A good standalone film. Thatâs the best way to describe â10 Cloverfield Lane,â the horror âsequelâ directed by Dan Trachtenberg. This is a brand new movie, and has abandoned the POV, first-person hand-held camera antics that underscored the 2008 âCloverfield.â
Gone, also, is the mass destruction of an entire city to induce horror. In fact, this film takes place mostly in an underground shelter, one of those shelters weâre used to seeing fanatical âend of daysâ psychos prepping for some imagined Armageddon. Except this time, it appears such Armageddon has transpired. Or at least that is what frightened Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is told by Howard (a completely unhinged John Goodman), who she views as her captor.
A man with a broken arm named Emmett, who claims Howard saved his life before the apocalyptic event (John Gallagher Jr.), completes the triangle of âsurvivorsâ in the basement. The tone of “10 Cloverfield Laneâ is what films like âDoomâ were doubtless trying to encapsulate before they failed miserably.
The first thing the movie does right is limit the cast to only three individuals, horror evoked not through sights seen, but unseen sights, described.
We see darkened glimpses of decaying pigs â the supposed aftermath of a chemical attack â as well as one scene where a horrified shape smacks into an airtight door. In fact we do see, later, that several noxious things do indeed patrol outside the desolate farmhouse. But that wonât be hinted at here. Itâs not what the movieâs about, and would only serve as a desperate spoiler. The real horrors of this movie lay inside.
Goodman absolutely owns this movie. Iâve liked him in movies such as the Academy Award-winning âArgo,â or a strange monster movie named âFallenâ that some may have forgotten.
Here he paints a man pitiable and monstrous, a man whose angle we are not even 100% clear on as the movie reaches its bizarre climax.
Itâs his speech. In his speech, in the words he chooses, in the ones he doesnât, as well as his glances and wayward movements â he terrifies us. I was reminded of the tense dialogue of Anthony Perkins in Hitchcockâs âPsychoâ â a tension so thick you could cut it with a knife.
With the short time we are given to get to know âCloverfieldâsâ two subsequent actors, the film does a good job developing unique personalities.
The script paints the characters in clever ways and finds interesting avenues to build depth. Emmett is a simple man who never amounted to much, yet there is solemnity and respect for him as he tells his story. Michelle has a fear of abandonment and is guarded (for good reason) for most of the movie – though a heart-to-heart between her and Emmett is doleful and sweet. Michelle has a secret too – she always wanted to be a fashion designer. The script finds an interesting way to work this in to the movie.
“10 Cloverfield Lane” waxes and wanes from tepid kinship, to Stockholm Syndrome, to outright horror in a near endless cycle, winding up your nerves. And when a violent act happens towards the film’s end you’re shocked – because you didn’t see it coming and really should have.
Goodman’s performance really makes the movie, but is more a supporting act. The mythos, the force
The film’s ending is bizarre, unexpected, and just “Cloverfield”-esque enough to entice fans of the original. It provides closure for Michelle, while hinting at a possible sequel somewhere down the road.
All in all “10 Cloverfield Lane” is a good film. It is suspenseful, is scary, and features good acting all around. However, if you’re looking for the Clover monster running amok, destroying buildings, you’re better off staying at home. This isn’t that type of movie. It’s an old-fashioned suspense thriller à la “Misery,” not a monster versus skyscraper demolition fest.
– by Mark Ziobro
