3,258
Needless to say, what follows contains spoilers from the film 10 Cloverfield Lane. You have been warned. :P
Chapter I - The Origins of 10 Cloverfield Lane
I’d like to begin this review with a story. Ahem. Once upon a time, there was a successful movie producer named J.J. Abrams. One day, young J.J. along with his friends Matt, Bryan, and Drew came up with a brilliant idea. They sought to create the best monster movie ever in the history of mankind.
Thus Cloverfield was born, but unlike most films, this one was marketed differently. Combining an aggressive viral marketing campaign with two vague teaser trailers attached to the theatrical releases of Transformers and Beowulf, J.J. and his crew were able to score nearly $50 million on opening weekend. For a film with a $25 million budget, they eventually made a huge profit with $170 million worldwide.
This financial success taught young J.J. a very important lesson: that selling a product requires cunning and tactical advertising. It was a lesson he would carry with him for a long time to come.
4 years later, in a land far away, two amateur film makers named John Campbell and Matt Stuecken wrote a screenplay titled ‘The Cellar’. J.J. was impressed with the story and decided to buy the rights and adapt it into a feature film behind closed doors.
After an additional 4 years, with The Cellar filmed and ready for release, J.J. wondered how he could sell this new product with the same kind of viral success that he achieved with Cloverfield 8 years earlier.
And 10 Cloverfield Lane was born . . .
You see, J.J. knew damn well that he couldn’t make $170 million at the box office with a low-budget psychological thriller like The Cellar. But J.J. wanted to add to the growing pile of gold that he kept hidden in a vault underneath his house. And he knew what he had to do to make it so.
So, in a dangerous move, J.J. Abrams changed the name of the film from The Cellar to 10 Cloverfield Lane. Why? Because Cloverfield was not only a financial success, it also generated a cult following; a large mass of fans desperate for a sequel to their beloved monster movie.
Even though The Cellar had absolutely nothing to do with Cloverfield, J.J. knew his fans would flock to the theaters in droves if he simply attached the name to the title for no reason. Then, all he needed to do was give an interview stating that 10 Cloverfield Lane was a “blood relative” to the original, splice the iconic roar of the monster from the original into the trailer, and add John Goodman’s character to a list of employees on the same website used in the viral marketing campaign for Cloverfield. Brilliant.
But in his quest for money, foolish J.J. made a critical error. He forgot to consider that all those fans might not be too happy to discover that they had been duped. And duped they were; all of them.
Which brings us to 10 Cloverfield Lane, a film that has absolutely 100% nothing to do with Cloverfield, and yet shares the title for no reason. Oops.
Chapter II - Did I Ever Tell You the Definition of a Bait and Switch?
If it isn’t yet apparent why I titled this review ‘A Bait and Switch 8 Years in the Making’, then let me clarify so that there’s absolutely no confusion. This is the Merriam-Webster definition of the phrase ‘Bait and Switch’.
Bait and Switch
: The ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable.
Sound familiar? Indeed, 10 Cloverfield Lane perfectly fits the definition of a bait and switch, because it is nothing less than the quintessential bait and switch. J.J. Abrams stuck the word ‘Cloverfield’ into the title of his production studio’s new film, knowing full well that the audience would expect, at the very least, a vague spinoff taking place in the same universe as Cloverfield.
Some even expected a flat-out sequel, but that was simply not the case. 10 Cloverfield Lane fails to even reference any aspect of Cloverfield. It simply has nothing to do with it. It’s not a sequel, it’s not a prequel, it’s not a spinoff, it’s not a blood relative, it’s a movie that has as much to do with Cloverfield as Schindler’s List has to do with Star Wars.
So what does all this equate to? Well, it equates to this: J.J. lied. And it’s not just the fact that he lied that upsets me so much. Lots of people lie for good reasons. This was a lie for the worst reason of all. It was a lie for money.
10 Cloverfield Lane perfectly sums up what’s wrong with Hollywood. They care more about money than they do quality and integrity. It’s a sad fact, but it’s true. Money is the only reason 10 Cloverfield Lane isn’t titled The Cellar.
