Interesting premise, but ultimately unsatisfying

Rating: Null/10 (13 March 2016)

I was incredibly interested to see this film. But then one of the reasons why I was interested ended up being one of the reasons the film simply doesn't work. I have one major script issue and one issue by marketing that IMO ruins the film.
***SPOILERS***
THE SCRIPT:
I actually loved the way the film starts and gets into the story. I was even with the film all the way until we reach the point where Howard kills Emmett. IMO, this was an incredibly weak choice. At that point, Howard cradles Michelle and tells her "it's okay, this is how it was supposed to be."
Meaning Howard PLANNED to only have Michelle at the bunker. Which means his accident story is false. Which means he was - during an attack - driving around looking for a girl to be with him in the bunker all before the air is poisoned? What are the odds he would find a girl under those conditions at that time? It was reaching to make that Howard's "plan all along".
I thought the trailer gave away the end, but it didn't. I loved that twist. Where we think Michelle is escaping but sees that Howard's telling the truth.
I just felt that the screenwriters didn't use Emmett well at all. He wasn't a decoy, he was simply there.
Also, do we really believe Emmett could've overpowered Howard into the Bunker? Or convinced Howard to take him in? If Howard TRULY just wanted it to be him & Michelle, he would've killed Emmett before Michelle ever woke up.
I was hoping the filmmakers were going to use "Howard being Evil" that second time as a rouse. That the reason Emmett knew about the Bunker was that HE had kidnapped that girl.
It made no sense why Howard would show Michelle a picture of a girl who's not his daughter if Emmett was aware of who the kidnapped girl was.
THE MARKETING:
I admit, "10 CLOVERFIELD LANE" intrigued me. The idea this is a sort of sequel to CLOVERFIELD got me to buy tickets, but then when Michelle wakes up in the bunker and DOESN'T believe Howard that something's happening outside - it dawned on me - IT'S A SEQUEL TO CLOVERFIELD, so Howard's 100% right.
All the mystery was gone.
by calling it "cloverfield" and mentioning in press that it's a sequel, it completely invalidates all the tension of "if" something is happening or not.
I think the filmmakers would've been better to name the film "THE BUNKER" and then NOT tell people it's a sequel. And then, at the end, when Michelle escapes, you see that mailbox with the address "10 Cloverfield Lane" - and let audiences put it together.
Maybe I'm alone, but ultimately this was an unsatisfying experience. I love Goodman and Wanstead. I loved the production design of the bunker. The screenwriters were too focused on plot and not enough on character. Really underusing Emmett and making Wanstead one note were weak decisions. Also, making Goodman good, bad, good and bad just showed they were trying to trick the audience instead of serving the story.
And if I could advise Dan Trachtenberg in the future, you DON'T have to have 90% music running through your film. Silence is sometimes more effective than score to build tension. I felt like this was a musical with wall-to-wall score playing. They're in a bunker. I would've preferred to hear silence, like the characters hear. The weird rumblings from above. The constant hum of the lights or generator or fans.