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
Add a Review
-
MUFCOK13 September 2016Now, I knew going into this that it wasn't in the same ball park as the 2008 movie Cloverfield. I was aware of the basic plot but I had stayed clear of trailers and reviews before viewing it as I didn't want to ruin my viewing experience. It was painfully obvious that before I watched the movie it was going to have an alien/monster aspect. The fact that is is named Cloverfield and that I saw a movie poster of the house glowing like a spaceship pretty much confirmed to me, before viewing that there was to be some form of sci-fi element outside of the bunker. And when a movie spends most of its energy keeping you guessing to whether the outside world is infected, when its glaringly obvious (off my two previous points alone) that it actually will be, is a whopping plot hole in my personal opinion.
The lead character Michelle is in a car crash, she awakes in a cell, chained to the wall by a mysterious man, Howard (played perfectly by John Goodman). He tells her that he found her and rescued her by taking her down into a bunker under his farmhouse as the outside world above ground level is toxic and it could take years to become safe for them to leave. It is obvious now that the vat majority of this movie is to be played out in the confined space of the underground bunker, filmed over 4 or 5 rooms, it has a dark, claustrophobic, tense feel to it. Bottled-up environments require good acting to make them work, if you are restricted to 3 characters for 90 minutes in a dialogue driven movie then the acting has to be top notch and convincing. And in 10 Cloverfield Lane, it was just that. The acting was very, very good, especially from John Goodman. He portrayed his character effortlessly, portraying a man who wasn't black or white, he was mysterious, compelling and awkward. He could take you from thinking he was an honest man, to thinking he is a psycho murderer within a matter of seconds. Without his presence, 10 Cloverfield Lane wouldn't have been half as effective.
Throughout the movie we are kept guessing if Howard is a good guy or a bad guy. The plot shifts several times, one minute making you think that he is a genuine, honest man to then making you feel as if he is a psychopath, hiding a haunting past. This was interesting and I was very emerged into this aspect of the movie. He swore by the theory that the outside air was contaminated and he kept his prisoners there for their own safety and you were guessing whether this was genuine or if he was simply brainwashing them with fear tactics.
In the end we aren't given the full backstory to Howards life, but enough evidence is there to point to the fact he was deranged. My theory is that his Wife/Daughter left him, he kidnapped the missing school girl and likely resulted in killing her through his depressed psychotic personality. He killed the other main character in the show, having a barrel of acid already prepared to dispose of the body and he had spent years building a bunker below his house for the possibility of an 'alien invasion' (or was it just a chamber where he kept and tortured people?). Either way, all the facts point at Howard being a unhinged, murdering mad man.
Making a safety suit out of a shower curtain, half a Coca Cola bottle and some duct tape, in order to try and escape is simply ridiculous. Surely attack Howard first, then proceed to make your homemade suit would have been a more conventional way of doing things? Rather than trying to hide it from him? Bizarre storytelling to say the least.
Ultimately, 10 Cloverfield Lane was a claustrophobic, well-acted, dialogue driven thriller which was played out very well until the final 15 minutes or so.
Now, where to begin, trying to summarise this abomination of an ending?
1 – The film was well paced and constructed perfectly, offering a really tense viewing with some scenes having an uneasy feel. This was ruined the second she was out of the bunker as it took a complete U-Turn going from 0 - Hollywood in a matter of seconds.
2- As I said earlier, I was expecting some Alien element outside of the bunker, with it being something I was expecting, I wouldn't have been completely against it, however the way in which it was executed was so poor that it just ruined the entire movie. If the aliens had been subtle and attacked with some better directing it could have been saved slightly.
3 – Killing the 'alien' with a conveniently accessible cocktail Molotov, made of a magazine and a wine bottle, by being perfectly able to throw it into its open mouth whilst being dragged up towards it whilst in the seat of a car is just too much for me, I'm sorry.
4 – To finally escape and hear on the radio that survivors must head to Chicago, conveniently as she is driving past a road sign (in the middle of nowhere) that points towards Chicago, is again downright laughable and lazy.