Now, one of the most intriguing arguments I’ve heard in defense of the producers of this film is the ‘Anthology argument’. It’s quite fascinating, actually. Basically, there are some people who are saying that 10 Cloverfield Lane bears the word Cloverfield, not because it’s a sequel, but rather because it’s a chapter in what is intended to be an overall anthology.
That’s a great argument and I have to say that I would be perfectly okay with that . . . if only J.J. had said so earlier. It still doesn’t change the fact that a vast majority of people walked into the theater, with the assumption that they were seeing a Cloverfield sequel. Had J.J. released the trailer and said something along the lines of ‘This is the second chapter in an anthology series. It has nothing to do with Cloverfield; Cloverfield is just the name of the anthology.’ Man, that would have been nice.
But J.J. didn’t do that, and he knew exactly what he was doing. It’s far too late for excuses. He had two months to clarify exactly what this film was.
And don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that a film studio is required to specify exactly what their film is before releasing it. They’re just not supposed to falsely advertise it as something it isn’t for the express purpose of fooling people into seeing it. Deception is wrong. It’s wrong in Hollywood, just as it’s wrong in politics and in all walks of life. If you disagree with that, then I’m proud to inform you that you would make a great politician and/or movie executive. Congratulations!
Chapter III - How Plot-Driven Storylines Ruin Films
Strictly based on content, 10 Cloverfield Lane is not a bad film. It’s not a masterpiece and it’s certainly not as good as Cloverfield, but it’s a perfectly decent film (for the most part). In fact, there are multiple aspects of 10 Cloverfield Lane that I adore as a moviegoer.
The first 90 minutes of the film take place in an underground bunker, filled to the brim with suspense, intrigue, and some really terrific acting. Oh, and the score is nice as well. I have to say, it was a really pleasant movie experience.
The thing that sabotages that is the same thing that sabotages most films these days: a plot-driven storyline. The best kind of film is one that allows the characters to make common sense decisions that make sense, and shape the storyline around that. Most films, however, start out with a set-in-stone plot and force the characters to make unrealistic and stupid decisions to move the plot in the direction it’s intended to go.
And boy let me tell you, these characters make some STUPID decisions in this film. I’ll name two specific examples, because I don’t have all day and two are really all I need to make my point.
Stupid Decision 1:
Protagonists decide that the bunker-crazed conspiracy theorist that saved their lives from a terrestrial chemical attack is no longer trustworthy. They subsequently decide to create a make-shift hazmat suit, and craft a weapon to disarm the crazy man, steal his keys, and escape from the bunker.
Common Sense Alternative:
Why not just craft a weapon and kill the bunker-crazed conspiracy theorist? Why risk your lives and walk into almost certain death above ground, when there’s a perfectly good bunker filled with food and supplies at your disposal? Don’t tell me you’re squeamish about murder. It’s the apocalypse after all. The gloves have to come off sooner or later.
Stupid Decision 2:
Bunker-crazed conspiracy theorist discovers that the protagonists have stolen a pair of scissors and some duct tape. He asks them what they’re up to and protagonist #1 decides to tell a fib. His brilliant excuse is something along the lines of ‘I wanted to make a weapon so I could kill you, take your gun, and assault protagonist #2’. I kid you not, that’s what he came up with.
Common Sense Alternative:
Uh, probably anything other than ‘I’M TRYING TO KILL YOU.’ What in the hell was this idiot thinking? He could have told him the truth and it would have gotten him into less trouble. Instead, maybe he should have tried one of the following, more intelligent excuses:
-I’ve decided to make some arts and crafts (it’s only scissors and duct-tape that were taken, after all).
-We’re trying to create a hazmat suit so we can forage for food above ground once we run out of supplies (this is actually more or less the truth, and it doesn’t make him look like he’s trying to kill anybody).
-Scissors and duct tape are pretty practical items that come in a variety of uses. I’m sorry I took them without your knowledge and it will not happen again. :)
Again, I’d like to stress the fact that this character in question was stupid enough to come up with a lie that was ACTUALLY WORSE than the truth. My god, what a moron.
Chapter IV - How a Lie Can Ruin Something Beautiful
The last ten minutes of 10 Cloverfield Lane are very different from the first 90. Basically, the female protagonist escapes from the bunker, only to find that the outside world has been invaded by aliens. Yes, aliens.
