Cloverfield Lane 10

A decent series pilot that has no business on the big screen. Logical holes in the narrative vs. powerful moments of surprise and an intense climax, which, however, is only as long as the climax of a TV series episode. A small movie to accompany Super 8, which also didn’t warrant much attention. Not as good as the larger and original Cloverfield (if we’re talking about J.J. Abrams’s projects for the same target audience). (09.04.2016)

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)

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)

A clever, brisk, entertaining, and deliciously-acted spectacle that may lack a major surprise moment that comes from the fact that it’s set in a particular universe, but which the director turns into a major asset in the finale with B-movie impact. Abrams has a nose for talent. 4 ½. (21.05.2016)

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)

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)

A very current elaboration of a classic disaster theme, which in many respects continues freely in the footsteps of Spielberg's War of the Worlds. Goodman's character is not overshot in any way, and comes off to me exactly like an obese man in survival documentaries - a perverse mixture of rationality, vigilance and paranoia, with a hint something devious. It was a good decision to use highly subjective detail, low depth of field and sharpened sound. Sometimes it suffocates and cramps very pleasantly, sometimes it planes a thick string too ostentatiously and bets on "approximately motivated" twists as well as instructively reaped motifs. But as a whole, it doesn't embarrass the Cloverfield concept; on the contrary, despite all the modeling, the result is a thrilling and quite stimulating affair about the monster inside and out. And a celebration of human ingenuity. Take Shelter meets McGyver meets Im Keller. Good job. [75%] (07.04.2016)

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)

When looking back, the film doesn't seem as clever as it did while I was watching it. Its screenplay tempts us to expect some kind of mystifying twist, similar to Sexmission, and meanwhile... The film is interesting in that, during its runtime, it changes genres, similar to a chameleon changing colors. It's not about intertwining different genre elements, it simply functions as a pure horror for a while, then transforms into a psychological drama of an isolated group of people, later on it becomes an authentic science fiction, and elsewhere it turns into a thriller about encountering a deranged criminal. By the way, the main heroine is really unlucky. Ending up in the company of the biggest lunatic in the district after a serious car accident is not fair at all. All three actors deliver an appropriate performance. Mary Elizabeth Winstead in the role of a brave girl who doesn't want to sell her life for free is likable and appeals to me more than in a similarly constructed character in the prequel The Thing. The real treat, however, is the presence of John Goodman in the role of an eccentric property owner with peculiar hobbies. This is an immensely gratifying type of character and John Goodman thoroughly enjoys it. Although after the final quarter-hour, when 10 Cloverfield Lane definitively reveals its true colors and the illusion of sophistication dissolves, the impression slightly decreases, I will ultimately give it 4 stars, as no matter what genre it belongs to, it precisely provides the emotions it intends to. Overall impression: 75%. (09.07.2017)

The sophisticated story structure that releases just enough information to keep the viewer entertained is textbook level. Thanks to the fact that Johnny Be Good(man) can be equally terrifying as he is a nice guy, and that there’s always something to look at (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). Lots of powerful moments and cruel twists. Overall, it seems like a costly beginning to a series that we’ll probably never see. The finale works, even if you have an inkling of what is in store, but sweet ignorance is again more preferable. (30.07.2016)

Something between Take Shelter and War of the Worlds. Interesting in the characters and their confrontations and development. Also atmospheric, suffocating and immersive. But I'm not sure whether not know what the hell is going in inside or outside is for the better. All the while, though, you pray that they mostly don't get both at once and mentally beg for a sophisticated denouement. But it ends in such a way that it looks like there’d be at least five more episodes. John Goodman is by far the best thing about the whole film. (10.06.2016)

It's a really big... disappointment. You just don't make a film about three people locked in an underground bunker (where one of them is weird, the second is weird and dangerous, and the third would just like to get out) without even a bit of suspense. And as hard as John Goodman and Mary Elizabeth Winstead try, the script makes them stupid. Without wanting to give anything away, I have to say that various things happen in 10 Cloverfield Lane simply to be surprising, but they are not logical, and when I asked myself for about the fifth time "Why in God's name...?", I realized how boring the film actually is. Yes, the ending finally had decent momentum, but if anyone is looking forward to seeing something this time - without the constraints of a handheld camera - they should indulge their appetite, because apart from a few brief shots, the picture shakes just as much as it did seven years ago. Two and a half. (13.04.2016)

If it wasn't for the last ten minutes, which heavily disrupt the characteristic signature of the narrative, it would be worthy of pure 5*. A confidently directed old-school downer with fantastic sound and precise acting that rides the wave of pure genre in the form of psychological mystery horror for most of its runtime, and a delicate performance by John Goodman, whose volatile character sparks more suffocating tension than the vast majority of today's horror stuff. The information of the plot is incomplete, but that's perfectly fine – in any given situation, no one is sure what's really going on or who the other person is, and so is the fear and growing paranoia of the viewer, making them much more engulfed in an atmosphere of uncertainty. Great work with visual details and hints and imaginative direction that keeps the tension steady and serves up surprising twists in a very raw, intense way. As I mentioned, the climax comes ten minutes before the end, and I think it’s a bit unfortunate that a such a subtle film that so cleverly lets the viewer be unnerved by their own imagination, in the end, switches to a tired popcorn flick, forcibly bolted onto the diametrically opposed Cloverfield. 85% (18.05.2016)

I was particularly lured to the cinema by the connection with Cloverfield, a film that had a pretty good idea and execution, although I rated it with an average three stars. I was more interested in 10 Cloverfield Lane because I thought it was better portrayed in terms of the psychology of the characters and the atmosphere, and besides, I was not distracted by the handheld camera (as I was with Cloverfield). I was extremely satisfied with the cast, especially with John Goodman, who was perfect in the role. Placing the story in an underground shelter added to the film's bleakness and stiffing atmosphere, which could be chopped up in places. The only thing that kind of bothered me was the somewhat wild ending, although it was really imaginative and in keeping with the film's theme of global catastrophe. All in all, an above average film that definitely deserves attention and one and a half thumbs up. (09.06.2016)

There’s a little bit of everything in this film. A bit of thriller, a bit of psycho horror, a bit of mystery. The whole thing builds on excellent performances by John Goodman and Mary Elizabeth Winstead. I was entertained. (12.07.2016)

"The movie 'Cloverfield Lane 10' is a film that you will enjoy watching because it is different, it has a great atmosphere, excellent actors who enjoy their roles without overdoing it, and then there is also the ending that you may not expect. So after watching it, I understand why people like it because it is a very pleasant revelation that appears modest, yet manages to captivate." (17.05.2016)