Cloverfield

A stroll down the Lane and a glimpse into a monster of the past

So a lot of people still may not know (nor care) but a new 'Cloverfield' movie came out this year right under everyone's noses and it just might literally be one of the best movies of 2016; Yes, Cloverfield, the handy-cam monster movie with mixed reviews and a cult following. But this new film is nothing like Cloverfield in almost no way, shape or form (there are a few minor connections) and yet this new film does for audiences what the original film did in 2008 in the sense of keeping most of the film shrouded in mystery, suspense and countless Easter eggs that will keep you talking about the movie long after it's finished, making this for one of the better cases of an original concept film in a long time. In fact, it's not only one of the more original, playful genre movies in some time but what it actually accomplishes with the little material given, it's in many ways even better than its monster of a predecessor from nearly 8 years ago (and for the Cloverfield haters this will come as a relief). But more importantly, the new film serves not necessarily as a sequel but more so an entry in what could potentially be one of the more plausible film anthology franchises this generation has ever seen, even if it's just on a cult-followed level.

  Yes folks, the film is a "blood relative" of the original film but 10 Cloverfield Lane couldn't be more different in terms of plot, tone, camerawork and just about anything else you can find from the rubble of Monster-mashed Manhattan and throw at this new beast of a little but immensely powerful flick. The film instead is quite the literal opposite of its predecessor. Rather than a loud, frantic paranoid run of the mill from something big and mysterious, the new film is a quiet, psychological, slow burn, edge-of-your-seat thriller with a monster who's very present, very front and center and his name is John Goodman.

Spoiler alert.

  I will eventually get to just how good Goodman really is in this film (so good it's a little scary) but first I need to talk about the actual film. 

To dive into the film is both simple and complex. The premise is easy and because it's easy it's also easy for first time director Dan Trachtenberg to make a worthy enough splash of a neat little thriller as his first big outing. But among his simple premise, the most genius move he made was becoming buddy-buddy with the likes of fanboy filmmaker JJ Abrams. 

  Yes, the premise is as simple as Mary Elizabeth Winstead being held hostage in a bunker by John Goodman who's informed her the world as she knew it has ended. Yes, the movie takes place in one remote location (with multiple rooms and set pieces in and out of said bunker) keeping not only the budget but the energy calm and quiet and ironically, by doing just that, Trachtenberg has made one of the most thrillingly original films in recent memory. He does with the actors what Hitchcock used to do; he creates tension with shady looks from the actors, unique camera tricks, and belief in the big questions the script has to offer (and there are MANY questions). The film is the opposite of Cloverfield for so many reasons but mostly because this is a low-level psychological thriller. When the movie crosses into borderline horror-movie territory (and by the end, it DEFINITELY crosses that threshold), it instills pure fear in its moviegoers and it's not because victims are being thrashed by giant monsters (they're not) but because Goodman's character of Howard is so terrifying based on dialogue and pent up aggression alone that just about anyone would have nightmares thinking about his character watching over you as you sleep. And that's the first real aspect that separates Lane from Cloverfield; instead of relying on sci-fi fantasy mythos, all of the fear comes from very realistic human-on-human contact (at least 90% of the fear).

And this time not relying on a "real life" crappy handy-cam quality approach (10 points for Goodman!)

  Which brings us back to the first and in some ways the only actor worth mentioning: John Goodman. Now, Winstead plays an impressively believable protagonist as Michelle, so much so that we actually desperately want to see her make it out of this predicament alive and John Gallagher Jr's Emmett is great as the counterpart who buys into the post-apocalyptic craziness of it all, but Goodman more than steals the show; he leads the whole parade. In fact, he's so good in this movie that he almost carries the entire thing himself. Of course we all knew Johnny Goods was a good actor but I think it's been a while since we've all been reminded just HOW good. And the legitimate terror this man creates based on pretty much only dialogue and mean looks makes for a performance that could earn him an Oscar nod (not kidding). 

Why we haven't already given him an Oscar, years ago, remains a mystery.

There's really nothing more than to say that the most impressive and frightening aspect of the film isn't behind the mystery of a giant monster but behind all the questions Goodman's character, Howard, creates with all the twisted pandemonium. Like I said, man vs man conflict makes it truly terrifying and Howard proves this notion to be all the more true putting him among the ranks of Norman Bates. Goodman is the primary reason to see this film.

