10 Cloverfield Lane (Dan Trachtenberg)

[TGM]

10 CLOVERFIELD LANE

Director: Dan Trachtenberg

imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1179933/?ref_=nv_sr_1)

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/569902048d3eae4b11e0158b/image.jpg

[TGM]

While not a bad movie based on its own merits, it's clear they merely used the Cloverfield name just to garner interest. This honestly feels more related to War of the Worlds than it does Cloverfield, and as it becomes more and more obvious how unrelated the two movies are, the fact that they went with that name honestly became kinda distracting, as I found myself trying to hopelessly tie those movie together. Honestly, had it been called something else, I probably would've enjoyed it a hell of a lot more than I did. But otherwise, like I said, not a bad movie at all, really. Just unfortunately titled.

[Wryan]

Loved it. The first 90% is wonderful and tense, with some fantastic, physically and emotionally claustrophobic scenes. Great job by the actors. The last 10% is....I don't even know. It's ludicrous, but I loved it in an entirely different way from the first 90%. I had a lot of fun. Also, maybe it was just my theater, but the sound design was sharp, jangly and LOUD AS FUCK, especially in critical moments.

[Spinal]

This was really good! I liked the fact that I was 80% of the way through the movie and still didn't really know what genre of movie I was watching. Goodman and Winstead are both excellent. Fun movie.

[Henry Gale]

SLIGHTLY SPOILERY (As in, not any specific spoilers, but still going to say more than I would've wanted to know going in.)

So.. Yeah. Wow. This is just a stunning little thriller that just so happens to have some links to the movie it shares its name with, but it could've completely thrived on its own.

I wonder if it hadn't had its title and we didn't see the mailbox spelling it out if it would've been an amazing reveal to the audience in that moment. I mean, there's a certain expectation of what sorts of things might be going on due to the original Reeves/Goddard/Abrams movie, but if we hadn't even had the word "Cloverfield" overtly in our minds before we ever made the trip to the theatre, it could've been a one-of-a-kind experiment to have kept the "Valencia" working title (I mean, Cloverfield was just a random word they decided to let stick) and pulled the rug under us then and there that it was all a part of something bigger. Obviously very tough from a marketing standpoint, but has a movie have ever had a twist revealing it existed in the same universe (if just thematic and not linearly) as another movie all along? Could've made it all even cooler.

But on its own terms, it's just a really rich, efficiently told story. The three actors are all pretty great, the atmosphere created both through the visuals and the writing's obstacle course of scary questions and safety mat reveals (and then less comforting ones) is just about perfect, and as Wryan said, the sound design is very distinct too (and not just when it's loud, which is definitely is in all the right moments). I also had no idea who was behind the score before the end credits, just that whoever it was weaved something haunting, exciting, and impressive to no end. So bravo, Bear McCreary.

Just very tightly crafted stuff whether you care about it being an extension of another movie or not. I just hope we get at least one more of these sooner rather than later. (As in.. not another 8 years.)

[dreamdead]

Really found this take interesting from Tasha Robinson, one of the former TheDissolve writers (http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/17/11255744/10-cloverfield-lane-movie-ending-backlash), on the symbolism of domestic abuse found in Goodman's character:



... When Michelle escapes the bunker and finds a new threat waiting, this is partially an extension of the abuse metaphor. For victims of domestic abuse, just getting out of the house doesn’t immediately solve all their problems. For the metaphor to stay sound, 10 Cloverfield Lane needs to acknowledge that finding the courage to leave an abuser doesn’t guarantee a happily-ever-after. For a moment, when Michelle first removes her makeshift gas mask and learns that Howard was wrong about the poisonous air, it seems like the movie might end on a note of relief, and the promise that her problems are over. But that would be facile, and would also mean that Michelle had been in a standard slasher movie, where arbitrarily bad things happen to random people, and nothing much is learned. And that wouldn’t be in keeping with the movie’s actual arc, which is all about the way Michelle comes to terms with her abuse.