Ultimately it is a shame that the movie fell apart so quickly in the last 15 minutes, prior to the end scene I would have given it an 8/10 or even a 9/10 for the great scenes, acting and storytelling in the bunker. However due to the horrifically poor ending I will give it a 7/10 and I think that may be a little generous. -
DVR_Brale27 July 2016I've always loved movies with strong atmosphere. Three people locked together in an underground shelter is a recipe for making a movie which is going to draw you in a rather small but peculiar world.
This is one if the rare non-crime movies that keep you guessing what might have happened and what's happening. No where does the plot release it's vents but on contrary it keeps building pressure.
There are little if any horror elements in this movie. Those of you who want to get scared are not going to be content. Those of you looking for a tense, slow building atmosphere are going to love this one! This is primarily a mystery movie.
John Goodman has done such a good job that he even succeeded in making me nervous like I was locked with him. There's nothing really strange about Howard. The conditions are guilty for making him looking wicked. Or are they?
While the main premise has been greatly utilized I don't think ending was sound or in some way contributory to a plot. It's as if writers didn't know how to leave some space open for a sequel.
You can enjoy this movie equally well watching it by yourself or with somebody else. Go and see it. -
sofikocovska9 December 2020It would have been solid 8 or 9 if it wasn't for the ending. Except that it was quite an intense mystery.
-
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. -
benrobtaylor12 March 2016To describe 10 Cloverfield Lane in one word: Genreless.
I won't say much about the film as I'm a strong believer of going in blind, but I will say that the performances, writing, and cinematic pacing worked perfectly together to create a truly unique film.
I loved watching it, and the moments of comedy sprouting up throughout made the duality between light-hearted humanity and dark confusion work perfectly together. I would give the Titles and Credits 10/10 as well, because they were just so damn fantastic and fresh and reminded me that titling is an art form like any other in the cinematic Genre. If you enjoy good film, you will enjoy 10 Cloverfield Lane. -
deloudelouvain10 August 2016I explicitly avoid watching any trailers or reading any reviews from 10 Cloverfield Lane just because I wanted to be certain to be surprised by the story. I just heard from some people that it was good and that's all I needed to know. And I'm glad I did because during the whole entire movie you wonder what is really happening. You think about all the possible scenarios and still you are never sure what is going on. I like those kind of movies, mysteries, that keep you on edge all the time. The cast did a perfect job with their respective performances. And even though there are almost no other actors then the three main ones, John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr, the movie never gets boring. It's full of twists and that's how I like it. One of the better ones I saw this year.
-
sad_otter15 May 2023They really didn't stick the ending so hot did they? Apparently this was a standalone "bunker" movie that was later grafted into the Cloverfield... universe? Niche? I don't know; the first one was very underwhelming and I probably saw the second one but drawing a total blank at the moment. Anyway if the ending feels different that's because it is.
The bulk of the film worked for me. The tub of acid was a bit odd and the whole "plan" to go outside was poorly conceived but fair enough. Maybe those two just weren't real quick thinkers. So turns out a person can be paranoid, right to be, and a pedophile all at once. Okay, I can accept that. It would make all the persons statements questionable in retrospect. So most of a movie goes by then the Escape. I get her motivation but destroying the place on your way out was a bad call. Granted that wasn't entirely her direct doing but still, think things through. Though it's not specified the coexisting montage implies they're down there for some time. Weeks, maybe months. There was time to think more.
