10 Cloverfield Lane

It would certainly be stimulating to discuss the (viral) marketing of 10 Cloverfield Lane, the 1980s pop-culture references and design (John Hughes), Michelle’s position among other self-sufficient female characters of recent times, the reflection on society’s rising demand for an authoritative leader, or the subversion of the star system by casting John Goodman in a slightly different “dad” role, but for me, this is primarily a textbook thriller that makes maximum use of the information provided within its confined world. Practically every element to which our attention is directed by a longer, close-up or point-of-view shot can be described as compositionally motivated, even though it may at first seem that its purpose is only to amuse us (the infantile shower curtain with a duck motif). Furthermore, in the case of objects that return to the action at greater temporal distance, we are first verbally notified before their involvement in the plot that they have not been forgotten, so that their subsequent use does not feel like a deus ex machina (the bottle of alcohol that Michelle takes from the table when leaving the apartment at the beginning, later mentioned by Howard, and whose star moment comes just before the end). At the same time, the significance of the props is not constant and, for example, the girls’ magazines first notify us that Howard has apparently lost his daughter and are later transformed into part of a staged performance (to reinforce the illusion that Michelle is like Howard’s daughter) and finally into a source of important information that is needed for survival. Every piece of the puzzle is justified sooner or later and it is thus appropriate that even putting the puzzle together turns from being a pastime for the characters into a disturbing clue for the viewer when Emmett ambiguously points out that a few pieces are still missing. And indeed – at the given moment we don’t yet know the whole truth, as will soon become apparent, which makes for a brief, undramatic interlude during which the source of the threat is seemingly lurking just outside. The word-guessing game has a similarly unsettling subtext, using the limiting of the narrative point of view to Michelle – we thus do not know what Howard really knows and, like his two “adopted offspring”, we can’t determine if he’s still playing or maliciously telling them the truth. The seemingly time-killing scene in which Emmett and Michelle talk about their missed chances in life is then absolutely crucial to the film’s meaning, and 10 Cloverfield Lane owes it a lot for the emotionally very powerful and yet – like the whole concept on which the plot is based (three people in a bunker, at least one of whom has a dark secret) – refreshingly simple ending that makes one quickly forget about the unnecessarily spectacular (and, given the tidy confinement of the world in which we had previously found ourselves, disturbing) climax. 85% (08/04/2016)

With the Cloverfield brand comes a damn heavy burden. The original Cloverfield was able to combine the drama of the main characters with something big and terrifying that was located vaguely far away and at the same time all around. The identically named street has, as always, the believable Mary, in the form of the roaring John Goodman, as well as the question mark about what is hiding outside this time. However, with the main asset also comes the main obstacle, because we all suspect that something unexpected must happen in the final act, which doesn't fit too well with the previous course of events. The formula was only partially repeated, mainly thanks to the actors and a healthy dose of tension arising from the most ordinary situations. And yet the whole thing looks like two films stitched together. (19/07/2016)

It's a good movie, but I won't pretend I didn't expect more. In the most tense moments, debutant Dan Trachtenberg can't be as gritty and intense as he should, and in the middle section he fails to pinch the atmosphere the way, say, John Carpenter did in The Thing. There are occasional dead moments, and by the fifth time you're figuring out what's out there, or which of the characters is a nutcase, it starts to get tedious. Never, thankfully, so that boredom sets in, and thanks to John Goodman's impecable performance and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who can do confident damsels in distress like few others, it's still a fun ride where you'll enjoy the twists and surprises. I just think it should have been made by someone who's done some movies before and knows that maintaining a suspenseful atmosphere when there are three people and four rooms on the screen doesn't quite work on its own and needs a little help. (15/05/2017)

An excellent civil science fiction that looks like Saw at first glance, only to turn into a distinctive and very interesting thriller over time. It’s a shame that this thriller gets a brutal bashing from other movie genres in the last 20 minutes and turns into an apocalyptic sci-fi. Hats off for that idea! Although the whole movie feelsvery intimate, I must say that thesemere three actors support the intimacy with great performances, especially John Goodman and then Mary Elizabeth Winstead brings a certain beauty into it. Overall, I have to say that this is a very nice surprise and at the same time a very interesting combination of two completely different ideas. (21/11/2016)

The name really screwed it. Throughout the film, the experience from an excellent chamber thriller drama is disrupted by the world “Cloverfield”; you know what kind of reveal this will eventually lead to. And when it gets there, what follows is disappointment, because the connection with the original film is really only on paper. If the film was called Independence Day 2, it would’ve been the same, if not better. A weak four. (06/04/2016)