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.

To describe 10 Cloverfield Lane in one word: Genreless.

I won't say much about the film as I'm a strong believer of going in blind, but I will say that the performances, writing, and cinematic pacing worked perfectly together to create a truly unique film.

I loved watching it, and the moments of comedy sprouting up throughout made the duality between light-hearted humanity and dark confusion work perfectly together. I would give the Titles and Credits 10/10 as well, because they were just so damn fantastic and fresh and reminded me that titling is an art form like any other in the cinematic Genre. If you enjoy good film, you will enjoy 10 Cloverfield Lane.

I explicitly avoid watching any trailers or reading any reviews from 10 Cloverfield Lane just because I wanted to be certain to be surprised by the story. I just heard from some people that it was good and that's all I needed to know. And I'm glad I did because during the whole entire movie you wonder what is really happening. You think about all the possible scenarios and still you are never sure what is going on. I like those kind of movies, mysteries, that keep you on edge all the time. The cast did a perfect job with their respective performances. And even though there are almost no other actors then the three main ones, John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr, the movie never gets boring. It's full of twists and that's how I like it. One of the better ones I saw this year.

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.

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.