So escape and she's outside now. Cool. Birds are chirping so perhaps the air's not so toxic after all. Of course the weird lady trying to get in specifically said "it barely touched me" which suggests an entity or visible cloud or something. Freaks out after ripping her pseudo-Hazmat suit then promptly takes the mask off seconds later. Okay, confidence again. Then "oh damn, there's a spaceship flying around. I'd better find a car so they won't accidentally pass me by." Sets off her own car alarm, hides in a shed, vague aliens, yadda yadda. Then tosses a Molotov cocktail into the alien spaceship vagina and boom, blows it up. Go girl. Then she does what anyone being hunted by alien spacecraft would do: drive straight down the road with the lights on. Then there's a radio transmission, that they were I guess just out of range of the whole movie, and is presented with a choice: flee to a safe zone or hang a left and heed the resistance's call for people with combat or medical experience. Well, it's already been established that she wanted to be a fashion designer so no experience there. Oh wait, she did stitch up a wound (that wasn't bleeding anymore so totally unnecessary but whatever) and then she sorta barely escaped the guy later by knocking stuff over a lot, so of course she's the next Sarah Conner and off she goes. Any other cast and this would be a complete dog turd of a movie but the actors prop it up. Should've hacked the end back off. Studios never interfere when you want them to. So it's an 80% good movie with a whole movies worth of bad writing and mistakes crammed in at the end. But, despite the JJ Abrams exposure, no obnoxious lens flares. So that's something. I finally watched this after all this time so that's something (used to see it at the video store so clearly it's been out awhile). Enjoy, until the end. -
First of all, the film was more than good, in my opinion and, for the people who like to see a good or more than good movie, I recommend buying a ticket or the DVD release or just rent it. As a medium spoiler, I'd say that, plot wise, it reminded me of "Law abiding citizen", with the first three quarters of the movie full of suspense and plot twists, and the last act, a little rushed and over the top. And that justifies the two penalty points I gave to this movie, one of them just for the exaggerated use of a bottle of good brandy.
As for "10 Cloverfield Lane", I can say it offered just the things you would expect... from a movie you really don't know what to expect. A thin trailer, with little to no information about the plot was, in my opinion, was a clever move and made me watch it. And, to be honest, except for the final act, I was more than satisfied with the emotion, the tension, the acting (great for two of the main characters, kinda OK for the other one), the way the director played with my mind and feelings about the characters and the way it builds them. You expect them to be capable of doing the things they do in the movie. For once, a complete looser at the beginning of the movie doesn't become, inexplicably and over night, some kind of Macgyver/guerrilla fighter at the end. It's a movie you can't forget really easy.
Now, for the part that I'm quite annoyed with: the alien mayhem expectations that make this movie "baaad"...
I've seen a lot of reviews and opinions about how bad this movie is, about how much of a mixed up plot nonsense is and about the fact that most of them where "waiting for something to happen". Well, as I mentioned before, a lot of things happen, just not the ones you would expect. And, as I've seen, the upset and disappointed moviegoers were, mostly, the ones that expected to see a sequel for Cloverfield. Well (spoiler alert) IT'S NOT! It's a movie that tells a story happening during the events of Cloverfield and that is the only connection to the original. It can be taken as a standalone film, for that matter. And, as I said, a quite good one.
In conclusion: if you expect monster aliens fighting military helis, explosions, guns and all that Michael Bay stuff, then skip this one. On the other hand, if you expect a good thriller (with some added Sci- Fi at the end), good acting and disturbing plot twists, then it's the kind of movie for you.
P.S.: I'm not saying anything about the plot, because, just as one reviewer said, "the more you know about the movie, the less interesting it will be". -
randy_orton_fan1 May 2016Why is this movie so critically acclaimed?
It's your typical horror/thriller. Except this time they're stuck in a bunker with a nutcase who shoots a guy then gets blown up.
Aliens don't show up until the end and Mary Sue, that's what she is not her name, blows their ship up with a molotov cocktail.
Overrated trash, just like the original Cloverfield. People love it based on name and the insane amounts of viral adverting the series loves to exploit.
If this movie had been called anything else, it would not only been a flop, but the same people praising it would be the most critical. -
desouky_ahmed27 August 2018The movie was going well untill the end
The end of the movie is very bad -
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. -
secondtake11 November 201610 Cloverfield Lane (2016)
This is a tricky movie to review because it tries to do three different things, and it does two of them well. It's a movie that gets so much better as it goes, you hate the manipulative first twenty minutes more and more.
The problem is worse because I don't want to give away the plot. There are a few key twists that are part of what makes the movie special. The last section, which I can't outline a bit, is by far the best part, and it isn't given time to develop. Oddly, the last part is also preposterous, and the main character survives against all logic, and the first sections of the film strive for true fictional accuracy.
