#REVIEW: 10 Cloverfield Lane


I do this a lot in movie reviews, which is kind of unfortunate, but it’s still frequently the case: just take my word for it, and go see this movie, and don’t ask any questions and especially don’t read anything about it beforehand.  It’s creepy, well-directed, brilliantly acted (John Goodman deserves Oscar consideration) exciting and well-written; everything a good movie needs to be.

But I haven’t seen Cloverfield!

That’s okay.  Although you should see Cloverfield.  This isn’t a sequel; JJ Abrams called it a “spiritual sister,” or something like that, and while if you’re obsessive about details there are ways to link the two movies together it’s entirely unnecessary to have seen Cloverfield to enjoy 10 Cloverfield Lane.

You should still see both, though.

But I didn’t like Cloverfield!

Ah, shuddup.

There is no shakycam in this movie.  And it’s not found footage.  Does that help?  Good.

Anyway: it will be interesting to eventually see this for a second time, because it really does help if you go in knowing as little as possible, and I’m not a hundred percent sure how well it’s going to hold up once I know everything that happens.  Watching Goodman and the other actors is still gonna be pretty great, but losing the What’s Going On mystery will be unfortunate.

So, yeah.  Two thumbs up.  Go see it, just don’t read anything else about it first.

3 thoughts on “#REVIEW: 10 Cloverfield Lane

  1. Micki Allen

    I wanted so badly to review this film, but I kept editing and re-editing myself to a blank page! You hit the nail on the head, so thanks! I’ll just reblog your post! XOXOX

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Micki Allen

    Reblogged this on micki allen and commented:

    John Goodman’s performance alone is reason enough to see 10 Cloverfield Lane. Iffin’ that’s not enough reason for you, dear reader, here’s Luther M. Siler’s seal of approval.


Comments are closed.