Review of 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) by Evil Lemon 6 — 21 Apr 2017

Depending on how big a fan you are of "Cloverfield," the 2008 J.J. Abrams-produced/Matt Reeves-directed found footage monster film, the best way to approach its follow-up, 2016's "10 Cloverfield Lane," is to just throw out the word "Cloverfield" altogether. If you're expecting a true follow-up to the earlier film, you're going to be disappointed. "10 Cloverfield Lane" is more of a "sidequel," a story that takes place within the same universe but doesn't really have any obvious connection to its predecessor.

In that sense, the word "Cloverfield" in the title might be seen as a distraction. Therefore you should just push it out of your mind and try and enjoy the movie for what it is, and it's an enjoyably taut little thriller.

In a weird way, it's almost like the anti-"Cloverfield," as it forsakes the elements of that film, for the most part (i.e., found footage format, little known stars, elaborate special effects), and tells its story on a much smaller scale. It's true that the last act of the movie plays things a little differently, but for the vast majority of the running time, it almost seems like it could work as a stage play, what with its single location and small number of characters. The atmosphere is claustrophobic and intimate, and that helps greatly when the film goes into suspense mode.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a young woman named Michelle who, as the film opens, is involved in a car accident. She awakens to find herself chained to the wall in some kind of bunker with an IV bag dripping fluid into her. A burly, gruff man named Howard (John Goodman) enters, carrying a tray of food. He explains to her that there has been an "attack." Some kind of chemical or gas-based weapon has been released on the world, just prior to her accident. He discovered her lying in the road and brought her to his man-made underground bomb shelter, where he says she will be safe.

Michelle is obviously very confused. Who conducted this "attack?" Why isn't she currently in the hospital? Can she reach out to members of her family? Howard doesn't have all the answers, but the most important--and chilling--thing he tells her is that everyone out there in the world is dead. Whoever carried out the attack, they were aiming for total destruction.

This is an intriguing set-up, mainly because the audience shares Michelle's bewilderment. Is this mercurial doomsday-prepper her savior or her captor? Howard's personality tends to shift wildly; he can be laconic and soft-spoken, but he can also be moody and intense. Although he's clearly a smart, capable man, he also appears to be a bit unbalanced. This is probably the description many of us would use to describe a person who's constructed a fully inhabitable bomb shelter, but hey, it looks he had the right idea.

Or did he?

And that's the movie's biggest strength. For a large amount of run-time, we're uncertain as to what actually transpired. Was there ever an attack or is Howard just a creepy, deranged kidnapper? Or, perhaps more disturbingly, is Howard so crazy that he believes there was an attack when there actually wasn't?

Now there are instances that seem to suggest that Howard is telling the truth, and yet, for reasons I won't get into here, there are also instances that suggest there's more going on here than we, and Michelle, were led to believe. The air of mystery that surrounds the film is its strongest suit, and it leads to dynamic performances from Winstead and Goodman in roles that are a bit more complex than "horror movie heroine and villain.".

A definitive answer is eventually given in the final act, which is a bit of a disappointment, if I'm being honest. To be entirely fair, as the film takes place in the "Cloverfield" universe, it does not cheat. But I just felt a bit underwhelmed by the conclusion, especially when compared to the tense, paranoid atmosphere established during the movie's first two-thirds. It just worked better when the story felt more intimate and human.

Even so, "10 Cloverfield Lane" is a solid film, expertly crafted, and it demonstrates that it is possible to make a good sequel to a sci-fi horror film that is vastly different from its forebear. It's not a pointless retread of all the things we've already seen; at its heart, there is a sharp story here, one that effortlessly extracts tension from its minimal surroundings.