A Good Movie Up To a Point: How J.J. Ruined Everything

Rating: 8/10 (21 October 2017)

Spoilers Throughout!!!! You've been warned.
Here's how I envision the meeting:
"Guys, guys, listen, if you want J.J. to put his name on it, you need to cheapen your artistic tastes a bit. You need to tie it in to something science fiction, I don't know, like War of the Worlds."
"But it's a really great story that has nothing to do with science fiction."
"That's the problem. You know he's going to slap "cloverfield" in the title of the next thing he does, to let audiences know they can expect something great."
"But this has nothing to do with giant monsters and crappy cinematography or gimmicks."
"Well, if you want J.J. to sign off on it, you better make it tie in to science fiction. He's got an image to maintain."
"What if we put a spaceship and an alien dog at the end?"
"Perfect! J.J.'ll love it."
Can you tell I really don't care for J.J. Abrams' body of work? Somehow I can't help feeling that if he was an interior decorator, he'd specialize in bordellos and black velvet paintings. I like good science fiction, aliens, and the unknown when done well. 10 Clover, while being a good story and having science fiction, aliens, and the unknown, does everything right but the first two of those three things. Having said that, here's what I have to say about the actual movie.
Brief synopsis: Woman packs her things and leaves someone. Drives along at night and has a wreck. Wakens to find herself in a shelter with two men. Tension builds. Climax occurs. Heroine escapes. Aliens appear on screen. Heroine has that "Give me a break" moment. She defeats one alien while the other inexplicably leaves her alone. She runs off to join resistance. The lesson: Survivors of abuse have medical and military experience and can fight aliens.
You can trust what others said about the movie never dragging. It moves briskly along, and it carries the viewer well for the most part. Part of Abrams' influence, I think, is the need to keep moving to hold the audience's attention. That's about the best I can say for almost any story that J.J. puts his name on. This movie rises well above the rest however for a number of reasons:
Performances were decent, and John Goodman delivers one clearly among his best.
Every detail matters. If you're paying attention, like our protagonist, you'll see that one of the things the writers did well was to ensure that every word and detail mattered to the outcome of the story. If you missed that fact, go back and really pay attention to all the little details. I don't want to give them away, so no spoilers here.
Someone mentioned that the protagonist was a little too capable, but I'm not so sure. I think it works well. I think that the main difference is that the protagonist is engaged in her circumstances instead of remaining pedestrian and victim like so many others. What kept this from becoming a true horror movie is that she kept her wits and used what she knew to good effect.
Proof that you don't need tons of money or huge sets to tell a good story. I think this is one that students should study, not only for where it went right, but also for where it went wrong.
Kowtowing to Abrams' ego seems mostly restricted to the last few minutes of the movie--which, I might add, is the only part of the movie that drags. I don't remember seeing a single lens flare.
Now the bad:
The ending felt tacked on to me. Someone else blamed J.J., and I have to agree. It felt like J.J. blundering about. While I enjoyed the movie and the ending, to a degree, it didn't feel like it had the same meticulous carefulness that the rest of the scenes displayed. I think they went back and inserted the woman at the door afterward so that they could tie in to the outcome somewhat. It still feels tacked on.