I quite liked this one. It ricochets across a variety of genres in interesting ways, and the contextual aspects of Winstead's body being in a revealed state almost constantly adds to the reading above. While the last ten minutes get a little more consciously sci-fi generic, it's earned that shift. And this is one of those films that is so much stronger of a film than the original, which is interesting but not really a well-made film in my eyes.

[Mal]

I dug this, can't wait for the sequel and the possible war hero costume designs Windstead may create.

[Irish]

Extremely annoyed that I've just had the ending of the movie spoiled by a dipshit film blogger at twitchfilm.

It's been out for less than three weeks and only in 9 territories. WTF.

https://twitter.com/Marshy00/status/715021433613774850

[TGM]

Extremely annoyed that I've just had the ending of the movie spoiled by a dipshit film blogger at twitchfilm.

It's been out for less than three weeks and only in 9 territories. WTF.

https://twitter.com/Marshy00/status/715021433613774850

Assuming that's an official poster for the movie, it looks like it was the marketing department for the movie itself that did any spoiling going on there. In which case, how is that any different from your average movie trailer nowadays that gives away the entire film in 2 and a half minutes?

Edit: Mind you, that's still annoying, but it's not the blogger's fault that the production company for the movie itself is out to spoil it for everyone. Again, though, that is in fact assuming that's an official poster.

[Irish]

The HK poster is a definite spoiler--- that isn't my issue, really. My issue is that Marsh tweeted the poster twice, the second time alongside art for Planet of the Apes with the caption, "Which is worse?"

With his first tweet, he wasn't aware the poster was a spoiler (because the film hasn't opened in HK). With the second tweet, he knew it was a spoiler and drew attention to it. That's a dick move for a guy whose job is mostly PR.

The difference between this and a trailer is that I can choose whether or not to watch a trailer on the web. Because of the way twitter works, I had no choice but to see his tweets. Marsh has years of experience and 50,000 followers. He should have more sense.

[Spinal]

I've been really surprised at how reckless reviewers have been in discussing certain aspects of this film. I'm really glad I saw it early.

[number8]

This was really neat!

The part where we see the spaceship for the first time and Winstead says "Oh come on" might be one of my favorite moments in watching a film recently (sorry, Irish). It's just a beautiful coalescing of what Spinal said... That you don't even know what kind of movie this is until it's almost over. Just a wonderful genre exercise.

Also me and a few others in the audience laughed out loud when the end credits revealed Bradley Cooper's cameo.

[MadMan]

Man that was great. And better than Cloverfield. Loved both MEW and Goodman. So many good tense moments and I enjoyed the last act.

[transmogrifier]

I liked this.

[Irish]

Okay despite the spoilers this was ... super dumb. I mean, super dumb in the sense of omg they went full retard or omg who wrote this shit.

I really dug the premise and the way the movie played with it-- you don't know if she's been rescued or kidnapped. Then it tosses that idea aside pretty quickly and replaces it with nothing particularly interesting.

[Peng]

Tasha Robinson's reading makes perfect sense to me. It has clearly been thought as the thematic throughline by the filmmakers, since it was right there from the beginning scene. Whether the film does it well is a personal opinion, but it is definitely there and intentional.

[Irish]

Tasha Robinson's reading makes perfect sense to me. It has clearly been thought as the thematic throughline by the filmmakers, since it was right there from the beginning scene. Whether the film does it well is a personal opinion, but it is definitely there and intentional.

I disagree that it was right there from the start. The characters here are way too underwritten to make a distinction one way or the other. It feels like something that kinda sorta might make sense in retrospect, as long as you don't look at it too hard or think about it too much. Especially given the film's ending, which is so slapdash and genre crazy that it's difficult to believe these filmmakers tried to fit a serious subtext into the middle of it.

[Peng]

She ran away from a problem at the beginning, and her boyfriend alluded to this tendency of her on the phone. She disclosed about her childhood's past of abuse and how she turned away when someone was facing a similar situation. Meanwhile, she fell into the hands of a person with all the emotional/behavioral whiplash of an abuser, who also previously did this to someone to death. Towards the end, in a crucial junction of event, she decided to fight back, and in turn faced a group of monsters that she managed to get rid of; both events emboldened her so much that when faced with a similar decision at the end that she has been faced both recently and in the past, she chose not to run away anymore. It's a pretty clear arc with obvious drops along the way that can be read into that subtext without much stretch, if any at all.

