SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,626 
Likes: 3,182
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 17:07:20 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Mar 12, 2016 20:35:14 GMT -5
 10 Cloverfield LaneIn 2008, everyone was buzzing about the mysterious trailer for a film simply titled Cloverfield. It was a lesson in successful viral marketing 101, and people were still buzzing about the movie after seeing it with even more questions than they had going into the film. I personally haven't seen the film since 2008 in theaters, but I remember enjoying it for not being an overly cliched monster film (scientists finding/explaining origins of the creatures, the hero that discovers what the military doesn't, etc.) that I can't stand and was a really fun ride. Now, seemingly out of nowhere, the sidequel 10 Cloverfield Lane has arrived, forgoing the POV shaky cam aesthetic of the original for a chamber play narrative focusing on a small group of people. I will try to avoid spoilers in this review though minor ones are inevitable, and attempt to answer the question everyone is asking now that the film has surfaced: is it worth a trip back to the Cloverfield universe? The film centers on Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), who after suffering a car accident wakes up to find herself in an underground evacuation bunker, homemade by conspiracy theorist and super angsty Howard (John Goodman). Howard tells Michelle that the world she knows is gone, and an attack by an unknown force has rendered the air outside toxic and the planet uninhabitable. Also inside the bunker is Emmett (John Gallagher, Jr.), an easygoing country boy who lived in the same town as Howard and managed to get to the bunker in time while chaos erupted outside. The film has been called a chamber play, and that's a good way of putting it. The majority of the film takes place inside this one setting with the three characters, and the film shifts seamlessly between funny and playful exchanges between the three and thriller elements of Michelle trying to break free of Howard and the bunker. We get only brief snippets of each of their backstories and traits, and perhaps one of the more disappointing elements of the film is that Howard, the overbearing antagonist of the film, is essentially what you see. Though he does showcase moments of affection and care, I felt that they could've thrown more twists and turns stemming from his character that would've made the narrative more mysterious and tense. Why not have him be friendlier and welcoming and then trickle in moments of his rage and controlling compulsions and then the twists of the film that he kidnapped and killed a local girl? It would've made it much more effective and less "yeah, we kinda figured he was a dangerous sociopath" . Just my opinion, but I think that would've made the whole film play out better since the majority of the story beats revolve around Howard. Goodman is magnetic in the role though, and he absolutely steals the show despite the other players being strong as well. Ultimately, what people will absolutely be discussing, as with the original film, is the ending. I have to say that after being thoroughly entertained with the film surrounding the events in the bunker, the rest of the film is a bit unsatisfying. What the original Cloverfield lacked in character development or clear plot elements, it made up for with its epic thrills and relentless intensity. 10 Cloverfield Lane doesn't pack nearly the punch that its predecessor did, though it does provide some answers (sort of) to the events and the state of the world. 10 Cloverfield Lane succeeds for the most part in the chamber play essentials; story, characters, dialogue, and focused thrills. But when the film moves outside of the bunker and becomes a typical alien film I wasn't nearly as absorbed as I should've been. Still, the film is never dull and the ending doesn't make or break the film for me. 10 Cloverfield Lane is a much different film from 2008's Cloverfield, and while it expands upon the weaknesses of the original it also doesn't match up in terms of sheer thrills and "oh shit, what the hell is that!?" moments either. In the end though, the performances of its three main characters and a focus on more intimate thrills in the confined bunker make the film a fun enough ride. It's undoubtedly a film, probably like the original, that will grow less impressive with each subsequent viewing, but for the most part it succeeds in what it attempts to do and is a worthy and interesting follow up to the original. 7/10 |
|
RedStorm901
Production Manager
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 799
Likes: 179
Location:
Last Online Nov 12, 2021 23:35:54 GMT -5
|
Post by RedStorm901 on Mar 12, 2016 22:03:35 GMT -5
Got a chance to see this last night, overall I thought it was a pretty good movie. There were some slow spots here and there but that's to be expected in such a dialouge driven film. The cast was good but John Goodman was fantastic. I really hate how trailers ruin movies nowadays. If they did not show the lights over the house and the ship/alien roaring this movie would have really had me guessing if what Howard said was true the entire time.
