3.5 stars out of 5
So, this is a sequel, or maybe it isn’t, or maybe it is. I don’t remember 2008’s Cloverfield all that well except that it was fun and I enjoyed it. And the trailer for this was pretty cool, so, why not?
This one is… fun and I enjoyed it.
I can’t say very much about the movie, because it’s a suspense sort of deal — kind of feels like a Twilight Zone episode for a while — and I don’t want to ruin anything for you. The less you know, the more you’ll enjoy, I think.
So I’ll generally stick with what was in the trailer. You’ve got three people in a well-appointed underground bunker, and maybe there’s something scary outside. Maybe you shouldn’t go out there. For the three characters, the filmmakers went after quality actors, which I appreciate. John Goodman is the “daddy” and he’s reliably great in this. You can’t help but like the guy, yet his physicality gives him a commanding presence that can veer into intimidation. Then you’ve got two somewhat younger characters. John Gallagher Jr., who you may remember from The Newsroom, is an interesting choice to play a dim-witted redneck. John Gallagher Jr. oozes innocence and prep school, not so much “good ol’ boy.” And yet… you can’t help but like the guy. Then there’s Mary Elizabeth Winstead. She’s a solid actress, and here’s a fun fact: When her hair is pulled back, she looks a little bit like Brie Larson. So I had the fun of thinking, “Oh, poor Brie is stuck in a room again….”
As with Cloverfield, 10 Cloverfield Lane subverts the form just enough. The writing is a little bit sharper than your standard scare flick. There are pretty decent laughs. The director enjoys himself by playing ominous music when it’s not actually a dramatic moment (though he plays this card once or twice too often).
Also, really nice title sequence.
Bottom line, if you like this sort of movie, go see 10 Cloverfield Lane; I think you’ll like it. Sure, there’s some dumb stuff in here too, but hey, it’s that kind of movie. And you like that kind of movie.
Jack Silbert, curator