REVIEW: 10 Cloverfield Lane

Well this certainly came right out of nowhere, didn't it? Eight years after the original Cloverfield sent moviegoers into bouts of motion sickness, we finally get a sequel, released a whopping two months after it was announced to the public. 10 Cloverfield Lane is certainly one of 2016's most intriguing films, filmed in total secret with a budget nearly half that of the original before being promptly dropped into cinemas worldwide. I'm willing to watch anything that has John Goodman in it, but the concept of a totally reserved, low-key follow-up to a bombastic monster flick caught my interest from the get-go. So how does 10 Cloverfield Lane measure up? Honestly, it depends entirely on what you're looking for, but I left quite happy, if not entirely satisfied.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays Michelle, a young woman who wakes up in a fallout bunker following a nasty car accident. The bunker's owner, Howard (John Goodman) explains that some sort of attack has taken place; the outside world is potentially crawling with radiation or toxic fumes or Russians, forcing Michelle and Emmett (John Gallagher Jr), another survivor who found himself inside Howard's shelter, to stay locked underground with their mysterious host for the foreseeable future.

The first thing I'd like to address right away is what I find to be the film's only real major flaw; it barely has any connection whatsoever to the original Cloverfield. Not to spoil a widely-known blockbuster that's been out for nearly a decade, but the original film ended on a mysterious note; despite the military more or less leveling Manhattan, it's implied that the camera-shy creature is still alive. The film explored interesting possibilities in terms of giant monsters emerging from the depths of the sea to lay waste to iconic cities. For instance, the chittering, dog-sized parasites that fall from the creature's hide and start chewing apart the fleeing populace of New York City. When one thinks of a Cloverfield sequel taking place in a bunker, details like that immediately spring to mind; are the parasites spreading across the country? Is the creature still alive and rampaging? Have more of its kind emerged from the sea? Has it brought with it some form of radioactive fallout or virus that infects the air? Without explicitly spoiling anything, I'm confident in saying that 10 Cloverfield Lane had absolutely nothing to do with Cloverfield until it was determined that the two films should inhabit the same universe. This movie could have released as is with absolutely no changes in plot under a different title and no one would have batted an eye.

This detail is the only part of this film that feels the slightest bit cheap or shallow. It feels as though the Cloverfield name was slapped on purely for marquee value, and the film would have honestly been stronger without it. As it is, it contributes nothing new to the "Cloververse" aside from a host of new questions that will likely never be answered. Which isn't to say that films should be completely cut and dry, feeding the audience information at face-value until the credits roll. The overall feeling of suspense and mystery is this movie's strongest suit (and the same can be said of its predecessor), but there's definitely a difference between genuine, subtle mystery and leaving a number of spaces blank so the audience is left under the impression that the movie is more intelligent than it appears. It's the same issue that arises with films such as Prometheus; however, unlike Prometheus, these problems are more a product of the franchise this film has found itself attached to, rather than poor writing in the film itself.

As its own self-contained film, 10 Cloverfield Lane toes the line of brilliance. The vast majority of the story takes place in the bunker, a space no larger than your standard sitcom apartment set. Thanks to excellent set design and camera work, we never find ourselves suffering from "environment fatigue"; the entire thing remains tense as piano wire despite there being practically no change in environment for most of the 103 minute runtime. This tension is thanks to stellar performances from Winstead and Gallagher, who both offer different, yet convincing, reactions to the whole situation. The star of the show, however, is John Goodman. I've been a fan of Goodman's work all my life and this is easily one of his strongest performances yet. The best thing about his character is that, for as erratic and volatile as he seems, his actions honestly make fairly decent sense in-context for the most part. He's a twitchy, unpredictable doomsday-prepper who is put in the position of being objectively right when the time actually comes to use his bunker for its intended purpose. Even though I love just about everything John Goodman has ever done, I say with no hyperbole that his portrayal of Howard deserves an Academy Award. He's so good that I'm sure he won't win anything, as it would make too much sense.

10 Cloverfield Lane is an interesting little film. Depending on what you go in looking for, you'll either walk out totally satisfied, wholly disappointed, or some strange, simultaneous combination of both (like myself). Those looking for a sequel that will expand upon the groundwork laid by the original Cloverfield will find nothing of the sort here, at least nothing concrete; this is very much a sequel in name only. However, if you view this as its own, isolated story that (for the time being at least) is entirely removed from that giant creature that decapitated Lady Liberty back in 2008, you're sure to find one of the finest little thrill rides I've ever had the pleasure of seeing. The performances are electrifying, the suspense is genuine, and it generates enough mystique to keep you engaged and interested until the second it ends. If you can manage to suppress and control any Cloverfield-related expectations, I highly recommend taking a trip down to 10 Cloverfield Lane.