In my opinion the movie should have ended when she made it out and saw the ship. To me it almost felt like an entirely different movie when she started fighting the alien and the ship. Like SnoBoarder said it became your typical alien movie then. |
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,105
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 0:12:42 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Mar 12, 2016 22:14:24 GMT -5
Short take: It's an interesting little movie, probably your best option if you want to see a movie in wide release this weekend, but I don't know that there's much to it that I'll really be coming back to. Ultimately I kind of dig the whole "spiritual succesor" thing, and if that's what Abrams needs to do in order to get mid-budget original movies made then so-be-it. *** out of Four / ***1/2 out of Five I dug the sudden switch-up in the last fifteen minutes, but also kind of feel like a movie set outside in the invasion would have been more interesting than the chamber piece we got.
Also, that whole sub-plot about Goodman being a potential serial kidnapper went nowhere, it incited the characters to attempt to escape but was then just dropped.
Theory: this actually is in the same continuity as Cloverfield and that monster attack was the first wave of a prolonged invasion. Goodman says something about "first you take out the major cities then you send out patrols to search for signs of life" maybe giant monsters were sent to cities and then those saucer things showed up. |
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,529
Likes: 3,133
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:37:17 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Mar 12, 2016 23:48:42 GMT -5
I think I liked it just a little bit more than you guys. As a claustrophobic, locked room-like thriller, it's pretty damn riveting most of the time. Nothing particularly great, mind you, but Dan Trachtenberg has all the right instincts for creating atmosphere and ratcheting up tension/building suspense to a really palpable level. Keep your eye on this guy. Speaking of, the last fifteen minutes were pretty cool and everything, but I personally found all the bunker scenes more tense and gripping. The film is also very tightly-paced. John Goodman pretty much kills it in this movie, and both Mary Elizabeth-Winstead and John Gallagher Jr. are strong. I also really like the way in which this film connects to the original Cloverfield. I'm with Drac -- despite Abrams calling this nothing more than a "blood relative", I think you can definitely make a case for it being a legit sequel (i.e. the different "waves" of an alien attack, with this being the second).
Also, I read an interesting theory about how maybe Emmett was actually the potential serial kidnapper instead of Howard, who maybe did something to Howard's daughter and Howard knew about it, but the second photo falling out of the book in that one scene would negate that. Apparently, though, that's how it was in the original draft of the script. Abrams said there's an idea for another movie, and after this one, I'm definitely intrigued to see it. I'm gonna go ***1/2 out of four. |
|
Fanible
Administrator 
Join Date: Oct 2002
I peered into the vastness and saw nothing. Felt nothing.
Posts: 19,184
Likes: 788
Location:
Last Online Nov 6, 2024 0:31:29 GMT -5
|
Post by Fanible on Mar 13, 2016 22:56:30 GMT -5
The movie was a wasted opportunity, I feel, for something that could have been pretty special. I think it would have been far more effective had it been titled something else. I found it to be a little underwhelming as a result, because I already knew what was going on. As Dracula said, the subplot didn't go anywhere anyways. If we didn't know it was a Cloverfield movie, the ending would have been a lot more fun. Honestly, though, the movie SEEMS like it was shot to be that way. To be a kind of mystery flick, but then some producer said they HAD to call it Cloverfield to get people into the seats. The mailbox really should have been the indicator, and the only indicator, that this was connected to the Cloverfield universe. And frankly that's how I would have handled this movie. I would have called it something else, then had the aliens be a surprise, and the Cloverfield mailbox could have shown up. The subplot not going anywhere also wouldn't have really mattered if the ending was kept more of a surprise, because it would have completely overshadowed it.