So, ultimately, the point of the film is to surprise and surprise. What really bothered me was the way the first section, where the leading woman is help captive (you learn this right away), tries to mislead us in a sensational way that doesn't make sense with the main central part of the film.
John Goodman, the big name here, plays a survivalist who is portrayed as a good guy with a mixed up sense of justice (and some personal loose screws). He's pretty good, though doesn't command the role quite the way he does some others in his career. The shelter he's created is elaborate, and the crisis outside the shelter is kept ambiguous— and doubtful—which is a great bit of suspense.
The final section almost seems to suggest a sequel—one that would be utterly different than this film. Watch for it (if it happens) because it should be fun. -
sonofocelot-110 May 2016I'll leave this review fairly concise.
This film was originally called "the cellar" the premise being what we see for the first 90% of "10 cloverfield lane": an excellent, brilliantly-scripted thriller set in an underground bunker, the tension lying in the "goodie-or-baddie" mystery that is the owner of the bunker, Howard. He is telling our hero, Michelle, that she cannot leave because the air outside is not breathable due to an attack, probably nuclear. She wants to leave because she suspects that Howard is insane.
That premise right there is perfect. Is Howard telling the truth? Is he a deranged kidnapper? Will Michelle eventually decide to leave? Is the air really breathable outside? The magnitude of that intrigue would have made for a brilliant film.
Would have.
This is when JJ Abrams and bad robot came in and basically did what they do with the end of every single project they ever take on. Ruin it. Ruin it absolutely horrifically. They have clearly seen monetary value in the name "cloverfield" and are insisting on making it a franchise. Do we expect monsters going into this film? Yes. Do we get them? Yes. Was it necessary? Absolutely one million percent no.
10 minutes from the end of what had been a gripping film, we finally see Michelle leave, and escape the bunker. She realises that the air is still breathable. Now, "pre-abrams" as I'll refer to it, this would've been an excellent ending. A bittersweet tale of abuse, of loneliness from Howard's point of view, of revenge, of victory. But with a huge psychological trauma to go home with. Honestly this film would be perfect had it ended here. But it wasn't to be.
This is when the aliens come. We seem to in the blink of an eye turn from "the cellar", a brilliantly told thriller, into an Abrams, overly-Hollywood, big budget cringefest. For me, it wasn't the moment the spaceship came on the screen, it was the moment our timid hero, portrayed brilliantly up until now, who'd just been crying uncontrollably with relief at the air still being breathable, suddenly turns stern action hero. She looks up and says "you have GOT to be kidding me", in the same emphatic way we've seen in 600 "five out of ten" films down the years.
I'm sorry, but you've just seen alien life. And that's your reaction? In what until now was a very realistic, well told suspense thriller? Not having it for a second. It was like we could see the moment Abrams took over. And it ruined what could have been a classic.
The remaining 9 minutes are nothing more than a glorified creature feature, culminating in our hero, who's suddenly lost all her emotions, driving off to help the "human resistance" fight against the aliens.
End of movie. What amazes me most is the number of critic reviews I've seen saying "the aliens are a metaphor for what is outside a person's lonely bubble of abuse" or some nonsense along those lines. Sorry guys but you're thinking WAY too much into it. This is a story of a money-grabbing company, who bought a perfectly good script, and ruined the ending with aliens.
I'm not entirely sure what I expected in all honesty. It's Abrams. I saw the ending to LOST and vowed never to make the mistake of investing my time in any of his projects again. Sure enough, I made the aforementioned mistake again and it's almost as bad as LOST was (minus the 5 years of my life id invested for the lovey-dovey, semi-religious, out-of- ideas cop out snoozefest that was the ending to LOST).
Abrams strikes me as one of those who inexplicably takes pride in disappointing his audiences, as if he feels he's somehow above them and that the negative reviews are just people who don't "get" him. I think in all honesty it's more a sign that he's just not very good at what he does.