What do these aliens look like? I don’t know. Whoever did the CGI for this movie made damn sure that you can never get a clear view of them. Why would they do that? Because that’s the best way to cover up lame, B-Movie-Grade visual effects.
And this brings me to my ultimate problem with this movie. If you’re going to put vague, uninspired monsters into the film, why not just set the film in 2008 and use the parasites from Cloverfield? Wouldn’t that have worked better?
Instead of having some vague alien invasion, just implement a hypothetical scenario wherein the parasitic monsters from the original film (you’d better know what I’m talking about because they’re way too weird looking for me to describe; maybe I’ll add a picture of one so that you know what it looks like) breed and spread throughout the world and wipeout most of mankind. That would have worked better for two reasons:
Reason 1 - It would have actually connected this film to Cloverfield, and I wouldn’t be sitting here talking to you about deception and bait and switch marketing tactics.
Reason 2 - Nobody wants to see cliche-looking aliens with bad CGI. The parasites were actually cool, a bit on the scary side, and they were easy to animate. The gray blob that rolls around and eats things with an elephant trunk is just silly, and blowing up an alien spacecraft with a Molotov cocktail is unbelievably stupid. Did nobody learn from War of the Worlds? I guess Hollywood doesn’t watch their own movies or read what viewers think about them.
This is when you know you’re dealing with a bad film. When some yahoo like me can sit around and easily propose a far superior way to write a film, that’s when you know the moviemakers didn’t think it through. I can’t believe that nobody proposed this idea while they were filming. What a missed opportunity.
What really bothers me is the fact that if they had used the Cloverfield parasites, I’d be sitting here, more or less, praising this film. I’d probably give it 3.5/4 stars and everybody would be happy. No. They apparently don’t want that.
Instead, they committed to using a cheap deceptive marketing tactic, and basically ruined the ending of their film. They had an easy way out that would have benefitted everybody, and they elected not to take it. That’s not just greedy, it’s downright stupid.
So now I have no choice but to grade this movie in a different way. For openly lying to audiences, using dumb character decisions to move the plot along, and using cheap CGI for no good reason, I decree that this film shall receive zero stars out of four. I have spoken. And so it shall be so, for now and forever more. Enjoy your precious gold for now, J.J. Next time you use the word ‘Cloverfield’ in the title of one of your films, expect a much different reaction. The wolf is mighty hungry, and the townspeople aren’t listening anymore.
Chapter I - The Origins of 10 Cloverfield Lane
I’d like to begin this review with a story. Ahem. Once upon a time, there was a successful movie producer named J.J. Abrams. One day, young J.J. along with his friends Matt, Bryan, and Drew came up with a brilliant idea. They sought to create the best monster movie ever in the history of mankind.
Thus Cloverfield was born, but unlike most films, this one was marketed differently. Combining an aggressive viral marketing campaign with two vague teaser trailers attached to the theatrical releases of Transformers and Beowulf, J.J. and his crew were able to score nearly $50 million on opening weekend. For a film with a $25 million budget, they eventually made a huge profit with $170 million worldwide.
This financial success taught young J.J. a very important lesson: that selling a product requires cunning and tactical advertising. It was a lesson he would carry with him for a long time to come.
4 years later, in a land far away, two amateur film makers named John Campbell and Matt Stuecken wrote a screenplay titled ‘The Cellar’. J.J. was impressed with the story and decided to buy the rights and adapt it into a feature film behind closed doors.
After an additional 4 years, with The Cellar filmed and ready for release, J.J. wondered how he could sell this new product with the same kind of viral success that he achieved with Cloverfield 8 years earlier.
And 10 Cloverfield Lane was born . . .
You see, J.J. knew damn well that he couldn’t make $170 million at the box office with a low-budget psychological thriller like The Cellar. But J.J. wanted to add to the growing pile of gold that he kept hidden in a vault underneath his house. And he knew what he had to do to make it so.
So, in a dangerous move, J.J. Abrams changed the name of the film from The Cellar to 10 Cloverfield Lane. Why? Because Cloverfield was not only a financial success, it also generated a cult following; a large mass of fans desperate for a sequel to their beloved monster movie.
