How you respond to Bad
Robot's new production 10 Cloverfield Lane will almost
certainly depend on how much you were expecting a sequel to 2008's
Cloverfield.
First-time
director Dan Trachtenberg's movie has little-to-no connection to the
first Cloverfield,
but it's also destined to suffer disinterest
or even rejection
from two
extremes: anybody who was
hoping to see the original
story continued; and also haters of the original who are turned off
by the use of the title for this new movie.
For what it's worth, I found some
enjoyment in the original film but hoped that whatever Matt Reeves
directed next wasn't as aggressively average and doused in shaky-camera
antics (I was rewarded in 2014 with his flawed but great Dawn of
the Planet of the Apes). If you
were in the same camp, you probably weren't clamouring for Cloverfield 2.
However, you might be better
positioned to enjoy 10 Cloverfield Lane.
Mary
Elizabeth Winstead is Michelle, who after an argument with her
fiance
leaves New Orleans and drives out to the country. She has an accident on the highway and blacks out, only to wake up inside an underground bunker owned by
Howard (John Goodman). Howard is a conspiracy nut and
disaster prepper who
alleges that there's been "attack" above ground and, as far
as he knows, Michelle, he and a third survivor, Emmett, are all that
remain of the human race.
So
begins a no-fat rollercoaster ride filled with mystery and tension,
grounded in fantastic performances by the two leads. Goodman is
intriguing (given the twisted story structure of reveal upon reveal) and is alternately welcoming and frightening. His potential
untrustworthiness – whether intentional or simply by his being an "outsider" – is a good parallel to your
reaction while watching the film. Has Howard rescued Michelle, or simply
kidnapped her and invented a catastrophe? Is he the antagonist of the
story? His he a "monster", much like the
kaiju Clover? Is the movie even science-fiction? You won't get a peep
from me.
Winstead,
on the other hand, brings to life one of the best protagonists of the
year so far. Her story-arc is core from minute 1 through minute 103
(the movie is 103 minutes long). It's uplifting to see a film whose
production staff were dedicated to providing cathartic character
growth and at the same time not shirking the horror of being
trapped in a confined space with people you don't know.
The
acting isn't the only thing that keeps you engaged. Battlestar's
Bear McCreary provides a fitting original score, though you could say
that it is closer to the Bad Robot "house style" than Bear's own. What his music truly succeeds at is
blending into the sonic fabric of Howard's bunker. When Michelle is
feeling emotional, that's the accompaniment. When she is surprised,
the strings will sting.
Yes,
there are jump scares in the movie. Yes, like many mysteries,
once you know the outcome the tension will probably be deflated on
future viewings. Despite this, I take issue at the idea that these will
sour 10 Cloverfield Lane with time. Like Psycho (more
on that in the next post) the world suggested within the story is
layered and interesting enough that you will never be bored, even
knowing exactly what happens next. In the end, the film is a
high-quality experience either way, with great twists and believable
characters.
But
what about the Cloverfield connection? Do you need to have
seen the first movie at all to get more out of 10 Cloverfield
Lane? The answer is a resounding no.
Abrams and company have made it clear with this sudden departure and
subsequent interviews that the idea of a true sequel to Cloverfield
is less interesting than using the strange, smaller-budget
associations of that title to tell what amounts to a sci-fi anthology
series, like a big-screen Twilight
Zone. That might be the
most thrilling part …
10 Cloverfield Lane earns 4.5 / 5 stars.
Stay
tuned for another look at 10
Cloverfield Lane
next, with a focus on how it fits into the cinematic canon of
"high-quality B-movies".
No comments:
Post a Comment