic, and the cast small, but the story and tension will grab you and not let up until the end. The nature of the mystery means your opinion will hang very precariously on whether you like that ending, and I suspect it will be divisive. There's not a great deal of resolution, and if I'm correct in assuming this will be an anthology series from now on, I doubt we'll ever get any. But that's fine, because I don't think the story that would follow the film really needs to be told.

What matters are the performances. John Goodman is the real draw card here. He gives a stunning turn that is delightful, sympathetic and absolutely terrifying in equal doses. He's had so many great roles in the past, but he is unforgettable here. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is also very likable as the resourceful protagonist. Perhaps a little too resourceful at times, but for the most part we're with her happily throughout.

The film looks fantastic despite the cramped environs, with great use of color and shadow and some interesting cinematography. There are some nice designs and special effects toward the end of the film, even if they may be considered a little derivative. The score is tense and effective, and keeps you on the edge of your seat.

The script is great with very little flab, and if you like these kinds of stories which lock characters together in tight, paranoid spaces then you'll find a lot to enjoy here. Just don't go in expecting Cloverfield 2, because this is not it. It's its own beast, and has a brave ending that you'll either love or hate.

Belated pseudo-sequel to the divisive 2008 movie Cloverfield. That first film dealt with an unexplained giant monster attack in NYC, and was shot in the "found footage" style: everything shot with a video camera, as if by one of the characters within the film, with all the shakiness and amateurishness one would expect. The idea is to lend the film added verisimilitude and place the viewer within the narrative. This works only occasionally, and in my opinion Cloverfield was one time that it did. However, that being said, this sequel does away with that narrative device, and is shot in a traditional, stationary manner, with known actors and professional cinematography.

The story follows Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), a young woman in an unhappy relationship who packs her bags and hits the road, leaving her boyfriend and driving toward parts unknown. She suffers a terrible car accident, and when she awakens, she's chained up in the underground bomb shelter of the distinctly odd Howard (John Goodman), a conspiracy theorist and survival nut who claims that while Michelle was unconscious, the world up above has come to an end. What caused it, he isn't sure (Russian nukes? Terrorist bio-weapons? Alien invaders?), but he knows it isn't safe to step outside. Also in the shelter is goofy country boy Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), a former employee of Howard's in the construction of the shelter.

The vast majority of the movie is a slow-burn suspense drama, as Michelle tries to learn more about her surroundings, and the two roommates she's now forced to live with. You know Howard isn't all there, but just how far gone is he? Or are his most outlandish claims only the tip of the iceberg? These scenes are well-done for the most part, and the actors are all good, especially Goodman, who uses his bulk to great advantage. Winstead does great work as well, using her eyes more than anything to project her performance. The problems for me came in the relatively uninspired script. There wasn't really a beat in the film that I didn't see coming, and all of the characters ended up where I expected them to be within the first 10 minutes. The dialogue, too, while showing a tiny bit of wit here and there, didn't hold my attention as well as I hoped. I won't go into the film's last act, only to say that "Cloverfield" is in the title for a reason, but don't expect the giant monster action of the first film. Directorial debut of Dan Trachtenberg. From Paramount.

Pluses: 1. Great cast. Really good chemistry among them. Terrific performances from all. Mary Elizabeth Winstead gets better with every film she makes. 2. Story keeps you guessing until the end. 3. There are references in it to some popular films in the genre (that are likely film maker favorites) from the past 30 years or so. 4. Director shows great promise while still early in his career. 4. Story more important than special effects or pointless action sequences (always a plus for me). 5. Sound effects, usually unappreciated in non-action films, well used to add to the intensity of the drama.

Minuses: 1. We've probably all seen John Goodman play a similar character before. 2. There's a possible murder that took place prior to the film, a plot device never resolved.

Since the film has the word "Cloverfield" in the title, a lot of dim light bulbs thought this was a prequel or sequel to the other film and bad mouthed it because it isn't. Using Cloverfield in the title was likely just another reference to a favorite film.

Some people didn't understand the ending. Huh? They must have fallen asleep during the rest of the movie (when they realized it wasn't Cloverfield 2) or this generation is dumber than I fear it might be. The actions of Winstead's character at the end of the film make perfect sense in light of a monologue she delivered earlier, which apparently was ignored by those whining about the ending.

Don't listen to the naysayers. It isn't high art, but it's an entertaining film that will hold your attention to the end.

To describe 10 Cloverfield Lane in one word: Genreless.

I won't say much about the film as I'm a strong believer of going in blind, but I will say that the performances, writing, and cinematic pacing worked perfectly together to create a truly unique film.

I loved watching it, and the moments of comedy sprouting up throughout made the duality between light-hearted humanity and dark confusion work perfectly together. I would give the Titles and Credits 10/10 as well, because they were just so damn fantastic and fresh and reminded me that titling is an art form like any other in the cinematic Genre. If you enjoy good film, you will enjoy 10 Cloverfield Lane.

I'm probably in the minority, but I disliked Cloverfield ... intensely! So many of these found footage films as far as I'm concerned, are just an invitation to watch someone's tarted-up home movie. Their producers/directors should be commended for being excellent marketing strategists in being able to convince punters to part with their hard-earned, to watch some (generally) cheap, tacky B feature. Cloverfield was no exception.

However in a significant turnaround, I'm happy to report that the Cloverfield's "blood relative" (according to JJ Abrams) is a much better production and a far more interesting story, than its predecessor. Technically speaking 10 CL is streets ahead, with the found footage format dispensed with and a small, but very professional cast employed in telling the story of 3 people dealing (not always on a voluntary basis) with life adjustments in a world affected by the events at the end of Cloverfield.

The cast were uniformly good with Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Michelle and John Goodman as Howard being the obvious lynchpins. Knowing virtually nothing about the storyline going into the film (apart from it having some vague relationship with Cloverfield), I have to admit I was pretty much hooked by the unfolding series of events affecting Michelle pretty early on. And as both her seemingly sometime antagonist and ally, Goodman's Howard is the perfect physical contrast. But very pleasing to see another independently resiliant and strong female lead character being featured in such a surprisingly entertaining and thrilling sequel as 10 CL turns out to be.

Much has been commented about the film's climax. I have to admit to some ambivalence. This is where the relationship to the earlier film is given some clarification, whilst overtly setting up the stage for a later episode. Still rejoicing over the absence of found footage, I guess I could just about accept anything thrown up by the producers. I will admit to some disappointment in that the events are clearly played out in real time, with Michelle emerging from the shelter at what is clearly the beginnings of dusk. For some reason an unlikely darkness then overwhelms the setting within about a minute of screen time and with the subsequent taking up of hand-held cameras, the action suddenly becomes more difficult to discern. Though I was still somewhat relieved, I can understand how others may have experienced some disappointment.

I'll admit to looking forward to the next instalment and even perhaps girding my loins and giving the original another watch, just to see again how well (if at all) it sets up this story.