Even though The Cellar had absolutely nothing to do with Cloverfield, J.J. knew his fans would flock to the theaters in droves if he simply attached the name to the title for no reason. Then, all he needed to do was give an interview stating that 10 Cloverfield Lane was a “blood relative” to the original, splice the iconic roar of the monster from the original into the trailer, and add John Goodman’s character to a list of employees on the same website used in the viral marketing campaign for Cloverfield. Brilliant.
But in his quest for money, foolish J.J. made a critical error. He forgot to consider that all those fans might not be too happy to discover that they had been duped. And duped they were; all of them.
Which brings us to 10 Cloverfield Lane, a film that has absolutely 100% nothing to do with Cloverfield, and yet shares the title for no reason. Oops.
Chapter II - Did I Ever Tell You the Definition of a Bait and Switch?
If it isn’t yet apparent why I titled this review ‘A Bait and Switch 8 Years in the Making’, then let me clarify so that there’s absolutely no confusion. This is the Merriam-Webster definition of the phrase ‘Bait and Switch’.
Bait and Switch
: The ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable.
Sound familiar? Indeed, 10 Cloverfield Lane perfectly fits the definition of a bait and switch, because it is nothing less than the quintessential bait and switch. J.J. Abrams stuck the word ‘Cloverfield’ into the title of his production studio’s new film, knowing full well that the audience would expect, at the very least, a vague spinoff taking place in the same universe as Cloverfield.
Some even expected a flat-out sequel, but that was simply not the case. 10 Cloverfield Lane fails to even reference any aspect of Cloverfield. It simply has nothing to do with it. It’s not a sequel, it’s not a prequel, it’s not a spinoff, it’s not a blood relative, it’s a movie that has as much to do with Cloverfield as Schindler’s List has to do with Star Wars.
So what does all this equate to? Well, it equates to this: J.J. lied. And it’s not just the fact that he lied that upsets me so much. Lots of people lie for good reasons. This was a lie for the worst reason of all. It was a lie for money.
10 Cloverfield Lane perfectly sums up what’s wrong with Hollywood. They care more about money than they do quality and integrity. It’s a sad fact, but it’s true. Money is the only reason 10 Cloverfield Lane isn’t titled The Cellar.
Now, one of the most intriguing arguments I’ve heard in defense of the producers of this film is the ‘Anthology argument’. It’s quite fascinating, actually. Basically, there are some people who are saying that 10 Cloverfield Lane bears the word Cloverfield, not because it’s a sequel, but rather because it’s a chapter in what is intended to be an overall anthology.
That’s a great argument and I have to say that I would be perfectly okay with that . . . if only J.J. had said so earlier. It still doesn’t change the fact that a vast majority of people walked into the theater, with the assumption that they were seeing a Cloverfield sequel. Had J.J. released the trailer and said something along the lines of ‘This is the second chapter in an anthology series. It has nothing to do with Cloverfield; Cloverfield is just the name of the anthology.’ Man, that would have been nice.
But J.J. didn’t do that, and he knew exactly what he was doing. It’s far too late for excuses. He had two months to clarify exactly what this film was.
And don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that a film studio is required to specify exactly what their film is before releasing it. They’re just not supposed to falsely advertise it as something it isn’t for the express purpose of fooling people into seeing it. Deception is wrong. It’s wrong in Hollywood, just as it’s wrong in politics and in all walks of life. If you disagree with that, then I’m proud to inform you that you would make a great politician and/or movie executive. Congratulations!
Chapter III - How Plot-Driven Storylines Ruin Films
Strictly based on content, 10 Cloverfield Lane is not a bad film. It’s not a masterpiece and it’s certainly not as good as Cloverfield, but it’s a perfectly decent film (for the most part). In fact, there are multiple aspects of 10 Cloverfield Lane that I adore as a moviegoer.
The first 90 minutes of the film take place in an underground bunker, filled to the brim with suspense, intrigue, and some really terrific acting. Oh, and the score is nice as well. I have to say, it was a really pleasant movie experience.
The thing that sabotages that is the same thing that sabotages most films these days: a plot-driven storyline. The best kind of film is one that allows the characters to make common sense decisions that make sense, and shape the storyline around that. Most films, however, start out with a set-in-stone plot and force the characters to make unrealistic and stupid decisions to move the plot in the direction it’s intended to go.