My advice? Turn off when you see Michelle remove her oxygen mask. Pretend that's the end and you have your film of the year. Watch on for yet another example of "how to ruin a perfectly decent project: by JJ Abrams"
5/10. 10 for the first hour and a half, minus 5 for the last 10 minutes. -
Leofwine_draca26 February 201810 CLOVERFIELD LANE is a bizarre and almost unrelated follow-up to the found footage monster horror hit CLOVERFIELD, which came out back in 2008. It's only at the climax that this film ties in to that one (although in actuality it feels more like SKYLINE) but for the most part it's a claustrophobic thriller set in an underground bunker. That it works at all is down to the presence of the ever-excellent John Goodman, playing it expertly as the survivalist captor hiding a few dark secrets. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is okay as the lead, but remains unsympathetic throughout, and the narrative is a little too slow at times, particularly in the 'happy' middle section. Still, the director ekes out suspense where possible, the guessing games are fun, and there are some nice and nasty twists in store.
-
jesussanchezfdez11 March 201610 Cloverfield Lane gives all the development and the meaningful story that its blood relative installment lacked completely. This is not a spectacle full of screams and special effects. This is a spectacle of tension and suspense of epic proportions. This is a really feel-bad movie at certain points.
First of all, you have to take the leap of faith and go ahead watching without knowing anything of the plot. Don't worry because all the teasers doesn't reveal anything important, but don't try to search information. If everything were that easy, even Hitchcock or Nolan movies would lose all interest.
I was extremely hooked since the furious start to the eye popping and surprising finale. The direction is amazing and claustrophobic. The performances are great, looking up to a surprising Winstead and a unrestrained unforgettable turn by Goodman. The story is gleefully unapologetic delivering chills and full blooded twists (the biggest of all is the intense ending reveal) even thought it deviates from the monster POV storyline.
Secretly made, impeccably marketed, nicely developed and finally here along with us: 10 Cloverfield Lane promised thrills and delivered it and then some. I was expecting some things that I tasted but I was surprised by a complexity and a twisted sense of horror that I didn't see coming. 2016 has released the very first great movie of the year. -
julija-koprivec3 November 2016The movie started out okay. I was expecting a really good horror movie,judging by the 7,3 user rating on here, and judging by how good it was shot, the good cast and how good the acting was at the beginning. It got kind of boring after 30 minutes or so, but I kept watching because I still had hope it would get me on the edge of my seat at some point, and I wanted to know whether sh*t was actually going down outside or Howard was really just psycho. But it did nothing special. The last 15 minutes were basically just "oh we're running out of running time guys, better shoot something "shocking" that no one will expect!" Reminded me a lot of some low-budget movie- nothing special and you'll probably forget about it in no time. Oh, and of course, the girl HAD to blow that GIGANTIC thing up. Classic. So overall, the movie was good, until she went outside, after that it was a bit of a disappointment.
-
brands429 March 2016Two months ago, no one knew that 10 Cloverfield existed, let alone was about to be wide released in theaters. One month ago, no one had any idea how, if at all, this film was related to the 2008 film Cloverfield except for the obvious title and produced J.J. Abrams. And now, all is revealed. Sort of. Here's my review.
One of the greatest things 10 Cloverfield Lane has to offer is that the audience really has no idea what to expect going into the film. Very much in the J.J Abrams way, the production for this film has been left completely under-wraps and the trailers have revealed next to nothing. That's one of the benefits for the movies, so I'm not going to spoil or give anything away in my synopsis or the review. I won't even tell you if this movie is indeed a Cloverfield sequel or if it's something different altogether. You'll have to find out for yourself, because I can tell you right now that you should spend the money to go see it in theaters.
I'll be brief. A woman we know very little about named Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is involved in a car crash in a breath taking opening credit sequence. She wakes up a few days later to find herself in an underground bunker with Howard (John Goodman), a large and crazed eyed farmer standing above her. He tells her that she can't leave, because some sort of disaster has happened and it's not safe to go outside. Finding herself alone with Howard and another man named Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), and I'm stealing their tag line here because it's a dang good tag line, they find out that Monsters come in many forms.
