I suppose the neatest trick of 10 Cloverfield Lane is that it somehow manages to make the viewer forget the title. For those who are completely unfamiliar with the first Cloverfield, that shouldn’t pose much of a problem and I imagine that those who either weren’t pop culturally aware of that film or those who just don’t care to remember it will likely have a good time and will be the ones who get the most out of it.
For those of you who do remember the J.J. Abrams produced film (as I vaguely do, I haven’t seen it since its initial DVD release) this will prove an interesting follow-up as the two aren’t really connected and, yet, somehow invariably are very much connected.
The film follows a woman named Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), who is running away from her fiancé and a life of reasonable comfort and gets into a car accident. When she awakens she finds herself in a bunker, her leg damaged and chained to a wall. This is all done in a wordless prologue and is excellently crafted by first-time feature director Dan Trachtenberg.
But, then the movie really gets started. Enter Howard (played by John Goodman, as good as he’s ever been), a doomsday preparer who seems to not only have been waiting for the day when he gets to say “I told you so” but quietly relishes in it now that the time has apparently come. Nuclear war, he claims.
While many of his actions seem to be well-intentioned – saving Michelle from her car wreck and dragging her into the shelter, keeping a watchful eye over the food and drink supply, having a soft spot for John Hughes movies and allowing his neighbor Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) into the shelter as well – many of his actions are questionable: why the need to constantly carry a loaded gun? Why do his stares seem to last just a little too long? Why does he insist on staying in the room while people use the restroom, with only a privacy curtain to spare them his gaze?
It’s a wonderfully weird performance from Goodman, who quietly eats up every little moment of screen-time that he’s given. Gallagher Jr. as Emmett is amiable as always. He’s a welcomed distraction from Howard’s suspicious behavior and the constant detective work going on in Michelle’s head.
Winstead, for me, is the revelation in this movie. I am largely unfamiliar with her work. I have been, and will remain, a massive John Goodman fan and have come to appreciate Gallagher’s work on the short-lived The Newsroom. But, after this film, I think I may delve deeper into Winstead’s work after seeing her as the daring protagonist of this thriller.
These three players, you’ll notice, are the only three mentioned, as they are really the only three involved. This wonderful trio of actors carries this film magnificently; reminding me of last year’s The Hateful Eight. Both are movies where a small ensemble carries out a tense drama in one space. It’s a wonder neither of these were conceived as plays before receiving a screen treatment.
Regardless, everyone is supremely effective in their roles, with Goodman as the MVP.
The bunker becomes our home in the movie, as much as the characters on screen. We come to forget that there was ever a tragedy that happened to force our triumvirate into the bunker. I must say, that I would’ve given this movie a solid 9/10, if not for the disappointing ending.
A lot of critics are really upset with the content of the ending of the film. I wouldn’t say that I was upset with the ending of the film so much as I was just deflated by the pacing. Without giving too much away, the film ends with a series of events that don’t quite match the very subtle nature of the first hour and few minutes. It’s not that it’s a bad ending. It’s just an inconsistent ending in terms of tone and pacing.
Still, despite a faltering third act I am fully recommending 10 Cloverfield Lane.
Brian Laughran
Ediotr-in-Chief
About Post Author
