A strangely uneven mix of thrills and disappointments

Rating: 6/10 (14 March 2016)

Eight years ago, Cloverfield was a very effective genre mix of Godzilla and The Blair Witch Project. It became a hype that delivered, thanks to a brilliant viral marketing campaign which enticed the audience with shocking images, but without revealing too much of the story itself. I guess it could be called a miracle that the makers were able to wait so long and (undoubtedly) resist studio pressure for a quick sequel, and then produce a successor under the radar, one whose existence wasn't revealed until a few months before the premiere.
That is the good news. The bad news is that 10 Cloverfield Lane is a disappointing sequel on many levels. First of all, it isn't even a sequel. Marketing it with creative re-use of the original's title really created some false expectations, because 10CL has nothing to do whatsoever with its predecessor. It has a completely separate story, no familiar characters or locations, and the events of the previous film aren't mentioned or even referenced. In genuine J.J. Abrams 'Lost' style, you would have expected to see something familiar on a TV screen or in a picture frame to connect the dots, but there isn't (apart from a 'Slusho' sign, and there may be a 'Kelvin' reference that I missed, but those don't count). The closest 10CL comes to is a companion piece or side story set in the same universe, but the only small narrative connection to the original (something with a satellite) is such an obscure geeky reference that 99% of viewers will only discover it on this film's trivia page. It would have been great had it started out as something completely separate, and then slowly revealed its connections to the original. This could have created a stand-alone sequel, while still engaging the audience with insider hints. Sadly, the makers missed this opportunity, which isn't entirely surprising, since this movie was originally an unrelated film that was reworked into a Cloverfield successor halfway through.
But still, even a disappointing sequel or side story can be great in its own right. I have enjoyed movies like Hannibal and installments in the Alien and Terminator series that way. I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea of a successor that is completely different in style and execution. No found footage-style cinematography this time, since 10CL is a psychological thriller rather than a adrenaline-fueled creature feature. This is okay as long as it is done well, but here it all felt way too familiar for me. Producer J.J Abrams is certainly no stranger to recycling familiar plots and elements from other movies, but he usually combines or presents them in ways that makes them feel fresh again (just look at Cloverfield, Super 8 and The Force Awakens). Unfortunately, the main plot of 10CL in the bunker is more than a little bit similar to a story arc from the second season of his own series 'Lost', whereas the finale evokes a strong déjà-vu from several better science-fiction movies. Never before did one of his productions feel unoriginal to the point of being worn out.
And there is more to complain. The beginning certainly shows promise, with Mary E. Winstead leaving her apartment with only the score playing. After an adrenaline-spiking accident, the movie shifts back gear to the most boring part of the movie. We are supposed to invest in the trio of characters, but they are too one-dimensional for us to really care. Winstead's character clearly had some relationship issues, but the writers simply fail to use that premise later on to the character's (and story's) advantage. John Goodman is always good as a man who looks and acts like he means well, but can turn violent in a second (it was almost hard not to think of his work in several Coen brothers movies, if I'm honest). The script certainly creates a compelling mystery surrounding his past actions and present intentions, but again, when it is time for the pay-off at the end, the writers simply do not deliver on that promise. John Gallagher is the only one who benefits from a character scene which makes his persona less than the average redneck he starts out to be, and he gives the movie the memorable twist that actually works (more about that later).
There are other good things to be said for the movie. After 45 minutes of boring character introductions, the movie starts to pick up pace and build tension. It was no doubt the creators' intention to keep the audience guessing if the danger comes from outside, or from within, and it works until about 15 minutes before the end. Then we get another twist that answers that question, and although it brings back some of the thrill and adrenalin that Cloverfield had, it simply doesn't feel satisfying; 15 minutes really is too short, and it is such an abrupt change in style and genre that it pretty much reduces the first 90 minutes to an overlong and unimportant prologue. Again, with better writing, the three acts could have been married happily together instead of feeling like three completely separate movies.
So to summarize, 10CL is a bold attempt to extend the cinematic universe from Cloverfield in another direction, but sadly without much of the ingenuity and spark of inspiration that we are used to from J.J. Abrams' team. He calls it a 'blood relative' to the original; I'd say its that slacker of a second cousin twice removed that everyone prefers to ignore. It looks like the Master of Pop Culture himself was too busy with producing and directing The Force Awakens, so if they are making a third one to bridge the first two films, I recommend having him fully back on board.