Obviously I had no idea to expect when I went into 10 Cloverfield Lane. No one did. But within the first five minutes they set the tone so you know what kind of movie they are going for, and I found myself instantly engaged. For the rest of the film, I was floored with what was going on. Director Dan Trachtenberg takes the reigns on creating a film that will hit you with the unexpected, and leave your jaw hanging.
The best word I could think of to describe this film while I was watching it was claustrophobic. For the scenes that takes place in the bunker (I'm not saying how much of the screen time that actually is) they create such an intense and nervous atmosphere that you feel yourself getting antsy along with the characters.
That's because for almost the whole film, we don't really know what's going on. We know what John Goodman is telling us and leading us to believe, but we have no idea if that's reliable or not. We discover things along with the characters, which is why this film is such a good build up. When the conclusion to the film finally comes, you leave more than satisfied. But don't ruin it for yourself by looking up online spoilers to see if it is a Cloverfield sequel. Spend the money. See the movie. Find out for yourself. It's worth it.
I've heard the argument and I've sited it a few times in past reviews, that the best way to bring out great performances in actors is to lock them in a single setting film where they having nothing to hide their performance behind. That's what happens here. Mary Elizabeth Winstead, an actress who deserves to get more work than she does, played the character so well as she captures the nervous ticks without acting completely helpless the whole time. In the end, she was pretty bad-ass. John Gallagher Jr., a character who could have been super annoying, ended up being great in the film too, and had really good chemistry with Mary Elizabeth Winstead.
But the stand-out of the film if John Goodman. John Goodman is in so many films every year that we sometimes take him for granted and forget how good of an actor he can be when he's not mailing it in (whatever Hangover film he was in. I forget) but rather commits whole heartedly to a role. That's what happens here. He could have easily over-cooked his performance where it came of as cartoon-y or unrealistic, but he hit just the right level of disturbing and off-putting where you are crept out by the guy but you can't be sure if he's in the right or wrong. It's a performance similar to Joel Edgerton's in The Gift.
ALSO just read on IMDb that Bradely Cooper's voice appeared over a cell-phone in one scene. I knew I had heard the voice somewhere but I couldn't put my finger on it until now.
At no point of 10 Cloverfield Lane does the film slow down or lose interest. It uses it's hour and forty five minute runtime, a surprisingly long one for this type of film, to achieve the best possible effects. The film flies by and I found myself never wanting it to be over.
10 Cloverfield Lane is a movie you should rush out to the theater to go see. Accept that you know nothing about it going in, and enjoy that experience. Because it's something that doesn't happen often and it's a rare gift when it does. 10 Cloverfield Lane has a lot to offer despite the fact that it's a very small film. In fact, regardless of the fact if they are in the same universe, I'll say I enjoyed 10 Cloverfield Lane more than I enjoyed Cloverfield itself. And I want to see the story continued in a sequel. 10 Cloverfield Lane gets an A-, it's one of my favorite films of 2016 so far. Go see it this weekend. " - brands42 -
strong-122-4788857 October 2016(Fave movie-quote) - "You don't know what's out there!"
Welcome To 10 Cloverfield Lane.... Now, I wouldn't ever say that I loved this Sci-Fi/Thriller - But, I would like to say that this was certainly one of those rare films from that genre where (for a change) it appeared that some real thought had actually gone into its story-line.
Yeah. And, when it came down to playing the "is-it-or-isn't-it-a-hoax?" game with the audience - I thought that 10 Cloverfield Lane certainly did deliver a satisfying 110 minutes of entertaining diversion.
Yes. There definitely were some very disappointing and demented moments in this taut tale of apparent global Armageddon - But as the mounting suspense soon took a firm hold in the action - I chose to forgive this film for all of its unavoidable inadequacies.
My one big complaint here comes down to the miscasting of John Goodman as the "Thomas" character. To me, Goodman was just too much of a tired, old, bloated couch-potato to be at all believable in his part. -
sunznc13 March 2016I love the film and am trying to figure out how to write a review without giving anything away.
A woman on the road at night is suddenly in an accident. When she wakes up you immediately start wondering what direction this film could go in. It could go down several different paths. You think you've got it all figured out. Based upon what you are seeing, there really is no other way to go. Wrong.