[Dukefrukem]

I liked this, but Irish is right. It's super dumb. I hated the decisions she made throughout this whole movie.

How is this supposed to take place in the same Universe as Cloverfield?.... exactly?

[TGM]

How is this supposed to take place in the same Universe as Cloverfield?.... exactly?

It doesn't. It's a "spiritual sequel", though has no actual ties to the first film, and wasn't even originally intended to be a "Cloverfield" film in the first place.

[Dead & Messed Up]

This was pretty wonderful. More movies like this, please.

[Ezee E]

Even with some silliness, I'd be quite happy if more movies went for something like this. "Sequel" or not, it was still fresh and original. It reminds me of the Twilight Zone movie... Just way out there and enjoyable from beginning to end.

Figured the aliens were coming... I mean it's a sequel, so anyone pretending that they were fooled at the end is lying to themselves, but the way it's done is still neat to watch.

[Dead & Messed Up]

It's not a sequel. It's an anthology contribution. It has no connection to the first *Cloverfield* in regards to narrative or universe. The people at Bad Robot are trying to do what Carpenter failed to do with *Halloween: Season of the Witch*.

[Irish]

You're right, but the name suggests a genre and the genre suggests aliens (to Ezee's expectation).

[Dukefrukem]

It's not a sequel. It's an anthology contribution. It has no connection to the first *Cloverfield* in regards to narrative or universe. The people at Bad Robot are trying to do what Carpenter failed to do with *Halloween: Season of the Witch*.

What was Carpenter's plan with SotW?

[Ezee E]

You see Cloverfield, you expect aliens. There were aliens.

I don't know about this Season of the Witch though.

By the way, let's talk about John Goodman here. I did like that he had a right balance of being absolutely insane, no matter what's going on outside, but you couldn't tell just how far gone he was. I thought he did a pretty damn good job. I've always thought he could be a good villain.

I've always liked Winstead, but just seems like she's never gotten the role to set her apart.

[TGM]

What was Carpenter's plan with SotW?

It was supposed to be the start of turning the Halloween series into an anthology series.

[Morris Schæffer]

I was engaged, but it's...a bit awkward. Why was Emmet there? Why did he shoot Emmet in cold blood? Couldn't they just both attack Goodman and forego all the secrecy? He's big, but probably not a match for both.

Did Howard really think he could keep fooling them for one, two years? Usually, kidnappers have the victims behind bars and they are not released. Ever. If he was a full blown psychopath, that would be the way to go. Howard comes across as half crazy... and half a lonely man in need of company given the fact that he cared for his 'victims.' But if he was serious about bad shit happening outside, and the final 10 minutes confirm that he was, then why antagonize the Winstead character further by shooting Emmet in the face even though he confessed they were up to something?

Howard feels not like a flesh and blood person, but a plot device. He's there to keep us guessing as to what's actually going on outside and if there's something going on.

[Grouchy]

Man, what took me so long to watch this? Oh right, I wasn't a fan of Cloverfield back in the day... But this is something different and excellently done. Like someone said before, I loved that the movie was almost over and still packing genre reversals and surprises. And Goodman/Winstead might have been my favorite acting showdown of the year. I don't think I'd seen Goodman play a psychopath on this level before, which is weird given his physique and face.

[Yxklyx]

Finally watched this as well! Very good film and I don't have the same reservations/problems others here have posted about. Goodman was amazing! I liked Cloverfield and I don't see why this can't be in the same universe. Those aren't necessarily aliens, the vessel looked organic. The sphincter towards the end reminded me of what I saw in the original. I thought it was a bit ridiculous when she defeated that thing with a Molotov but after thinking about it more, if it was just some organic creature (and not an advanced alien) it makes more sense.