10 Cloverfield Lane

So, I wanted to write about how I felt about the movie since I’ve been talking about it with my friends and we’re on very differing terms.

So basically, the movie is standalone even though it shares the name “cloverfield.” I had to do a little research after watching the film, and what I found out is that the movie is supposed to be a “spiritual successor” to Cloverfield. So what that means is that it’s not a direct sequel or anything, but a movie that’ll essentially take it’s essence and do it over again. In other words, it’ll take the same themes, tones, etc. etc. and use it in the same way. Also, they intended it to be apart of an anthology so that also means that they could either make a sequel or make movies that share the name of the movie and tell different tales. Kiiiiinda in the sense of like certain fantasy or science fiction stories taking place in the same universe. SO. Taking both of those factors into consideration, the movie was very solid as a whole.

Okay so basically the movie was very based upon this kind of set up where they have a mystery thats happening behind the scenes, while the character has their own predicament. The first Cloverfield was about the main character looking for his (ex?) girlfriend during the monster attacks. This one is about being held captive inside of a bunker while you slowly uncover what happened to the world outside.

Anywho, what I pulled out of it the most was John Goodman’s acting. He did a remarkable job of portraying somebody who genuinely cared about the outcomes of each individual, yet at the same time, was slowly going insane. So we have this character who’s either good, bad, or crazy. And it’s actually really tense watching his whole character unfold in the process. I actually found myself being tensed up when I was expecting him to yell “Michelle” the way he did before he died.

Honestly, the whole movie (at least I felt) was about not using the usual monster movie cliche and having a dehumanizing factor to it. If you would watch older alien movies, for example, let’s saaay Independence Day where you get a roster of characters and have them fill in certain archetypes such as the scientist or soldier where they are both inclined to do the right thing. HOWEVER. fulfilling these archetypes, in a way, sucks them dry of any type of organic character development within the movies, mainly, because the audience KNOWS that’s who they are. Whereas in 10 Cloverfield Lane, you have two characters who go through a kind of development where they had come from different complicated pasts, but come to terms with being where they are now in such a twisted scenario. For example, Emmet explained that he ran away from his problems and had told a story about how he never went to college because he was scared, and through a twist of events ended up in the bunker with two other people while the world was dying. Knowing that the world outside is unsafe, and still having his character fixate on the fact that he never did something he could of done outside of the context of the world ending, actually humanized the characters. I think this device was brilliant and it was really interesting watching them fluctuate with really raw human emotions vs. the fictional thoughts and emotions within the context of the movie.

SO aside from that. I also thought what was really interesting was that throughout the movie they joked around about certain things such as the “martians finally invading” “giant space worms” or the different phases of eliminating a species. I found it funny how they all ended up being true. BUT I THINK THEY DO THIS FOR GOOD REASON. One of the cool strong points of the first cloverfield movie was that they had really original monsters and had a really original story for how the whole movie unfolded. I’m all for cool creature design and more practical and thought out alien/monster movies. (I think godzilla and pacific rim were brilliant) but honestly, I feel like the focal point of the movie was not even about the aliens, This largely stems from the fact that my friends ranted about how the aliens ruined the movie. To be fair, one of them is really fixated on the practicality of science fiction movies and different and better aliens. While he did point out the trope that aliens have one flaw that is always exploited throughout alien movies, I honestly do not think this movie was about that at all. It was not like Star Wars where one flaw ended the movie. Or the entire movie revolved around it. Yes, I do think it’s stupid an alien can be taken out by a molotov cocktail, but at the same time the practicality of a fictional alien movie can only be taken so far, and within the context of each story by themselves. For these aliens to exist, only provided the backdrop for the film and other than that, I feel, didn’t REALLY have to be well thought out as to how they got there or how they work or anything like that. (In all honesty though, I thought they were pretty neat.) The film focused on, yes, aliens invaded, took over, released a toxin into the air, three people got stuck in a bunker, and see what unfolds with them. They only played a small part in the whole alien invasion. WHICH HONESTLY JUXTAPOSES HOW SMALL THE ALIEN BACKDROP WAS IN THE MOVIE TOO. To say that the aliens ruined the movie? How could they squeeze so much into it honestly?

Which kind of brings me to my next point. I’m not one to trash on another person’s work. But I really do need to know the context of which those works are being made in. JJ Abrams intended this to be a science fiction anthology in which they just share the name Cloverfield. In the first one the name was referred to as the “Cloverfield incident.” In this one, it takes place on 10 Cloverfield Lane. That’s as much of a connection they’re going to get. So understanding that should be an important factor in judging this movie. Again, I do see the folly in relating this back to cloverfield. But I do think when somebody has thought through a film and delivered so well in what it is, people should at least consider why people are praising it or why people consider it to be good. People have opinions, I’m sure, but honestly, when people are TOO opinionated and let that place them in places of higher judgement, doesn’t really sit well with me. Mainly because I’ve always felt I need credentials to be able to talk down to professionals who been accepted as their chosen profession. Idk.

Honestly, I think I really WANT to be open to everything. And maybe there’s a contradiction in of itself that if I was very open I would be open to my friends opinions too. So maybe I’m being a bit of a hypocrite trying to say people should be more open when I’m not being as open to other’s opinions myself idk. I just wanted to put my two cents in somewhere