10 Cloverfield Lane (Dan Trachtenberg, 2016)

[Black Hat]

Spoiler

You'll probably enjoy it more on a rewatch when not so wrapped up in the plot, as both the radio transmission (re: fighting against the invasion in Houston, where Michelle eventually chooses to go) and, more importantly, her monologue on always running away from her problems pretty clearly establish the significance of that final choice, and add weight to her unwillingness to give up at earlier points in the last third of the film.

You're right, there's a lot of subtext to unpack in this. Really hope they keep the integral people responsible for this one together for the sequel.

[Murdoch]

I walked away from this one pretty underwhelmed by the experience. The performances were all good and the first act was set up well, but as the film progressed it seemed to be a series of set-ups with little payoff. It's rare for a film to capture the experience of watching through the entirety of Lost, but this one came pretty close.

Spoiler

The ending has been dissected over the web as much as possible and I ended up siding with the detractors on it. It plays out like a terrible Syfy action sequence and felt like the writers weren't confident enough in themselves to tidy things up without an explosion. In an era of apocalyptic horror stories, I was happy to see one focus on the internal turmoil of survivors over a broad doomsday scenario. A shame it took the turn it did, but the first half of the film is a great mixture of paranoia and doubt.

The plot of Goodman being an abuser though, while I can buy it, seemed to me as merely a reason pigeonholed in to motivate the other two to escape. Part of my problem with it is that it's swept aside as quickly as it's brought up, and then everything starts to fall apart. After that point, the film focuses less on the struggle to maintain sanity in this underground bunker and reverts back to how it initially began: trying to escape from an abusive kidnapper. The haz mat suit is something I can overlook since dissecting the realism of a film about aliens taking over the world is a worthless exercise. Even the layout of the air purifier being through a series of air vents (how was Goodman planning to get himself through there if he stayed in alone as planned?) is just par for the course. But the plotting of the movie was so tangled up that in the end nothing felt satisfying. It begins with a decent premise, but doesn't know what to do with its characters in this bunker so it tries to toss them outside again. I mean, if I'd known the film was progressing toward Winstead throwing a molotov down an alien monster's throat and driving toward the horizon to fight aliens I think I would've sat this one out.

[DarkImbecile]

Spoiler

The ending has been dissected over the web as much as possible and I ended up siding with the detractors on it. It plays out like a terrible Syfy action sequence and felt like the writers weren't confident enough in themselves to tidy things up without an explosion. In an era of apocalyptic horror stories, I was happy to see one focus on the internal turmoil of survivors over a broad doomsday scenario. A shame it took the turn it did, but the first half of the film is a great mixture of paranoia and doubt.

Spoiler

While I certainly understand why someone could be irritated with the post-bunker scenes, I don't agree, because I think these final scenes both wrap up Winstead's character arc and adequately explain what we've seen/heard from inside the bunker without a cheaper, undercooked twist/reason entirely unsupported by what came before. I thought the reveal of the alien invasion fit perfectly with the pulpy, B-movie tone of the film as a whole.

Spoiler

The plot of Goodman being an abuser though, while I can buy it, seemed to me as merely a reason pigeonholed in to motivate the other two to escape. Part of my problem with it is that it's swept aside as quickly as it's brought up, and then everything starts to fall apart. After that point, the film focuses less on the struggle to maintain sanity in this underground bunker and reverts back to how it initially began: trying to escape from an abusive kidnapper.

Spoiler

I think you may have inverted the main thrust of the movie with a side element; confronting and overcoming Goodman's abusive captor is the main conflict, while the struggle to maintain sanity in the bunker isn't really a focal point at all. Also, not sure how you perceived the abusive past and current behavior as quickly swept aside, since its gradual reveal and the action it spurs seems to be by far the most (and maybe the only) important element of the first 80 minutes of the movie.

Spoiler

Even the layout of the air purifier being through a series of air vents (how was Goodman planning to get himself through there if he stayed in alone as planned?) is just par for the course.

Spoiler

This issue is clearly explained in the film as the main access door being blocked when something toppled onto it, and Trachtenberg notes in this podcast that they shot scenes depicting the blockage and showing Winstead trying and failing to clear it before deciding it wasn't worth sacrificing the pace (though given how many people seem to see this as an issue, maybe that was a mistake).

[Murdoch]

I think this is a case of me wanting to see a different movie than what was shown. I don't bemoan anyone for liking it, but I can't really muster up more than a shrug. All the points you make are valid, but I just found myself so unenthused by the film that I can't really say anything other than "I didn't like it" and a big part of that is the final act.

[barryconvex]

my biggest problem here...

Spoiler

...when the dying woman is trying to get into the bunker why didn't winstead's character ask her what was going on out there? i realize she was dealing with an hysteric in her face and a psycho breathing down her back but clarification about a lot of significant doubts she had about her situation could've been had in just two short words-alien invasion!!!

still, a quality movie that i would definitely recommend...

[domino harvey]

I loved this, and it stands, with Gravity and the Keeping Room, as another of the great, female-driven works of survival that are becoming a welcome presence in recent cinema. Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s character defies every stupid horror movie / thriller character cliche in navigating her time in the bunker, and I can’t believe (or, I guess, I can because everyone is always wrong on the internet) that there are people who don’t like the last twenty minutes.

