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.

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.

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

First things first, after watch this movie you will learn that nothing is what it seems to be.

At the beginning you will appreciate what appears to be a well made drama, after a while you will be immersed in a thriller with some awesome actors providing you moments of fear, sadness, uneasiness, terror and disbelief.

The story will make you doubt the movie at first but don't let it make you give up of watching it. You will certainly be captured by the fast changes in the narrative transforming this movie from one thing to another, where in a moment you will be happy watching it and a second after you will be terrorized by something; or wanting to know what is really happening and a moment after seeing all your beliefs crushing down by another event that reveals itself.

It is a awesome movie that anyone who wants to watch different stories should invest an hour in it.