  As for the mystery of the film itself, it all comes back to Abrams. Yes, 90% of the film is due to Trachtenberg because in the end, this is his film and Trachtenberg deserves all the credit he gets for this as his first big number. But for originally going with a more "indy flick" approach of a low budget thriller initially titled "The Cellar," Trachtenberg went all in with originality and by meeting with JJ, he was able to give the script just a few small tweaks; small but effective enough that by delving a little more into not just the sci-fi aspect but the questions; the why, the how, the what's-the-big-twist?! (Don't let ANYONE spoil the third act for you), he makes this more than just a mystery, but a thrill ride for nearly two hours straight and doesn't let up from the mellow opening to the climactic ending, building even bigger and more completely outrageous than you could ever predict going in and that shrouded mystery, whether intentional or not is pure homage to JJ's "Mystery Box" speech on TED TALKS. It all comes back to the notion that as long as the audience is engaged in the big questions, the master doesn't need to reveal his hand until the very end, when he has his audience right where he wants them; it's the theory that propels the momentum for any JJ-associated act (including the original Cloverfield) and the very notion that came back to bite Abrams in the ass when Lost ended (spoiler alert: it's not the big ending fans were hoping for). And today, that very notion of "what's inside the mystery box?" is what makes 10 Cloverfield Lane worth watching, from its calm opening credits right down to the gung-ho firefight of a finale.

For those who despise JJ's existence, stand down. The ending doesn't look like this.

  It's a very simple tactic for filmmakers and yet it's arguably one of the most effective dating all the way back to the beginning of cinema. In fact, Lane is probably much closer in tone to a Hitchcock film than anything else and it all comes back to not just the "why" but the how? Of course the reason for watching the film is to get to the ending (and I'll get there in just a moment); that's the big "why," but the "how" comes more into play of how it's done and this is where both Abrams but more importantly Trachtenberg come into play. The reality is, any Joe-Schmo with a camera could have taken this script and (until a point) could have made it into a halfway decent movie. The script is remarkable at leaving clue after clue until we finally have some answers we were looking for and yet the style and tone of the ever building tension between the three leads is what makes the film what it is. Sure the end gets bananas (like I said, will get there in a moment) but the reason for watching this is for the build up and everything on top of the incredible acting, from the cinematography to the score (sometimes lack of even), to the editing, it's just a simple idea of a script that's portrayed pretty brilliantly in its simplicity that will inevitably make it one of the more impressive thrillers of 2016.

  Now before I get wrapped up in Cloverfield as a mythology, an anthology; dare I say, a franchise (?!), let's talk about that ending.

*SPOILER ALERT*

So Emmett gets brutally murdered by Howard; Howard briefly becomes Two-face before getting blown up along with the safe house; Michelle escapes with a makeshift hazmat suit (nice one) and what's the big twist? ALIENS (cue 'Ancient Aliens meme').

No, really. This ending completely surpasses the original Cloverfield in terms of that big "WTF?" moment the movie throws the audience's way. The movie builds to this particular moment in these last fifteen minutes and right at the moment JUST when you spend the whole time thinking maybe Goodman's crazy, maybe he paid that woman outside to bash her head into the door, begging to be let in, and MAYBE this is all a big prequel to the beginning of the Cloverfield invasion in 2008 (spoiler alert: it's not. Michelle's very obvious iPhone 6 makes that timeline crossover impossible). But yes, ALIENS, folks. Alien ships come hovering over the farm and the face suckers from Peter Jackson's King Kong come looking for our hopeless heroine. She fights back; throws a makeshift torch into the mothership/mother alien's mouth/vagina; it blows up, she hotwires a car, drives past Howard's broken mailbox with address "10 Cloverfield Lane" addressed on it, and drives away; the car's AM radio reveals desperate cries for help where alien attacks are happening in other areas; Michelle turns her car down "help is on the way" lane and the movie ENDS.