And boy let me tell you, these characters make some STUPID decisions in this film. I’ll name two specific examples, because I don’t have all day and two are really all I need to make my point.
Stupid Decision 1:
Protagonists decide that the bunker-crazed conspiracy theorist that saved their lives from a terrestrial chemical attack is no longer trustworthy. They subsequently decide to create a make-shift hazmat suit, and craft a weapon to disarm the crazy man, steal his keys, and escape from the bunker.
Common Sense Alternative:
Why not just craft a weapon and kill the bunker-crazed conspiracy theorist? Why risk your lives and walk into almost certain death above ground, when there’s a perfectly good bunker filled with food and supplies at your disposal? Don’t tell me you’re squeamish about murder. It’s the apocalypse after all. The gloves have to come off sooner or later.
Stupid Decision 2:
Bunker-crazed conspiracy theorist discovers that the protagonists have stolen a pair of scissors and some duct tape. He asks them what they’re up to and protagonist #1 decides to tell a fib. His brilliant excuse is something along the lines of ‘I wanted to make a weapon so I could kill you, take your gun, and assault protagonist #2’. I kid you not, that’s what he came up with.
Common Sense Alternative:
Uh, probably anything other than ‘I’M TRYING TO KILL YOU.’ What in the hell was this idiot thinking? He could have told him the truth and it would have gotten him into less trouble. Instead, maybe he should have tried one of the following, more intelligent excuses:
-I’ve decided to make some arts and crafts (it’s only scissors and duct-tape that were taken, after all).
-We’re trying to create a hazmat suit so we can forage for food above ground once we run out of supplies (this is actually more or less the truth, and it doesn’t make him look like he’s trying to kill anybody).
-Scissors and duct tape are pretty practical items that come in a variety of uses. I’m sorry I took them without your knowledge and it will not happen again. :)
Again, I’d like to stress the fact that this character in question was stupid enough to come up with a lie that was ACTUALLY WORSE than the truth. My god, what a moron.
Chapter IV - How a Lie Can Ruin Something Beautiful
The last ten minutes of 10 Cloverfield Lane are very different from the first 90. Basically, the female protagonist escapes from the bunker, only to find that the outside world has been invaded by aliens. Yes, aliens.
What do these aliens look like? I don’t know. Whoever did the CGI for this movie made damn sure that you can never get a clear view of them. Why would they do that? Because that’s the best way to cover up lame, B-Movie-Grade visual effects.
And this brings me to my ultimate problem with this movie. If you’re going to put vague, uninspired monsters into the film, why not just set the film in 2008 and use the parasites from Cloverfield? Wouldn’t that have worked better?
Instead of having some vague alien invasion, just implement a hypothetical scenario wherein the parasitic monsters from the original film (you’d better know what I’m talking about because they’re way too weird looking for me to describe; maybe I’ll add a picture of one so that you know what it looks like) breed and spread throughout the world and wipeout most of mankind. That would have worked better for two reasons:
Reason 1 - It would have actually connected this film to Cloverfield, and I wouldn’t be sitting here talking to you about deception and bait and switch marketing tactics.
Reason 2 - Nobody wants to see cliche-looking aliens with bad CGI. The parasites were actually cool, a bit on the scary side, and they were easy to animate. The gray blob that rolls around and eats things with an elephant trunk is just silly, and blowing up an alien spacecraft with a Molotov cocktail is unbelievably stupid. Did nobody learn from War of the Worlds? I guess Hollywood doesn’t watch their own movies or read what viewers think about them.
This is when you know you’re dealing with a bad film. When some yahoo like me can sit around and easily propose a far superior way to write a film, that’s when you know the moviemakers didn’t think it through. I can’t believe that nobody proposed this idea while they were filming. What a missed opportunity.
What really bothers me is the fact that if they had used the Cloverfield parasites, I’d be sitting here, more or less, praising this film. I’d probably give it 3.5/4 stars and everybody would be happy. No. They apparently don’t want that.
Instead, they committed to using a cheap deceptive marketing tactic, and basically ruined the ending of their film. They had an easy way out that would have benefitted everybody, and they elected not to take it. That’s not just greedy, it’s downright stupid.