So yeah, the movie didn't need to be changed at all, just the title. The aliens would have been a neat ending and the mailbox would have connected it to the first film (and been a cool treat to anyone familiar with the first). The result probably would have been a movie I'd probably whistle to the tune of being great, and recommend everyone to see. Really well acted and directed, but no need to see it more than once. For that matter, it's probably a movie you could wait and see at home. |
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,105
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 0:12:42 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Mar 20, 2016 7:33:48 GMT -5
10 Cloverfield Way(3/12/2016)
In 1982 John Carpenter engaged in a strange little experiment that’s still debated in genre circles. Having already produced one sequel to his 1979 classic Halloween in which he definitively killed off the Michael Myers character, Carpenter needed to find a way to please producers who were demanding a third film for the franchise. His solution was to convert the Halloween brand into a sort of anthology series in which each installment would be a standalone horror film dealing in some way with the titular holiday and the movie he delivered, Halloween III: Season of the Witch, was about a cult selling possessed Halloween masks rather than a knife wielding killer. Long story short, that movie left fans expecting a more conventional sequel confused and the movie did poorly as a result. That movie has amassed something of a cult following and many have argued that if it had simply been released without the Halloween branding it would have done better. I’m not so sure about that. I’d argue that the movie is more flawed then some of its defenders suggest and that few people would be talking about it today were it not a distant cousin of a more famous horror movie. Either way the experiment didn’t work out. The next Halloween movie brought back Michael Myers (as did the next six sequels/remakes) and no other franchises tried to do the anthology thing… until now. Thirty-four years after Halloween III J.J. Abrams has seemingly decided to have another go at making an established horror franchise into an anthology series with the “sequel” to the 2008 monster film Cloverfield entitled 10 Cloverfield Lane.
This spiritual successor to Cloverfield is seemingly set in a different continuity from the original film and doesn’t use any kind of found footage conceit. Instead it focuses on a woman named Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) who has just left her boyfriend moments before the film begins and is driving off to some other location when her car is seemingly struck and run off the road. Moments later she wakes up in a small room in what appears to be an underground bunker. This bunker is being run by a man named Howard Stambler (John Goodman), a doomsday prepper and conspiracy theorist who tells her that there’s been an attack of some kind and that if either of them try to leave they’ll be killed by the radiated air outside. Michelle is obviously suspicious of this and thinks she’s been kidnapped, but we did hear just before her accident that there had been some kind of blackout across the Southeast and the one other inhabitant named Emmet (John Gallagher, Jr.) also claims to have seen a flash in the distance before fleeing to the bunker.
In interviews producer J.J. Abrams has described this and the original Cloverfield as “two different rides at the same amusement park.” In other words he’s using the “Cloverfield” brand in order to help market stand-alone science fiction films produced by his production company that happen to share a certain Twilight Zone sensibility. It’s a move that anthology TV series like “American Horror Story” and “True Detective” may have prepared the public for and is basically a smart way to give a leg up to movies that would have lacked name recognition otherwise. I’m not sure how well this will work exactly. I like the original Cloverfield a lot but it was a divisive film and it’s also been a while since it came out, I’m not sure how much hunger there is out there for something similar and I’m also not sure how many people are exactly going to understand what they’re going for, but if this is what has to be done to get original IPs out there I’m not going to complain.
A secondary objective of the newly christened Cloverfield franchise seems to be that the films will act as launching pads for young “Bad Robot” affiliated directors who want to work from the jump in a commercial space rather than toil in the indie world. The original Cloverfield was (sort of) the debut feature for Matt Reeves, who previously had TV credits but is now the inheritor of the newly revived Planet of the Apes franchise. This time Abrams has tapped a guy named Dan Trachtenberg who previously mostly made commercials and made something of a splash with a short film based on the “Portal” video game. He was also something of an internet personality and hosted a couple of podcasts that I used to listen to from time to time back when he was a nobody. Those podcasts, which I tended to listen to more for his co-hosts than for him gave me the impression that he was very amiable personality whose taste in film runs on the geekier rather than auteurist end of the spectrum. Also I gathered that he was rather obsessed with the 80s and nostalgia thereof. He’s the kind of guy who would cite The Karate Kid as a “classic” and that perhaps makes him a natural collaborator with the director of Super 8.
The direction here is mostly slick and professional if not terribly distinguished. It certainly doesn’t have the experimental edge of the original Cloverfield which was a film that was almost entirely defined by its technique rather than its story. This one is more traditional. There’s no found footage conceit or any other particular gimmick aside from the fact that it’s this sort of confined chamber drama with only three real characters. The film’s real weakness probably stems from the film’s script, which was written by a couple of guys named Josh Campbell and Matt Stuecken and which was also apparently worked on by Damien Chazelle (director of Whiplash). The screenplay does a decent job of setting things in motion and does seem to have a handful of good ideas, but there are some shaky elements as well like sub-plots in it that go nowhere (hint: earrings) and there’s also a pretty major scene in the film that is resolved through some really coincidental timing (hint: escape attempt).
