10 Cloverfield Lane

Before I even start the review portion of this post, I must heap tons of praise onto the marketing team.

No matter what you think about the film if you go to see it, the path it took to theaters was nothing short of genius and if I'm being completely honest with myself, it's the way I'd love for movies to start being marketed. Can you imagine the previews for big movies being as big as the movie itself?

Nowadays we have 5 Year Plans for nearly every franchise that we can mark on our calendars, salivate over for months or years, eagerly anticipate a trailer, watch said trailer on YouTube because its released a day before the theater, and then remain excited for (often) several more months.

10 Cloverfield Lane on the other hand took a bold, but awesome approach. It was completely and utterly unannounced until Thursday screenings of 13 Hours. Keep in mind that film only came out in January. While I may have enjoyed Michael Bay's war action flick, the thing I'll never forget about that trip to the theater was just the overwhelming excitement. The trailer started normally enough, with JJ Abrams' Bad Robot company logo popping up and immediately piquing my interest. After about 40-50 seconds, I figured, "This looks really interesting. I think I'll see it!". As I mentally began to kind of check out as the screen faded to show me whatever the title was going to be, I felt a pit in my stomach as the faint letters: "CLOVERFIELD" appeared and stayed on screen. Rarely one to speak aloud in a theater, I was softly yelling to myself, "No...no...no way. Oh my God. No f**king way!"

I'm a movie guy, plain and simple. I get excited for movies easily and I love that I do. But that night, I was stunned in the best possible way. Here's the kid who usually knows the release date for all the big films of the year. The one who has his most anticipated films of the year already queued up. And I was absolutely baffled at what had just been pulled off with a sequel to one of my personal favorite films.

"What the hell is she looking at?"
"No idea. She's been doing it for hours."

So, again, complete and absolute kudos go to the team who made this whole thing one big secret. As a fan, it worked and it worked magnificently. Other films should really take note because it would be incredible to have that experience almost every time I attend the movies.

As for the movie itself -- is it any good? Or was the marketing ploy just a mask for an average film? Better yet, just how the heck does it connect to the original? Is it a prequel? A sequel? An unrelated film? So many questions! So much mystery! 

Unfortunately, I don't have many answers for you. Part of that is because I wouldn't want to spoil what there is to spoil but the main reason is because I walked out of 10 Cloverfield Lane with more questions than I did answers. Given that I've followed JJ's work since his LOST days, I don't know why this surprised me in the slightest, but it did, and ultimately, it disappointed me. The first film, the more you watch it, is so subtly nuanced with its mystery and its clues that I find myself very intrigued by its mythology each time I revisit it. I wanted to know where the monster came from and what it led to after the events of the first film. This film acts as a completely separate story from the first -- it's even filmed differently -- so I understand that they're not going to flat-out reference one another, but I was still hoping for more of a connection (if not an outright explanation), as opposed to the very tissue-paper thin kinda-sorta-maybe connections that we do get. My disappointment is really on me as I may have been expecting too much, but I still couldn't help think as the credits rolled, "Is that it?"

"Gotta put yer gloves on before handling this here acid!"

Whether it's connected to the Cloverfield universe or not (I still think it is) shouldn't take away from the fact that it's an otherwise very well made and effective mystery thriller. When Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) gets in a car wreck, she finds herself waking up in a mysterious bunker with Howard (John Goodman) and Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.). Right off the bat, something seems off with Howard, and this mystery drives the bulk of the film. First time director, Dan Trachtenberg shows restraint in making this a slow burn before the blur to the finish and he's great at creating tension. Luckily he's got a strong cast with him as all three performances are solid, with Goodman's being the highlight (no surprise there). He's funny when he needs to be, but quirky in a slightly disturbing way. Through a slowly unraveling yarn of clues, we begin to find out what's really happening in this doomsday bunker and the moments of climaxing mystery are stressful and intense. The final 20 minutes feels like an almost completely different movie and part of me thinks it almost felt tacked on just so Cloverfield could be in the title, even though I know that's not the case. That's not to say the ending isn't thrilling too, it is, it just feels so much different than the stellar psychological game that occurs underground.

This home's electric bill is nuts!

As I mentioned, it's a well made film. Trachtenberg has a good eye, especially considering he was navigating around a tight set most of the time, and he is able to film both action and quieter scenes effectively. None of the cinematography or editing will blow you away, but it's also not a complaint in the slightest either. One other area that I did really enjoy was the original score. The main theme is pretty great, if not a little overused, but it was a welcome addition where the first film (understandably) had none.

10 Cloverfield Lane is a hard film for me to continue reviewing because I don't want to say too much. Truly, it's a competent mystery/thriller that's pretty darn effective in most of its scenes, but I couldn't help but feel like it wasn't truly related to the first Cloverfield in any way other than title, even if in my heart I don't think that's true. Despite how enjoyable of a viewing the film might have been, I'd only need to see it that one time now that the mystery has been "revealed". Compare that to the first film, a movie in which I hold very near to the "Instant Classic" title (I really should have done a retro review for that one before this) that I've watched probably in the tens of times now, and I can't help but be disappointed, even when I know it's my fault.

Maybe the next film will be the one with all, or any, of the answers? If there is a next film...

CONS:

• I can't help but feel like there isn't much reason this should be a Cloverfield movie/sequel even though I still think they're connected
• Creates more questions -- doesn't really answer a thing
• The final 20 minutes feels like a completely different movie
• One-time view for me on this one

PROS:

• No matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks about the film, the fact still remains that its marketing was a masterwork. I loved every second of the surprise, the guessing, and the mystery
• A strong little mystery thriller that is effective in both quiet moments and ones filled with tension and dread
• Great cast all around with John Goodman being very good at playing a slightly off-kilter creepy guy
• First time director, Trachtenberg does fantastic and you'd never know this was his first major film
• Strong original score
• Well-managed, slow-burn pacing with a frantic end
• There is some magic in the mystery of your first time viewing it, especially if you're a fan of the first

Rath's Review Score: 7/10