So now I have no choice but to grade this movie in a different way. For openly lying to audiences, using dumb character decisions to move the plot along, and using cheap CGI for no good reason, I decree that this film shall receive zero stars out of four. I have spoken. And so it shall be so, for now and forever more. Enjoy your precious gold for now, J.J. Next time you use the word ‘Cloverfield’ in the title of one of your films, expect a much different reaction. The wolf is mighty hungry, and the townspeople aren’t listening anymore.
| Tags |
tools/tracking
3632114
6
movie-review-10-cloverfield-lane---a-bait-and-switch-8-years-in-the-making
Ender Sparkle
tress
Lezbatronicc
CLAYS FRIEND
ScotsMiser
WhisperOfTheWild
Vendus
PaulRuvalcaba
Create an account or sign in to comment.
but still great job
But the thing is you are superimposing the film and should realize that stupid scenes and decisions happen in real life so they can happen in movies (and I know you will say that movie is to show something interesting from a story point of view and shit) but still, it was a bit realistic. Then you are criticizing the film for its marketing campaign, not the film itself lmao. The fact is this is wrong too. Media only criticizes the film for its story and stuff, but not the marketing campaign. That's why directors have a trick to fool the fans so that they can increase their views. So I agree and disagree with you, you really pointed out the wrong, but the film was good itself actually.
PS : We are still friends.
Secondly, no we were not expecting the movie to only take place in the bunker for the first 10-20 minutes. In fact, I was well aware that the bunker was the main setting for the movie, even before I saw it. Regardless, that is largely irrelevant. What we were expecting was (at the very least) a universal acknowledgement of the events of the first film, either in the form of dialogue, or in the form of present action. Neither happened in this film.
Thirdly, I fundamentally disagree with your assessment that holding a film accountable for its marketing campaign is wrong. That's an incredibly short-sighted and naive perspective and, frankly, I expect better of you. Intentionally misleading your fanbase in order to achieve high box office numbers is not only unethical, it's flat-out insulting. Somebody needs to hold them responsible, otherwise the relationship and trust between the movie studio and the fanbase becomes broken.
Lastly, you might want to edit your comment. There's language in there that could easily get you banned (I've been banned for using similar terminology before). Just a heads up. ;)
I did expect that the bunker scene would be the first 20 minutes xD
Cloverfield started when a sattelite fell in the ocean and awakened the creature, then he called his friends from the other world to eat tasty humans. If you go the net and see an article, there were clues and Easter eggs of 10 cloverfield Lane in cloverfield or Easter eggs of cloverfield in 10 cloverfield lane and stuff... Yea... Something like that... :P
And cmon it is obvious it is a sequel if we see from a viewers perspective, as alien invasion and cloverfield is there in both films (yea the 1st one is kinda like an invasion)
Oh and I am on another site so I actually don't care to get banned here, but I love this community so I'll listen to you as a humble friend :P
And the perspective is actually not the same in 10 Cloverfield Lane. Cloverfield was a found-footage movie. This is a free-moving, 3rd person perspective.
So, all in all, the only real way 10 Cloverfield Lane connects to Cloverfield is the fact that both of them have vague monstrous entities attacking mankind. I guess Godzilla and Pacific Rim are sequels to Cloverfield too. :P
"What?!"
"It's... A category 6... The first ever!"
"It's.. A dinosaur?!"
*Godzilla comes out and starts the crush the hell out of jaegers*
*Opens mouth and blasts the hell out of shatterdome with his beam*
It's kind of like World War Z except it's not a terrible adaptation and actually IS good
I do see why you didn't like it, I got a little disappointed, but it does have a good screenplay you kinda have to admit it. I saw this with my sister. She isn't a big movie buff like I am and she loved the film
Actually no, I take that back. I still wouldn't be completely fine with it. The movie was, as you said, well written and captivating up until the last 10 minutes when it shifted from an emotional thriller to something I'd expect out of Michael Bay. The ending killed it, with or without the deceitful advertising campaign.
I don't want to start a debate or anything, but if you said that the movie was captivating and well written then why give it 0 stars?
I mean the ending was a little questioning, but it should at least get 2 stars or something. No offense, but you made this seem like a review for The Lovely Bones xD