|
|
10 Cloverfield Lane
(2016)
|
Director:
Dan
Trachtenberg |
COUNTRY
USA |
GENRE
Thriller/Science Fiction |
NORWEGIAN TITLE
10
Cloverfield Lane |
RUNNING
TIME
103 minutes |
|
Producer:
J. J. Abrams
Lindsey Weber |
Screenwriter:
Josh Campbell
Matt Stuecken
Damien Chazelle |
Review
A
clever premise is handled quite effectively and thoughtfully by
first-time director Dan Trachtenberg in this nominal follow-up to
2008's
Cloverfield. Apart from J. J. Abrams name in the
producer's list, the films have precious little in common, however;
not even the home-video approach, which would have done this
film no favours. Instead, 10 Cloverfield Lane opens with a chilling
mystery which may or may not be what it looks like: A young
recently broken-up girl is pushed off the road by a driver and wakes
up bruised, tied-up and attached to professional medical equipment in what
seems like a bomb shelter. Her saviour/captor, played with true
emphasis by John
Goodman, appears to ensure her that she – and his other "guest"
named Emmett – are safe with him in his shelter while the world
outside is under attack by an unknown force.
Clever thriller premises
have ended up as god-awful films enough
times for seasoned viewers not to get over-excited by the promising opening of this film, but once the vibrant interplay between our
three main characters gets going and director Trachtenberg reveals
just enough without jeopardizing the logic of his story, 10
Cloverfield Lane finds its feet and becomes unusually effective for
this genre. The effectiveness is not down to any one brilliant piece of
writing or filmmaking, but is rather accomplished through fine
handling of well-executed rehashings of several previously seen
elements. The film draws inspiration from a wide range of films,
from Misery to
Take Shelter, and adds a dash of
classic sci-fi here and zombie-ish threats there to keep us on our
toes. The real horror, though, like so many times before, is the
human side of it, accomplished not least through great acting from
all three leads. Which is why there is an unavoidable anti-climax when the
film is obliged to take us out of the "comfort zone" of the bunker
and into the highly well-known unknown, from which the producers
unmistakenly insists there must be a possible financial way further.
|
|