By Ian Bonham

10 Cloverfield Lane (12A)

Staring : John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, John Gallagher Jnr.

Director : Dan Trachtenberg

Writers : Josh Campbell, Matthew Stuecken (Story & Screenplay), Damien Chazelle (Screenplay)

Duration : 1hr 45mins

Opened at Kings Bastion Leisure Cinema on Friday 18^th March

In 2008, a very mysterious thing happened. If you were in the cinema, you may have seen a trailer for a movie which simply contained the Statue of Liberty's severed head landing in a street and the name J.J. Abrams showing on screen. Instantly Geeks (myself included!) were intrigued as at the time J.J. was massively involved with the cult TV show “LOST”.

Much Internetting later and lots of little web sites and fake character profiles had been found which seeded the background to the movie and introduced the characters. This was the first time the Internet had been used in this way to market a movie and really build interest.

Finally, after what seemed like an age the first full trailer arrived and anticipation reached fever pitch, we also finally had a name, “Cloverfield”. Predictably when the movie opened it was a huge success. We got one of the best 'Found Footage' movies in the genre, a movie making technique first made famous by “The Blair Witch Project”. The plot revolves around a group of friends who are holding a going away party for one of them, when suddenly all hell breaks loose in New York. There is little information about what is happening, but they can see huge explosions, and events take them on to the streets. It eventually becomes apparent that a huge Godzilla-like monster is attacking the city, and it is absolute carnage and confusion. It was an amazing movie, and if you've not seen it I urge you to.

Around six weeks ago, completely out of the blue, “10 Cloverfield Lane” is announced, and the Internet goes into meltdown! Is it a sequel? What's it about? How did you make it with no-one knowing? The filmmakers had been very canny, and made it using code names on a very enclosed set. Story goes that even the actors did not know this was a Cloverfield movie until the name was officially announced, and they were as surprised as we were! We were told over and over that it was not a direct sequel, but a 'Spiritual Successor'. Everything else was kept under wraps though, and the few reviewers that did get to see it were instructed to give nothing away apart from maybe some broad strokes.

I finally got to see it on Saturday night, and I went along with my good friend Michael Beltran who is a HUGE fan of the original. So, bearing in mind those 'broad strokes' because I don't want to give too much away, the story is brilliant. After an accident, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) awakes to find herself chained up in a cellar. Her captor Howard (John Goodman) tells her she is there for her own good, because there has been an attack and they are in his personal survival bunker after he saved her life. Also in the bunker is Emmett (John Gallagher Jnr.) who is happy to be there because of the attack above ground.

That's it; a cast of three for the entire movie really. The tension in this film is unimaginably high as events in the bunker play out. They let things build and build, then suddenly, like an elastic band, they let it SNAP in your face. At this point I would like to apologise to the person sitting in front of me, as I launched popcorn in their direction on several occasions. The film earns a gold star just in that respect - I am a toughened movie watcher and it takes a lot to make me jump these days. “Cloverfield Lane” had me out my seat on several occasions. It's brilliant! It's not a massive haunted house movie with lots of dark corridors to creep down; it's a tiny bunker with three people. Managing to engineer tension at this level and deliver the surprises is a remarkable work of movie construction. John Goodman deserves a lot of credit for this as he can be dripping with menace one moment, and all friendly and cuddly the next.  You cannot get an angle on his character: is he telling the truth? They also make use of his bigger frame to make him utterly intimidating. Goodman here is obviously loving playing this role and is giving it his all, but to be fair all three actors are. Everything builds to a slightly bonkers third act, but none the less will have your heart rate setting off alarms on your Apple Watch.

So, all good then? This is where I wrap up with “Go see it” and click on “Send” to get the review to my Editor? Erm, well no. You see there is a slight problem, and this is why I mentioned I went with Mike.

Mike came out the movie spitting angry, because it was such a different movie to the original “Cloverfield” which he loves so much. It seems to have no obvious links to the original, and doesn't reference it in any way. It also seems set long after the original, so it is odd the Earth is being attacked again and no one should mention the events in New York. I can completely sympathise with Mike’s feelings; it does seem as through they stuck the 'Cloverfield' moniker on this one as a cynical marketing effort. If you go into this expecting a sequel to the original “Cloverfield” you will feel that you have been totally conned. Possibly with good reason.

I came out a lot happier with what I had just watched for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was a heart pounding, thrilling good watch, and I can't complain at that. Secondly, I'd gone in knowing it was not a sequel, but a successor. With hindsight (and reading some press now) I can see what they are trying to do is use 'Cloverfield' (the word) as a marque. Think “The Twilight Zone” TV anthology (or more recently “American Horror Story”), where each episode (or series) is a unique, different story but under a 'brand name' so you go in knowing roughly what to expect. That's quite a new approach to movie franchises and more imaginative than “Cloverfield 2”, “Cloverfield 3” etc., which we see a lot from Hollywood. So I can't complain at that.

Finally, and here is something deeper I found myself reflecting on: “Cloverfield” was actually a movie about the attacks on New York in 9/11. They wanted to do a movie about what it must have been like being there during those horrifying days, but felt re-creating it would be a bit crass and upsetting for people. They wanted to show the fear, confusion and horror though, so they told the story through the prism of a monster movie. Indeed, many 9/11 survivors call “Cloverfield” the best 9/11 movie ever made. This is a technique used in a lot of Sci-Fi, studying events from a slight distance to allow you to process it in a different way. “Cloverfield Lane” is using that same trick. This time they wanted to look at the role of Governments interfering with people’s privacy and liberty in protecting the public from terrorists. “Cloverfield Lane” is a look at how much liberty you would sacrifice to be safe from the monsters, and asks how much can you trust what those in charge are telling you. Both films become a lot deeper when you consider what's going on here, so that is how I also see them linked together.

Who is right, Mike or myself? Well, I would say we both are to some extent. If you go in wanting a “Cloverfield” sequel (at any level) you will be disappointed and feel conned as Mike did. If you go in and can take the movie on its own merits, you may well have a rollicking good time as I did.

Movies are such a personal experience, but you know what, as this is my review I'll recommend “Cloverfield Lane”! I have a sneaky suspicion that Mike and I will be in agreement again this weekend when “Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice” opens... :)

{fcomment}