Of course the element of the film that will probably generate the most discussion are the developments in the last fifteen or twenty minutes (and we’re diving headfirst into spoiler territory here) in which it’s revealed that Howard is not crazy and that there was a damn alien invasion going on while our three characters were hunkered down in their bomb shelter. This isn’t a complete shock twist of the Sixth Sense variety as it was pretty clearly foreshadowed that science fiction things are a possibility in the movie, but the way that the film shifts from Ex Machina into War of the Worlds is still pretty leftfield and it also reveals the main commonality between it and the original Cloverfield: both are film that depict people who have limited and unconventional perspectives on an apocalyptic situation. The difference is that I found the way the original film cockteased its audience by giving bits and pieces of “the goods” before retreating to be rather invigorating where a conventional take would have been boring, but I’m not sure I feel the same way about this approach. If anything, I kind of left the film feeling like the alien invasion movie that we only got a taste of would have made for a more exciting film than the somewhat interesting bit of theatrical drama that we got.
I will give them this though: the twist ending wasn’t a pure gimmick and did play into the film’s wider story. It is was almost certainly a deliberate choice to make the last spoken words in the film something along the lines of “we need people with combat and medical skills.” Howard had both of those things but rather than use them to help humanity he used them to keep himself safe to no real end. As such, the twist with the aliens vindicates his paranoia while condemning his tactics. It’s that kind of trickery that ultimately keeps me on board with 10 Cloverfield Lane and J.J. Abrams’ “mystery box” philosophy. However, there is probably a reason why I’ve spent almost as much time discussing the ways that this film would be marketed and branded rather than its actual content. The first Cloverfield was something special, something I’ll be talking about for a while and this wasn’t really. We’ve seen thrillers like this with minimal casts and a single location before; they’re really not as rare as you’d think and I don’t know that this one really added a whole lot to the equation, but it’s certainly a good movie, probably the best one you’re likely to find in wide release right now but I can’t really call it a homerun.
***1/2 out of Five
|
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,496
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 22:22:14 GMT -5
|
Post by IanTheCool on Mar 30, 2016 11:14:02 GMT -5
A girl gets in an accident. She wakes up in a bunker with creepy John Goodman. He says there's been an attack and they can't leave. Can she trust him? I mean, he only had her chained to a pole... So the premise of 10 Cloverfield Lane allows for a "bottle" story which sees three people stuck inside the bunker trying to survive and ascertain the truth of what happened, if anything did. The atmosphere is tense and uncertain throughout, which is exactly what it needs to be. And lets face it, most of the reason for that is Goodman's performance. He's as great as he usually tends to be. Its an effective thriller, but not without its flaws, which I can't really go into without spoilers, so... So I guess the balance of this movie is what seems a little off. The majority of the film deals with whether or not Howard is lying and whether he can be trusted (as much as someone so paranoid as to build a massive bunker system can be I suppose). And this sustains the movie up until the last... fifth or so when Michelle makes it out, and suddenly she's smack dab in the middle of an alien takeover.
Now, I don't have a problem with this, but like I said the balance seems off. I think if she escaped sooner so that maybe the whole final act was escaping the alien ship, that's one thing. But it seemed like the running time inside the bunker went for so long, they sort of passed the point of no return and maybe should have just stuck to the bunker for the whole movie.
Yet, I'm not sure I would have liked that either. I was impatiently eager to see what actually was happening outside, and likely would have disappointed had they not shown it. I'm just saying that the amount of time spent underground and above seemed off kilter.
Also, I felt like that decision she made in the end felt like a really tacked on character motivation piece that wasn't entirely earned. Yes she told that story about her running instead of helping, but nothing she did since kept that character idea in our heads until the very end. 10 Cloverfield Lane is well acted and mostly engaging (with a few slow parts here and there as most bottle stories do).. There are some story balance issues, but they are easy to look past for a simple, entertaining watch. 7/10 |
|
daniel
Producer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,072
Likes: 245
Location:
Last Online Mar 13, 2022 22:49:30 GMT -5
|
Post by daniel on Mar 30, 2016 12:46:54 GMT -5
This felt like a Twilight Zone episode to me, which is great. The tension was rife throughout, and I found myself really feeling the overbearing weight of wanting answers as much as the characters within. The ending was great in that it rips the tension wide open and gives us a new and different set of problems to engage with.