Spoiler

It’s perfect: the true survivor-type isn’t the one who hides underground (or drives on to safety), but the one who fights, who helps, who doesn’t give up. “Come on” is the concise, completely human response to an utterly new and foreign threat like a sudden alien invasion. But so is survival and ingenuity and forward momentum. That final action sequence is so deeply cathartic and satisfying in solidifying this character and her actions in both narrative and symbolic payoff. The message is brutal but it's a tough love: The world doesn’t need the John Goodmans of the world surviving. It, quite frankly, doesn’t need the well-meaning but clueless John Gallagher Jrs either. It needs the Winsteads, using opportunity and drive to get shit done. There’s your survival of the indelible human spirit right there.

++++++++

Like others, I was relieved to discover this film wasn't going to rely so heavily on the "twist" of vindication/revelation etc and instead explore more interesting tangents in the process. This is mildly off-topic, but the first act of this reminded me a lot of a great Outer Limits episode I only half remember from my childhood (so apologies in advance if I get some of the details wrong). A group of military men and women are in a bunker, on their usual shift, when crisis strikes above ground in the states. It turns out this is the failsafe group who have the power to cancel or authorize a nuclear strike order on the United States itself. Their orders are to follow a specific protocol for when the president may be incapacitated (an especially hopeful thought now with the threat of a Trump presidency!) in order to wipe out a foreign threat. They get the order to strike against the entire Eastern seaboard due to an unknown threat. But wait, the President has sent the bunker a message: it’s been a mistake, the codes have been set into launch by mistake, but here’s the President of the United States assuring the response team via video that it’s an error. They have twenty minutes to make a decision on whether to allow the self-strike, which is protocol, or believe the President. After much deliberation, they make their decision:

Spoiler

They cancel the strike, believing the risk of being wrong too great. The President immediately thanks them via video, then collapses, as we see alien figures controlling the body from behind, as a giant flying saucer is seen in the window of the Oval Office, obliterating everything outside.

EDIT: Also, I knew as soon as I opened the mailer this arrived in that there'd be pages of bitching about the weird slipcover on the Blu-ray.com forums, and I was not mistaken

[aox]

Dom,

I'm not sure if you are into podcasts, but "The Next Picture Show" did two episodes recently comparing 10 Cloverfield Lane (which I loved much like you) and Hitchcock's Psycho. It's pretty intriguing and mirrors many of our shared thoughts on the former. I also consider Psycho a masterpiece, so that made it more enjoyable.

EDIT: Also, let me know if you find out the name of that Outer Limits episode. :-"

[domino harvey]

Thanks for the recommendation, I just downloaded both and will listen to them tomorrow while working out and/or prepping my doomsday shelter. And, uh, turns out I got most of the details wrong in my memory, which makes sense as I mostly just remembered that ending and think I inadvertently filled it in with a better set-up, but the Outer Limits episode is apparently called "Dead Man's Switch"

[mfunk9786]

Domino and I agree on a movie

[aox]

Thanks for the recommendation, I just downloaded both and will listen to them tomorrow while working out and/or prepping my doomsday shelter. And, uh, turns out I got most of the details wrong in my memory, which makes sense as I mostly just remembered that ending and think I inadvertently filled it in with a better set-up, but the Outer Limits episode is apparently called "Dead Man's Switch"

Thanks Dom.

And if you think of it and have the time, I'd be curious on your thoughts on the podcast. :cheers

[jazzo]

This seems as good a place as any to recommend Kate Seigel and Mike Flanagan's tight little thriller, Hush, streaming now on Netflix. This one, like 10 Cloverfield Lane, is a smart little chamber piece/game of cat-and-mouse, with only a few main characters, set in an enclosed, unbreachable space.

Also like 10 Cloverfield Lane, Hush is about intelligent, logical choices made by a female protagonist under life-threatening circumstances, and how the males (the audience?) in the story constantly underestimate the women.

Hush also co-stars John Gallagher Jr., who, for me, has gone from being one of the most annoyingly affected young actors working today * cough* Newsroom *cough* to an actor of vast, and surprisingly deep range.

The film was co-written by and stars Kate Seigel, and her performance as a hearing-impaired victim who absolutely refuses to be a victim is spectacular. Mike Flanagan also did Occulus, Absentia and Before I Wake, none of which I've seen, but am more than willing to check out on the strength of this film alone.

And can I just add that I'm really liking these smaller, more modestly-ambitioned genre films that are surfacing, now that filmmakers realise that distribution can stem from sources other than major studios. Rather than getting lost in multiplex cinemas for a weekend or two, you can find more direct access to your audience, for a longer period of time, and still turn a profit. Their main goal, aside from creating something that is lean and taut, seems to be playing a bit more with audience expectations of their respective genre.

Hush isn't as rich or satisfying as 10 Cloverfield Lane, but it's a good sister film/chaser to it.