*END OF SPOILER ALERT*

NOW, I don't HATE the ending; hell, I don't even dislike the ending. But you can almost see Trachtenberg writing this brilliant script and he's on like, page 90 and he's all "damn. I need a REALLY crazy ending, like NOW... Lemme call JJ real quick." And that's where the film shifts gears; And it doesn't just shift gears, it becomes a different movie entirely. And without the hour and a half build-up to THIS specific moment, the ending loses all traction; not because it's not enticing (quite the opposite actually), but because we've seen it before. And just when we hold out for a tie-in to Cloverfield, we don't REALLY get one (will get to the Easter eggs in a moment). Without the brilliance that is the majority of the film, the bat-sh*t crazy ending has no weight and yet, for die-hard fans of all things sci-fi, JJ Abrams and twist endings, the ending just might be the ending you were hoping for. Either way, the shift in tone appears to be the aspect folks are complaining about the most which is shocking considering they did the balls-to-the-wall ending the movie strays from for MOST of its run time. Either way, it will have you talking once it's all over.

And it wouldn't be a JJ Abrams production if it didn't get the kids talking.

  And now that it IS all over, I believe it can be said that the most interesting aspect of this whole movie experience isn't in the movie itself; not as a sequel to Cloverfield anyway but the idea of Cloverfield as an anthology; a series of films not necessarily directly related, but strung along the same bloodline of sci-fi monster movies told in episodic format from a specific point of view, sharing similar dark tone in mystery that's the equivalent of a modern day big-budget, big-screen Twilight Zone series.

  Now, if you were to pitch that idea to the audience in 2008 when Cloverfield stormed into cinemas, people might have laughed at the idea, but some people might have been really into it. The reality is, I went into 10 Cloverfield Lane expecting a semi-sequel to Cloverfield and instead received a movie that's almost nothing in the same vain as Cloverfield, barely in the same ballpark. And YET, the tone was almost identical for COMPLETELY different reasons. I walked away with a movie I never realized I wanted; not a sequel but the next entry in a lightly related series. And argue it all you want, but for the fans it's absolutely brilliant. 

And we'd probably be in for some really far out sh*t.

  Sure, the Easter eggs may lead one to believe that Lane does in fact exist in the same universe as Field, the most obvious clue being that of Howard's character being deemed employee of the month at "Tagruato" (there's a fake website for it, in true JJ fashion); the company that was responsible for making satellites... Satellites that crash land from space into the ocean, awakening a creature that had been sleeping in the waters of Coney Island for thousands of years, thus the government naming the operation "Cloverfield" after the road Howard lives on (COME ON GUYS, IT ALL MAKES PERFECT SENSE)!!!!

...But if you're not a crazy person who investigates these kinds of clues, the film makes it almost completely oblivious of its relation to the original Cloverfield. Me personally, I love the Twilight Zone theory and seeing this all as a franchise actually made me revisit the original Cloverfield and I have a newfound love for it because that specific mystery box has now been opened once again and if JJ and the gang play their cards right, they could end up creating some one of the most exciting anthology franchises moviegoers will have seen in quite some time; in fact, the idea of it alone makes for one of the more original ideas Hollywood has had in general, in quite some time.

  The film is spawning a small cult following of sorts, plaguing the Internet with all kinds of crazy fan theories, Easter eggs, speculation and connections to the original film and beyond. 

MUST FIND ALL THE FAN THEORIES

No seriously.

Here

Here too.

Sure, people aren't talking about it the way the were with the original but the film is obviously creating enough excitement and leaving enough mystery to have fans clawing for more.

  What can I say? 10 Cloverfield Lane is absolutely brilliant; everything about it. And what's brilliant about it is that if you disliked the original Cloverfield, the new film is almost nothing like it and yet, if you're a fan of the original or the genre, there's enough to merit this a related film for those who have been thirsty for more monster these past eight years, even if the monster is now in the relentless human form of John Goodnan. Hell, even if you just want to watch a showcase for John Goodman's acting, this movie's for you. Either way, the film is an experience and it's going to be one of the better films of 2016. Hats off to Trachtenberg for using simplicity in order to make an original film and hats off to JJ Abrams who clearly had enough influence to create a cult following and fan base as he can do with nearly every project he touches. Bravo gents. Today, you've all struck gold. Now bring on more Cloverfield.

Until then, watch the blu-ray.