At some point things seem to settle into some harmonious normalcy but then things get ugly and disturbing. Always were a bit disturbing but more ominous.
The acting is excellent by everyone, the twists and turns very good especially since these three characters are in an underground bunker. It is edge of your seat, leaning forward intensity. A wild ride for sure. Check it out! -
Again, people, SPOILER WARNING. This is literally my first review on IMDb ever, I have read many, but this movie made me want to finally give my own opinion for a change. Okay, so about my idea. Cut the last ten minutes of the movie or so. Michelle goes out. She sees there's no poisonous air. She sighs with relief. She sees an alien spacecraft. She says "OH COME ON". ROLL CREDITS. Absolutely every second after this point was completely unnecessary in my opinion. They could even make a sequel which is actually about fighting aliens and stuff, sure, whatever. But hiding from an alien in a barn, while it just doesn't see her. Putting her makeshift hazmat suit in a matter of seconds, avoiding the poisonous gas that killed thousands or so ? KILLING A HUGE ALIEN WITH A BOTTLE OF ALCOHOL ?! Deciding to play the hero and go help other people ? What was that about, she's just a normal person who was caught in a bunker with a maniac and some other dude who just gets killed off anyway. Goodman was amazing, main actress was also pretty good, but I just started disliking her whole character at the end, since it made no sense whatsoever.
-
spookyrat120 February 2019I'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. -
10 Cloverfield Lane was a good movie, and definitely one I'd recommend. Was I disappointed I didn't view it in the theater? No. 10 Cloverfield Lane was a good late night movie full of some surprising twists. The plot and pacing of the movie were very well done, but I felt the end and some character arcs lacked a bit in detail. So to finish things off, I decided to give 10 Cloverfield Lane a "Good" on theVade Review Bar or an 7 out of 10. It's worth renting, but not a buy in my opinion.
Read more at theVade. -
I give the 5/10 out of the credit I owe to the original writers of the fascinating psychological horror that takes place inside the bunker. The mystery is compelling: Is Howard telling the truth? Is there any real threat outside? Is Howard a crazy child-abusing maniac? Did he plan all this to own Michelle? etc. I could all go on pretty well had the film ended with the heroine's escape, but then, all of a sudden, what the? REAL ALIENS? Are you kidding me? Just how "lost" are you Mr. Abrams?! You turned the fantastic, gripping thriller about a deranged paranoid old man into a totally irrelevant tale of worm aliens taking over the earth? The ending ruins everything. The character of Michelle was well portrayed as a woman running away from problems instead of facing them, finally managing to "grow up" and learn to fight her problems. The ending, however, turns her into a completely different person. From a timid girlfriend, Michelle turns into an alien- smacking badass chick straight out of a classic sci-fi alien flick who blows up a giant alien invader with a bottle of liquor and a matchbox and, not frightened in the least, decides to take the fight to the aliens herself. The movie begins and proceeds as a psychological thriller/drama about paranoia, claustrophobia, and insanity and in a split second turns into the worst moments of the Resident Evil franchise. I literally thought I was watching a remake of the ending of The Thing, with the same actress and all. Great job uncle J.J., you did it again. Had I know he was involved in the plot, I would've thought twice before watching this film. You CAN enjoy this film, just turn if off as soon as the hero goes free. keep watching and it'll turn all the fun you had into utter disappointment, frustration, and resentment.
-
The film is about three persons who spend their time living in a bunker with no real tensions among them. Not at all gripping, too boring, clichéd, unoriginal with an absurd ending. It's a hybrid of War of the worlds n a segment from Sanitarium starring Lou diamond phillips. Even War of the world had a silly ending. There's a scene in which Mary Elizabeth Winstead (The thing, Final destination -3, Deathproof takes down an entire alien wotever by a single bottle-fire shot. Nowhere in the movie it's shown that she had some previous military or any training. The only saving grace was John Goodmans performance,(The gambler, Argo, Trumbo, The flintstones), the other cast members gave an OK performance. Very amateur direction by Dan Trachtenberg.