[domino harvey]

And if you think of it and have the time, I'd be curious on your thoughts on the podcast. :cheers

I listened to both parts yesterday (I even took a few extra laps to hear it all) and I think I have the same problem with this film podcast as I do with most film podcasts, in that there's a separation between those who know their topic and those just getting their feet wet, with the latter having the loudest voices and the most episodes. As a teacher of film, I make my living being patient with those new to this field, but I don't necessarily want to indulge in it on my off-time. Tobias brought respectability and knowledge to the proceedings, but the other writers simply didn't, and were woefully out of their element (often embarrassingly so-- repeatedly shouting out "boobs" is what passes as comic insight now?) and they just had to harp on this constant idea of "back then," such as "Films were (in some specific way inferior) back then" over and over (and admissions of one participant that certain scenes in Psycho elicited superior giggles says more about the commentator than they realize). At first I figured the participants were fair in this focus, given the film's historic distribution and legacy, but after a while it became clear this was being co-opted as a crutch to hold the film at arm's length as a relic. And based on the "mailbag" of reactions to an earlier podcast on M*A*S*H, imposition of current morality without fair context onto older films in order to feel superior / score points is a regular feature. Things picked up by the second hour once they got to 10 Cloverfield Lane, probably because a newer film was more inside the comfort zone for the commentators, but I was surprised at how little they actually talked about the film itself, focusing more on audience response and earlier drafts. For every occasional insight and point of comparison between the two films, I thought most avenues of exploration were left unexamined by all of the participants, and they kept alluding to the ending without actually talking about it! So, thank you for the recommendation, but while the overall premise of the podcast is promising, the results left me unsatisfied.

[aox]

And if you think of it and have the time, I'd be curious on your thoughts on the podcast. :cheers

I listened to both parts yesterday (I even took a few extra laps to hear it all) and I think I have the same problem with this film podcast as I do with most film podcasts, in that there's a separation between those who know their topic and those just getting their feet wet, with the latter having the loudest voices and the most episodes. As a teacher of film, I make my living being patient with those new to this field, but I don't necessarily want to indulge in it on my off-time. Tobias brought respectability and knowledge to the proceedings, but the other writers simply didn't, and were woefully out of their element (often embarrassingly so-- repeatedly shouting out "boobs" is what passes as comic insight now?) and they just had to harp on this constant idea of "back then," such as "Films were (in some specific way inferior) back then" over and over (and admissions of one participant that certain scenes in Psycho elicited superior giggles says more about the commentator than they realize). At first I figured the participants were fair in this focus, given the film's historic distribution and legacy, but after a while it became clear this was being co-opted as a crutch to hold the film at arm's length as a relic. And based on the "mailbag" of reactions to an earlier podcast on M*A*S*H, imposition of current morality without fair context onto older films in order to feel superior / score points is a regular feature. Things picked up by the second hour once they got to 10 Cloverfield Lane, probably because a newer film was more inside the comfort zone for the commentators, but I was surprised at how little they actually talked about the film itself, focusing more on audience response and earlier drafts. For every occasional insight and point of comparison between the two films, I thought most avenues of exploration were left unexamined by all of the participants, and they kept alluding to the ending without actually talking about it! So, thank you for the recommendation, but while the overall premise of the podcast is promising, the results left me unsatisfied.

Thanks for your insight. Great post and criticism. Gave me a lot to think about. Not to derail the thread, but is there any film podcast that you do prefer?

[Murdoch]

This is mildly off-topic, but the first act of this reminded me a lot of a great Outer Limits episode I only half remember from my childhood (so apologies in advance if I get some of the details wrong). A group of military men and women are in a bunker, on their usual shift, when crisis strikes above ground in the states. It turns out this is the failsafe group who have the power to cancel or authorize a nuclear strike order on the United States itself. Their orders are to follow a specific protocol for when the president may be incapacitated (an especially hopeful thought now with the threat of a Trump presidency!) in order to wipe out a foreign threat. They get the order to strike against the entire Eastern seaboard due to an unknown threat. But wait, the President has sent the bunker a message: it’s been a mistake, the codes have been set into launch by mistake, but here’s the President of the United States assuring the response team via video that it’s an error. They have twenty minutes to make a decision on whether to allow the self-strike, which is protocol, or believe the President. After much deliberation, they make their decision:

Spoiler

They cancel the strike, believing the risk of being wrong too great. The President immediately thanks them via video, then collapses, as we see alien figures controlling the body from behind, as a giant flying saucer is seen in the window of the Oval Office, obliterating everything outside.

Now that is something I want see, largely for the climax. I'll have to give it a watch to wash out the sour taste from 10 CL. Thanks for the rec!

[zedz]

I watched this the other day and enjoyed it well enough (though I found the score really overbearing). Regarding the complaints further up about the awkward logistics of the bunker, I read it that

Spoiler

the bunker wasn't primarily designed for surviving a nuclear war / alien attack: it was a prison for Goodman's little girl(s). The previous missing girl had been kept there long before there was any external threat to 'justify' it. And we have no idea whether or not she was the first one or the penultimate one (or, indeed, if he ever actually had a daughter, and what might have happened to her if he did.) Goodman needed help building the bunker, and he couldn't exactly explain that he needed it to house abducted kids, could he?