Surprise! J.J. Abrams' "10 Cloverfield Lane" — March 11, 2016

I see very few mainstream films for that very reason.

 

I think that this area was more important than you do.

Spoiler

Until Michelle finds out "Megan" isn't actually Walter's daughter, she, Walter and Emmett are having a nice little time. It's the realization that he kidnapped a stranger that leads to the dramatic developments.

So no "fake Megan" and the three of them just continue to have a pleasant time in the shelter.

The audience is left "dangling" in that we don't know what happened to "real Megan" - or even if there was a real daughter, but the plot line succeeds in terms of what it needs to do in the movie. Nothing there is left "dangling" in terms of plot machinations - while it'd be interesting to know about Walter's alleged daughter, it's unnecessary...[/quote]

 

Filmmaker = producer as well as director, no?

 

I kind of enjoyed it, though I probably wouldn't watch it again under any circumstances. I like the fact that it was fairly dialogue driven for the first two acts. The third act was, for the most part, fairly ridiculous.

 

I thought the ending was rather predictable. I enjoyed everything up to what she discovered upon escaping.

 

John Goodman never disappoints.

 

Mainstream movies:

 

I wanted to give the movie 3 stars, but something told me to mark it zero.

 

Spoiler

Similarly, I think the suggestion is there that Walter struck Michelle's car on purpose because he wanted to have a "Megan" with him before he went into the bunker, although that's never clearly spelled out.

 

I dunno.

Spoiler

That seemed like it had to be largely happenstance - how would Walter have known that another daughter figure would just happen to be in the area at the right time?

I can't imagine he was stalking her because her decision to be where he hit her was spur of the moment - it's not like he knew her route to work and stalked her...

 

I'm suggesting that he was looking for "a Megan" - any "girl" about the right age (Michelle is even a bit too old, she had to do) who was travelling alone. His "confession" to her about hitting her seems out of character for a control freak who doesn't volunteer any other information - which to me suggests he's lying about the circumstance.

 

They don't really spell out any of these answers. They give you enough to suspect something, but not let you know for sure. I think there was a "Megan". But we don't know for sure. And we don't know what happened to her if there was.

Goodman was really fantastic in this. He was menacing. He was kind. He was fatherly. And he was a monster. Best thing he's done in years.

And I don't think he was looking for Michele. Power out on the southern seaboard. Flash in the sky. A hurry to get into the bunker. Just a coincidence things happened as they did. But, again, they don't give you enough info to know for sure. That is smart. It creates debate where there may not be a diffinative answer.

 

Watched it yesterday in a packed theater and liked it a lot. Great acting by John Goodman, as others have said. Are there any hidden clues scattered throughout the film, as would be expected from J. J. Abrams?

 

Saw it today. Sort of a directionless film. It takes two different routes which crisscross but lead to nowhere. I don't even understand how the sharp-eyed script readers didn't guffaw this script into a tomb -- oh wait, it came from Abrams... I think there is only one reason this film was made: To create another marketable frachise of films like the Paranormal Activity series. I think JJ smells loot with the "Cloverfield" name and so hiccuped out this incomplete and rather pointless film as a springboard to a sequel. I can hear the fan boys down the road explaining how "'10 Cloverfield Lane" doesn't get into the alien mythology, but it does mark the first appearance by 'Michele" in the series, before she makes her way to...." Because there's no other explanation for such a shoddily thought-out storyline actually being produced. Watch for "Cloverfield: Beginnings" in six months. Money grab filmmaking at it's finest.

 

This Seattle Times review kind of sums up why the film didn't work for me:

"A plot twist reveals that this is actually a sequel to a different film; that’s what constitutes a surprise in Hollywood entertainment these days."

 

Just saw this and thought it was oodles of fun.

 

...or maybe the creature from the first film was part of the first wave....yeah that's the ticket.

 

I finally caught up with this on Blu-ray this week, and I enjoyed the film very much. (Do not do what I did and watch the extra features first. Assuming you haven't seen it before, watch the movie and then watch the behind-the-scenes doc. I already knew the ending, but still...)

