10 Cloverfield Lane

10 Cloverfield Lane gives all the development and the meaningful story that its blood relative installment lacked completely. This is not a spectacle full of screams and special effects. This is a spectacle of tension and suspense of epic proportions. This is a really feel-bad movie at certain points.

First of all, you have to take the leap of faith and go ahead watching without knowing anything of the plot. Don't worry because all the teasers doesn't reveal anything important, but don't try to search information. If everything were that easy, even Hitchcock or Nolan movies would lose all interest.

I was extremely hooked since the furious start to the eye popping and surprising finale. The direction is amazing and claustrophobic. The performances are great, looking up to a surprising Winstead and a unrestrained unforgettable turn by Goodman. The story is gleefully unapologetic delivering chills and full blooded twists (the biggest of all is the intense ending reveal) even thought it deviates from the monster POV storyline.

Secretly made, impeccably marketed, nicely developed and finally here along with us: 10 Cloverfield Lane promised thrills and delivered it and then some. I was expecting some things that I tasted but I was surprised by a complexity and a twisted sense of horror that I didn't see coming. 2016 has released the very first great movie of the year.

I'm probably in the minority, but I disliked Cloverfield ... intensely! So many of these found footage films as far as I'm concerned, are just an invitation to watch someone's tarted-up home movie. Their producers/directors should be commended for being excellent marketing strategists in being able to convince punters to part with their hard-earned, to watch some (generally) cheap, tacky B feature. Cloverfield was no exception.

However in a significant turnaround, I'm happy to report that the Cloverfield's "blood relative" (according to JJ Abrams) is a much better production and a far more interesting story, than its predecessor. Technically speaking 10 CL is streets ahead, with the found footage format dispensed with and a small, but very professional cast employed in telling the story of 3 people dealing (not always on a voluntary basis) with life adjustments in a world affected by the events at the end of Cloverfield.

The cast were uniformly good with Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Michelle and John Goodman as Howard being the obvious lynchpins. Knowing virtually nothing about the storyline going into the film (apart from it having some vague relationship with Cloverfield), I have to admit I was pretty much hooked by the unfolding series of events affecting Michelle pretty early on. And as both her seemingly sometime antagonist and ally, Goodman's Howard is the perfect physical contrast. But very pleasing to see another independently resiliant and strong female lead character being featured in such a surprisingly entertaining and thrilling sequel as 10 CL turns out to be.

Much has been commented about the film's climax. I have to admit to some ambivalence. This is where the relationship to the earlier film is given some clarification, whilst overtly setting up the stage for a later episode. Still rejoicing over the absence of found footage, I guess I could just about accept anything thrown up by the producers. I will admit to some disappointment in that the events are clearly played out in real time, with Michelle emerging from the shelter at what is clearly the beginnings of dusk. For some reason an unlikely darkness then overwhelms the setting within about a minute of screen time and with the subsequent taking up of hand-held cameras, the action suddenly becomes more difficult to discern. Though I was still somewhat relieved, I can understand how others may have experienced some disappointment.

I'll admit to looking forward to the next instalment and even perhaps girding my loins and giving the original another watch, just to see again how well (if at all) it sets up this story.

It had been a good many years since watching Cloverfield, and upon watching the trailer for 10 Cloverfield Lane, I had a pretty solid idea of how this new movie was going to pan out. Now maybe this trailer only showed in Europe or perhaps even just Britain where I'm from, because I can't for a moment believe that people didn't expect exactly what was going to happen after watching the 3 minutes of footage? The twist was given away. The plot spoiled. Anyone with half a brain could've deduced the entirety of the story from the trailer.

So, saying that, I knew what to expect. I went into watching the movie with a pretty strong idea of what was going to happen- and I wasn't far off.

The first 3 quarters of this movie is one movie in itself, and the last quarter is an entirely different one. So far from one another in terms of genre that even despite knowing what was going to happen, I was still stunned by the total change.

The first 3/4 is, honestly, extremely well done. John Goodman portrays such a convincing creepiness and terrifying instability that I found my skin crawling in almost every scene he was in. He completely steals the movie for me. And thank God, because without him I don't think there would be much to hold it up. The psycho-thriller element to this movie is fantastic. If it had remained solely within that genre, I think you'd be working with a solid 9/10.

But the ending just sours it for me. Expected, but not enjoyable. Cool CGI and action is great in itself but after a buildup of drama and tension and claustrophobic social interactions, it just feels odd and misplaced.

All in all, a great movie that's thoroughly worth watching- but I feel the sharp deviation at the end will either confuse and disappoint, or be a snippet of excitement that isn't nearly satisfying enough.

Arguably, the worst aspects of '10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)' are those that tie into its franchise roots, which is understandable considering that this started life as a completely original screenplay before it was contorted to fit into the 'Cloverfield (2008)' "universe". These issues are really only limited to a somewhat rushed finale, though, and the final result is still a much finer film than its predecessor. It's an incredibly intriguing and evolving mystery-thriller that's consistently entertaining and suspenseful, as it uses its small core cast of well-realised characters to drive the tension within its (mostly) single, increasingly claustrophobic location to expert effect. It's incredibly compelling mainly because of its intense focus on character, while it's the several subtle twists and turns that keep us on the edge of our seat as our reading of the situation (always seen through the lens of the protagonist) continues to organically change. Ultimately, the piece becomes perhaps one of the most enjoyable entries in its genre. 8/10

Pluses: 1. Great cast. Really good chemistry among them. Terrific performances from all. Mary Elizabeth Winstead gets better with every film she makes. 2. Story keeps you guessing until the end. 3. There are references in it to some popular films in the genre (that are likely film maker favorites) from the past 30 years or so. 4. Director shows great promise while still early in his career. 4. Story more important than special effects or pointless action sequences (always a plus for me). 5. Sound effects, usually unappreciated in non-action films, well used to add to the intensity of the drama.

Minuses: 1. We've probably all seen John Goodman play a similar character before. 2. There's a possible murder that took place prior to the film, a plot device never resolved.

Since the film has the word "Cloverfield" in the title, a lot of dim light bulbs thought this was a prequel or sequel to the other film and bad mouthed it because it isn't. Using Cloverfield in the title was likely just another reference to a favorite film.

Some people didn't understand the ending. Huh? They must have fallen asleep during the rest of the movie (when they realized it wasn't Cloverfield 2) or this generation is dumber than I fear it might be. The actions of Winstead's character at the end of the film make perfect sense in light of a monologue she delivered earlier, which apparently was ignored by those whining about the ending.

Don't listen to the naysayers. It isn't high art, but it's an entertaining film that will hold your attention to the end.