Calle Cloverfield 10

It had been a good many years since watching Cloverfield, and upon watching the trailer for 10 Cloverfield Lane, I had a pretty solid idea of how this new movie was going to pan out. Now maybe this trailer only showed in Europe or perhaps even just Britain where I'm from, because I can't for a moment believe that people didn't expect exactly what was going to happen after watching the 3 minutes of footage? The twist was given away. The plot spoiled. Anyone with half a brain could've deduced the entirety of the story from the trailer.

So, saying that, I knew what to expect. I went into watching the movie with a pretty strong idea of what was going to happen- and I wasn't far off.

The first 3 quarters of this movie is one movie in itself, and the last quarter is an entirely different one. So far from one another in terms of genre that even despite knowing what was going to happen, I was still stunned by the total change.

The first 3/4 is, honestly, extremely well done. John Goodman portrays such a convincing creepiness and terrifying instability that I found my skin crawling in almost every scene he was in. He completely steals the movie for me. And thank God, because without him I don't think there would be much to hold it up. The psycho-thriller element to this movie is fantastic. If it had remained solely within that genre, I think you'd be working with a solid 9/10.

But the ending just sours it for me. Expected, but not enjoyable. Cool CGI and action is great in itself but after a buildup of drama and tension and claustrophobic social interactions, it just feels odd and misplaced.

All in all, a great movie that's thoroughly worth watching- but I feel the sharp deviation at the end will either confuse and disappoint, or be a snippet of excitement that isn't nearly satisfying enough.

It would have been solid 8 or 9 if it wasn't for the ending. Except that it was quite an intense mystery.

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.

Arguably, the worst aspects of '10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)' are those that tie into its franchise roots, which is understandable considering that this started life as a completely original screenplay before it was contorted to fit into the 'Cloverfield (2008)' "universe". These issues are really only limited to a somewhat rushed finale, though, and the final result is still a much finer film than its predecessor. It's an incredibly intriguing and evolving mystery-thriller that's consistently entertaining and suspenseful, as it uses its small core cast of well-realised characters to drive the tension within its (mostly) single, increasingly claustrophobic location to expert effect. It's incredibly compelling mainly because of its intense focus on character, while it's the several subtle twists and turns that keep us on the edge of our seat as our reading of the situation (always seen through the lens of the protagonist) continues to organically change. Ultimately, the piece becomes perhaps one of the most enjoyable entries in its genre. 8/10

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.