For a cheap film ($15M budget), I thought it was extremely polished and well-done. In particular, Bear McCready's music was really good, though I could hear a lot of Herrmanesque steals here and there. John Goodman was terrific as the survivalist bunker nut, and completely believable. It's really kind of an "M. Night Shyamalan" twist story -- what we used to call an "O. Henry" story, but young people won't remember who that was -- but there's kind of a double twist, when you find out the truth behind Goodman's character, and the truth about what's happening outside, which even Goodman doesn't know.

Acting is first rate from start to finish, and the editing and VFX were absolutely stellar. Superb lighting, great color... I thought it was top-notch from start to finish. I had thought it would be a minor horror tale with a few scares here and there, but it was a lot more intense and had far more surprises than I had expected. The technical gloss and polish from J.J. Abrams' crew really took it to the next level. I can see why this was such an enormous hit when it was originally released.

BTW, 10 Cloverfield Lane has the deepest and most sustained (and uncomfortable) bass I've heard in a movie in a long time, so be prepared for your subwoofers to have a workout.

 

Just ordered it off eBay, after many positive comments online...now I see this thread. Funny timing.

 

SPOILER ALERT

Here's the big problem with this minor film, from a review:

The man explains that they are in an survivalist bunker beneath his farmhouse. There’s been an attack above, “a big one.” Maybe chemical, maybe nuclear. It could be the Ruskies, or it could be Martians. Regardless, “Everyone outside of here is dead.”

I want to know who crawled out from under the cultural rock that didn't know how this film was going to end? Even this thread title is off-the-mark. "Surprise!!" Surprise? There wasn't a single moment of "wonder" or "doubt" about what was going on for this viewer. I don't care how many red herrings they tried to pull off, the ending was a given. The only wonder was how long were we going to be subjected to the crappy faux mystery before JJ Abrams let his darling creatures show up. And the reveal of John Goodman's dark natured act regarding a neighbor was so un-needed and necessary to the story (and non-integrated), it felt thrown on and cheapening. It wasn't enough he was a control-freak weirdo survivalist, they thought the could crank up the suspense with out-of-the-blue reveal. Sorry, folks, too late. The whole scratch marks cliche added nothing but another yawn to the torture porn set piece. And I'll say it, John Goodman is a one-note actor who does the same routine and character in every movie -- the insufferable overweight blowhard. He wants to be Anthony Hopkins with his self-conscious gravitas (or maybe his sheer gravity -- because of his size) but he's more your annoying uncle lecturing you on the importance of the vote. He's become such a stereotype of thick-headed middle-class Americana, I can think of a hundred actors who would have been far more interesting in the role than Goodman. Everyone fell in love with Mark Rylance for "Bridge of Spies." Put Rylance in this role and watch the film shoot up in nuance, subtlety, and watchability a thousand percent. The only thing I disliked about "Inside Llewyn Davis" was Goodman showing up to muck up another Coen Brother's film with his arrogant, self-important blowhard schtick.

 

The name of the movie gives the whole thing away. I think I read elsewhere that Abrams didn't want to have "Cloverfield" in the name so the ending (until word of mouth got out, anyway) would be a surprise. That would have been better, but the studio insisted on a modification of the title for so all the Cloverfield fans would be drawn in. I don't have a citation for this and can't remember where I read it, but it seems plausible.

 

This sounds like my friend who spends a lot of time (for fun and for work) watching hundreds upon hundreds of obscure genre movies. Every time I see something that I thought was solid, creative genre entertainment, he tells me some other movie - that most people have never heard of - did it first or did it better. For instance, he says "Heathers" is garbage because it rips off of "Massacre at Central High."

 

Hey the weight comment is unnecessary and a nasty shot.

 

JJ Abrams presents "Ten Cloverfield Lane?" It wasn't exactly mining obscurity to put 2 +2 together, especially as the plot revolves around people hiding underground from some terrible force outside. The alien-attack movie "Cloverfield" produced by JJ Abrams? It was sort of a major, well-known film. Honestly, if I saw an ad for Steven Spielberg presents "ET: The Journey Home," I don't think it would be a stretch for someone to assume an alien might pop up.