|
My Rating:
|
REVIEWED: 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)
Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead | John Goodman | John Gallagher, Jr. Genres: Drama | Horror | Mystery IMDB Synopsis: After getting in a car accident, a woman is held in a shelter with two men, who claim the outside world is affected by a widespread chemical attack. |
Here be spoilers.
It’s been nine years since Cloverfield became a surprise sleeper hit. The film started off with a group of 20-somethings saying farewell to a friend setting out for a new career in Japan. But their night of revelry descends into terror when an unknown monster slithers out of New York harbor and begins to destroy the Big Apple, ala Godzilla. Cloverfield was one of the few recent films I thought used the “found film / shaky camera” technique effectively. Combined with a clever viral marketing strategy, the film was wonderfully ambiguous from start to end and ultimately seemed sequel-proof.
With 10 Cloverfield Lane being heavily promoted on streaming services right now, I thought it was time to write a review despite my general suspicion for sequels. Let’s face it, sequels have become the laziest way to make movies today (see my blog The Case Against Reboots and Sequels), but this well-crafted thriller may be the exception that proves the rule. The film bears no resemblance to the original except that it skillfully builds and maintains tension until the audience is baffled and terrified in equal measure.
Like its predecessor, 10 Cloverfield Lane begins innocuously enough. Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is leaving her boyfriend. She packs up her car and heads into the Louisiana countryside for an unknown destination. En route, she’s in a car accident and when she awakens finds herself imprisoned in a subterranean bunker owned by an eccentric farmer named Howard, played with creepy gusto by John Goodman. The only other resident is a young man named Emmett (John Gallagher, Jr.), a neighbor who helped Howard build the bunker and fled to it once news reached him that the United States was under attack by forces unknown.
At first, Michelle’s not sure if this attack is real or just an excuse to keep her confined, but it eventually becomes obvious that something — something big and something bad — has happened to the outside world. Yet the bunker itself is no safety zone. Howard’s behavior is erratic and, as Michelle and Emmett begin to poke around, it seems likely that their underground home had a purpose other than surviving doomsday. As conditions worsen, Michelle plans and executes her escape. But when she makes it to the world above, it’s not the one she remembers.
J.J. Abrams, who produced both films, has stated that the ambiguity behind them is intentional. Time will tell if there’s some as-yet-to-be-revealed thread that ties everything altogether, but for now I have no idea what’s going on and I’m loving every minute of it.
Go see it.
It’s been nine years since Cloverfield became a surprise sleeper hit. The film started off with a group of 20-somethings saying farewell to a friend setting out for a new career in Japan. But their night of revelry descends into terror when an unknown monster slithers out of New York harbor and begins to destroy the Big Apple, ala Godzilla. Cloverfield was one of the few recent films I thought used the “found film / shaky camera” technique effectively. Combined with a clever viral marketing strategy, the film was wonderfully ambiguous from start to end and ultimately seemed sequel-proof.
With 10 Cloverfield Lane being heavily promoted on streaming services right now, I thought it was time to write a review despite my general suspicion for sequels. Let’s face it, sequels have become the laziest way to make movies today (see my blog The Case Against Reboots and Sequels), but this well-crafted thriller may be the exception that proves the rule. The film bears no resemblance to the original except that it skillfully builds and maintains tension until the audience is baffled and terrified in equal measure.
Like its predecessor, 10 Cloverfield Lane begins innocuously enough. Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is leaving her boyfriend. She packs up her car and heads into the Louisiana countryside for an unknown destination. En route, she’s in a car accident and when she awakens finds herself imprisoned in a subterranean bunker owned by an eccentric farmer named Howard, played with creepy gusto by John Goodman. The only other resident is a young man named Emmett (John Gallagher, Jr.), a neighbor who helped Howard build the bunker and fled to it once news reached him that the United States was under attack by forces unknown.
At first, Michelle’s not sure if this attack is real or just an excuse to keep her confined, but it eventually becomes obvious that something — something big and something bad — has happened to the outside world. Yet the bunker itself is no safety zone. Howard’s behavior is erratic and, as Michelle and Emmett begin to poke around, it seems likely that their underground home had a purpose other than surviving doomsday. As conditions worsen, Michelle plans and executes her escape. But when she makes it to the world above, it’s not the one she remembers.
J.J. Abrams, who produced both films, has stated that the ambiguity behind them is intentional. Time will tell if there’s some as-yet-to-be-revealed thread that ties everything altogether, but for now I have no idea what’s going on and I’m loving every minute of it.
Go see it.
ADDITIONAL FEATURES:
|
|
|
