(Note: While the film
has been out for at least two weeks now, I’m still going to maintain a ‘no
spoilers’ mandate for this review in case some of you haven’t seen it yet.)
In 2007, J.J. Abrams, before he became known as the director
who was responsible for reviving not one but three separate franchises (Mission Impossible, Star Trek, and Star Wars),
debuted a secret trailer that ran before screenings of Michael Bay’s first Transformers film. This trailer, which
centered around a going-away party in New York that was interrupted by a
mysterious event occurring in the city, was noteworthy for not initially revealing
the title for the film. It only listed J.J.’s producing credit and its impending
release date of 1-18-08. It wasn’t until later when the film’s official title, Cloverfield, and the fact that it was a
monster film was made clear. And when it was released that following January,
it proved to be a pretty sizable hit, attracting solid reviews and a nice
box-office haul on just a $25 million budget. The success of the film led to
much talk about a possible sequel, with director Matt Reeves stating that there
were many possibilities for follow-ups due to the fact that the events of the
film probably weren’t the only ‘filmed’ events from that night. Ultimately
though, for a few years it seemed like there wasn’t going to be a sequel due to
both Reeves and Abrams moving onto other projects. However, just less than two
months ago, Abrams pulled a fast one on us by unveiling a special teaser
before, fittingly enough, another Michael Bay film; in this case, 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.
As it turned out, this ‘mystery film’ was pretty much the long-awaited Cloverfield sequel that fans have been waiting
for; 10 Cloverfield Lane. However, as
J.J. soon made it clear, this was only a ‘blood relative’ to that film and
looking at it now, that’s definitely true. This is not meant to be a
straightforward sequel to the original film. But even with that said, and save
for some unanswered questions that come from the ending, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a very thrilling story that showcases the
potential for where this series can go from here.
As the film begins, a young woman named Michelle (Mary
Elizabeth Winstead) leaves her New Orleans home after getting into an argument
with her fiancé Ben (who’s notably played, in voice only, by Bradley Cooper). But
while driving through Louisiana, she suddenly ends up in a severe car accident.
When she comes to, she finds herself chained to the wall in a small concrete
room. She soon learns that she’s been brought to an underground bunker that is
also being inhabited by Emmett Dewitt (John Gallagher, Jr.), a fellow ‘survivor’,
and the owner of the bunker, Howard Stambler (John Goodman). Howard tells her
that he brought her to the bunker following her crash because of an unspecified
attack that has made the air outside toxic and has pretty much killed off
everyone else save for them. With nowhere else to go, Michelle is forced to
adapt to living within Howard’s bunker. But as time goes on, both Michelle and
Emmett start to grow suspicious of Howard and fear that, despite his seemingly
generous nature in regards to letting them stay in the bunker, he’s actually
going to become a threat to them. As a result, the two begin working on an
escape plan, which ultimately leads them to have to confront whatever the heck
is going on up on the surface.
Back in January, I did a post on the trailer for this film
and posed the question of just how much is it meant to connect to the original Cloverfield. Well, having now seen the
film, I can firmly say that it actually doesn’t relate to it that much. In
other words, this is not a ‘follow-up’ to the events of the first film. The monster
from the first film does not appear at any point and this film is shot
traditionally instead of in the ‘found-footage’ style that defined the first
film. But at the same time, I do still see how this film is meant to be a ‘blood
relative’ of Cloverfield. Both films
are, at their very roots, stories of strange ‘events’ happening and how certain
people respond to it. And whereas the first film was a ‘monster/horror’ film,
this film is more of a claustrophobic thriller as it is almost entirely set
within the confines of Howard’s bunker. And overall it does deliver on being a
very tense thriller throughout, with the audience left in the dark just as much
as Michelle is in regards to what’s going on. And because of it, you’re very
much invested in wanting to know more just like Michelle. The film also
benefits from a terrific trio of leads. John Gallagher, Jr., AKA the ‘general
unknown’ of the three, is solid even when considering that his character Emmett
is basically the least important of the three. Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s
Michelle is a smart and likable ‘avatar’ for the audience and it’s really cool
how a good chunk of the film revolves around her and her attempts to escape,
whether it’s using an IV rod in order to reach her phone or her starting a fire
in the ventilation system. But the real star of the show is John Goodman in the
role of Howard. Walking a fine line between intimidating and creepy, as well as
seeming like he’s ‘not all there’ at times, Howard is a complete enigma throughout
and this film reaffirms the fact that Goodman is quite simply one of the best
character actors in the business.
But while I was immediately hooked with the plot and was
curious to see where this film was going to go, I’ll admit that I felt a little
let-down by the ending. Now again, I won’t spoil what happens for anyone who
hasn’t seen the film yet and for the record, it’s not like this ending was
completely out of left field or anything, as I’ve heard some people claim.
There are some allusions early on about what’s actually happening and of course
whatever it is was responsible for what then led to Howard, Michelle, and
Emmett being stuck in the bunker. And the conflict that emerges between Howard
and Michelle is also clearly defined in regards to the former’s true
intentions. However, in regards to “what’s coming”, as the marketing keeps
stating, the film doesn’t really do much to explain it. Now I’m not entirely
faulting the film for deciding not to delve too much into this ‘entity’ but at
the same time, it would’ve been nice to learn just a little bit more about who
this is and what they’re doing here. Also, there’s not much of a finality to
Howard’s overall story arc. I’ve read about the film’s original ending and,
obviously without giving anything major away, I do feel that this version would’ve
resulted in a more conclusive ending to the conflict between Howard and
Michelle. This ending also doesn’t feature the ‘entity’ so I’m guessing that
part of the film was added in later, supposedly in reshoots. Either way,
though, neither version really does much to explain what actually happened. At
the end of the day, it’s more about what happens inside the bunker than what’s happening
on the outside.
Rating: 4/5
No comments:
Post a Comment