Claustrophobic, tension filled thriller - NOT a sequel

Rating: 8/10 (28 March 2016)

I tend to enjoy writing spoiler reviews more than non-spoiler ones, however with this film I truly do not want to give anything away. I want everyone to have the same experience I did when I watched this film. Which is a good experience. Very good.
The premise at a glance is that Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is involved in a car accident after an argument with her boyfriend, and all of a sudden, she wakes up in an underground bunker being held by a man named Howard (John Goodman) who claims there has been some sort of chemical attack on the surface, and that it isn't safe to leave. However, Howard may not be the all the saviour he seems to be. That is all I'm going to say in regards to plot, as anything more would be considered a spoiler due to J.J. Abrams excellent marketing campaign similar to The Force Awakens: never give too much of the film away.
The beauty of this film was the unknown. I haven't watched Cloverfield (2008) for a good few years, and made the decision not to re-watch it before the 'sequel', in order to fully appreciate the film as an original. In fact, it is not really a sequel at all. If you go into this movie expecting raucous action you will not enjoy it; it is a claustrophobic, tension-filled thriller, and a movie in itself as opposed to a follow-up.
John Goodman steals the show. After watching some of his more comedic films like The Big Lebowski (1998), I thought perhaps that is the character I would see whenever he spoke, but that was not the case at all. Goodman is a phenomenal actor, and I believe this is some of his best work. He had the perfect believable balance between insanity and rationalism and is genuinely terrifying in the movie, on par with Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men (2007). You are never too sure whether he is bending the truth, telling the truth or lying, and as a viewer we explore much of this through Michelle and fellow bunker- bound Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.). There was also much impressive acting on Winstead's behalf. The only other film I had seen her in was Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010), which is a fun movie, but doesn't flair up her acting capabilities as much as her performance in this flick. Her non-cheesy portrayal of what could have been the classic 'damsel in distress' was in fact extremely commendable. Playing the relatable character in the film, all of the choices she made were believable and thought-out, which is what many modern actions/dramas tend to lack, leaving the viewer thinking who in their right mind would do that?
As Chris Stuckmann noted in his brilliant review, the film didn't feel like it had to become bigger than the one it shares a name with (NOT a sequel). The studio in fact did the exact opposite, creating the movie solely from a very small set of perhaps five rooms within the underground bunker. This impressed me as it meant the film relied completely on the characters and dialogue, which was a bold move for debut director Dan Trachtenberg. The score composed by Bear McCreary was also compelling and very much added to the darker scenes, in both senses of the word. I particularly enjoyed the sudden changes in tone whenever Howard entered a room or spoke, a small aspect that can often completely change a scene subconsciously.The lack of music in particular scenes also worked in adding tension and uncertainty to the film.
My only criticism of the film, and even here I have to think about it, is that the ending could be seen as rushed. Without spoiling anything, the 'reveal', as it were, was eloquently done, however that wasn't the strong point of the film. The acting and dialogue indefinitely compromised for this minor critique, and I would recommend that you see this film as soon as possible to avoid it being spoiled!