It's early in the year, but this is in my top 3 thus far.
8/10
|
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,496
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 22:22:14 GMT -5
|
Post by IanTheCool on Mar 30, 2016 12:50:35 GMT -5
This felt like a Twilight Zone episode to me, which is great. Good call. |
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,649
Likes: 4,066
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 0:10:25 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Mar 30, 2016 14:04:50 GMT -5
We live in an age where we seem to know everything about a film long before it’s even out. Sure, indie releases can come from nowhere and surprise, but mainstream movies often have concept art, set photos, and trailers released months, sometimes years, before the product actually hits theaters. This is a big part of what made 10 Cloverfield Lane’s marketing such a treat. No one even new this was movie was in development when the trailer dropped in March but the fact that the film was slated for a release just two months later was even more enticing. And then of course is there was the fact that this was marketed as a sort of sequel to Cloverfield, a film I’m very fond of.
As it turns out, the film has very little to do with the original Cloverfield outside of hints of a science-fiction high concept and certain broad thematic overtones. On the one hand, I do think there is more potential to explore in the world of the original film, but at the same time, I’m glad J.J. Abrams has opted to do something more creative with this franchise than recycle the first film. More importantly, the story at the heart of 10 Cloverfield Lane is a good one. As the film starts, we are introduced to a young woman named Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) after she breaks up with her boyfriend and drives to an unknown destination. On her way, Michelle is in a car accident and passes out. Later, she wakes up chained in the underground cellar of a man named Howard (John Goodman). Howard is a conspiracy theorist who has built this large bunker and stocked it with supplies in the event of some sort of disaster. He tells Michelle that some sort of attack has occurred which has left the surface uninhabitable and that she cannot leave. Michelle is naturally suspicious of this, but the bunker’s other dweller, Emmett (John Gallagher, Jr) confirms that an attack has taken place.
It’s hard to talk about 10 Cloverfield Lane without going into spoiler territory so I’m going to be tiptoeing through a lot of this review. What I can say is that while the film does have shades of thriller, horror and science-fiction, the bulk of the narrative is actually a chamber piece involving just a few select characters. On this level, the film works very well. The characters are strong and Mary Elizabeth Winstead makes for an effective lead, but the real treat here is John Goodman. Goodman is a great ability to teeter between a kind gentleness and cruel dominance and he uses that to excellent effect here. The character is also filmed either in ways which emphasize his imposing status, or in ways which make him seem like a more pleasant domestic figure. Howard himself is the most interesting character in the film and while I do think the script makes it a bit too obvious what type of person Howard is early on, it’s interesting to watch his character unfold.
The film also works as a horror movie of sorts as we watch the tension rise over the course of the film. The script effectively dolls out information and paces the highs and lows well. Director Dan Trachtenberg shoots the film very well and while the set-pieces are inherently low key, Trachtenberg stages them well. This is certainly a strong and assured debut for Trachtenberg, but the film lacks a certain spark. With the original Cloverfield, director Matt Reeves used a specific film style to maximum effect and really distinguished both himself and the film. 10 Cloverfield Lane doesn’t really have anything like that. Still, the direction is in no way wrong so much as it is simply conventional. Where the film does go awry is in its climactic 20 minutes. Again, I will be avoiding spoilers, but I will say is the film tries to both be somewhat ambiguous while still providing some concrete answers and in the process fails at both. I wish this section had either been drastically reduced, or expanded and explored in a more interesting way. What is more problematic is the set-piece which accompanies these final moments, which is essentially pointless and doesn’t fit the tone of the rest of the film at all.
So in summation, what is there to say about 10 Cloverfield Lane? Well, I certainly enjoyed my time with it. This is an engaging film that’s well acted (particularly from Goodman) and generally made in a professional and slick manner. And aside from some minor gripes and my disappointment with the ending, this also isn’t a film I have any major problems with. And yet, my enthusiasm for the film is only moderate. At the end of the day, this is just a little too ordinary for me to really get excited about. While the original Cloverfield is a film that excited me a lot and one that I often went back too, I can’t imagine really seeking this out for future watches, nor do I think 10 Cloverfield Lane will stick with me. Still, this is certainly a respectable example of mainstream filmmaking and is certainly worth a look for any moviegoer looking for some thrills.
B
|
|
