10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

"After getting in a car accident, a woman is held in a shelter with two men, who claim the outside world is affected by a widespread chemical attack."

We all know how trendy it is for the jealous never-will-bes to bash J.J. Abrams (or any of the other successful producers/directors such as Michael Bay, Zack Snyder, Alex Proyas, or Neill Blomkamp) with their cowardly passive-aggressive tweets and boring podcasts which nobody but their equally slimy friends listens to, so don't think for a moment that I'm going to pander to any of their kind of audience with my review. This movie was directed by a new addition to the Bad Robot team, Dan Trachtenberg, rather than Abrams himself anyway.

Although it's no secret that I absolutely hated "Cloverfield" (2008) when it came out, and think that "Gwoemul" (2006) is far superior in every way, there were some bits of it I liked. I would have liked those bits even more if "Cloverfield" hadn't been filmed in the motion-sickness inducing faux "found footage" style. Thus, the fact that "10 Cloverfield Lane" (a sequel in not much more than name only, since it started life as a standalone story called "The Cellar") wasn't filmed with shakycams makes it a whole lot better than I expected without having to do anything else.

I used to have a piss bucket this size too.

"10 Cloverfield Lane" is more or less a triple-hander featuring John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead (from "The Thing" remake), and John Gallagher Jr. (who I've never seen or heard of before). There are a couple of other cast members who appear briefly, and a few voices on the radio, but the bulk of the story is really about the interactions of the aforementioned leads, how they cope with their confinement, their suspicions of each other, and all that kind of thing. There's a hint of romance too, but not much. There's no sex or nudity, barely any "bad language" (oh, so edgy!), and not much of anything scary either. I think you can guess the certification.

As a psychological thriller, "10 Cloverfield Lane" is as full of clichés and formulas as most modern movies. If you haven't seen many movies, you'll probably think it's pretty good, but those of us who are older and have seen just about everything the genre has to offer will find it all very predictable and somewhat irritating. Let's face it, we aren't the target audience for products like this anyway, so it's likely to make us even grumpier than usual.

Despite this, the cast does a great job with what is essentially a ripoff of at least one famous episode of "The Twilight Zone", and John Goodman plays the "evil all along" trope in much the same way as Chuck Connors in "Tourist Trap" (1979). All Howard (John Goodman) needs is a limp, some creepy dolls, and telekinetic powers, and "10 Cloverfield Lane" would almost be the same movie. So yeah, it's really not the same at all, but you'll see what I mean.

It's a 550 piece jigsaw puzzle called "Catfish". That is all.

Once again, there were no cats in this movie. I'm obviously not on the right blog to make a big deal out of that at the moment, but at least Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) and Michelle (Mary Elizabth Winstead) spend some quality screentime putting together a puzzle of a surreal snorkelling cat.

Apart from bonding the two younger characters, does the puzzle have any significance other than being a puzzle? Who knows? I'm sure there are a few theories floating around the nerd sites, but I couldn't care less about any of them. Looking for subtext in a throwaway movie like this (or any movie for that matter) is absolutely pointless unless you are one of those stooges on the "big name" sites (and in magazines) who are desperate to publish absolutely anything to vainly stay relevant, spoil other people's hobbies, and get money out of their sheep.

For that reason, I don't really have anything else to say about "10 Cloverfield Lane" except that it's better than the first "Cloverfield", it's not "groundbreaking", and it certainly isn't very original. It's entertaining, the production values are way above average, and John Goodman is awesome, and you can read what you like into what I haven't written about or said in this sentence.

Clever graphics, but the bunker isn't really that far underground.

Minor Spoiler
Do we really need yet another "final girl" trope? Puh-lease! Just fuck off with this trendy "progressive" shit. We get it! Women, just like all human beings, can do stuff. Now all the SJWs can clap their manginas with glee. Oh yay, she's a "strong woman". You go, girl! Bahahahaha! Jannicke in "Cold Prey" (2006) is still much better than all of them. And Sarah Connor is pretty fantastic too. Well, when she was played by Lena Headey anyway.
End of Spoiler

I suppose, given the fact that there's nothing any better to watch right now, I have to concede that I enjoyed "10 Cloverfield Lane" more than I thought I would or ever should. There's no lag, the story plays out quite nicely until the extremely annoying ending, and it's not quite as shit as most American or Canadian movies.

If you're looking for a psychological thriller rather than a pure horror or sci-fi movie, "10 Cloverfield Lane" is okay. Just don't expect it to be as great as something like "How I Ended This Summer" (2010) though.

Reunion (2015)

"An unstable mental patient goes on an overnight rampage to terrorize an ex-rock star and his friends, only to discover she is linked to him in mysterious ways."

It's not often that I watch and review two indie horror screeners in a row. In previous years, I've tended to be more of a mainstream horror movie reviewer and would have preferred to keep things that way. Unfortunately, the theatrical horror releases this year have been fewer and further between than in the mid '90s, and like a lot of other bloggers, I found myself without anything to write about.

Instead of trying to compete with "zero day reviews" for movies in genres which I don't particularly care for, I've even been desperate enough to try reading books in my spare time (oh, the horror!), and I've now offered my services (dubious as they may be) to absolutely anyone who has a new horror movie to keep me entertained. I suppose it could be worse. At least I'm not watching any more sci-fi movies or comedies.

Unfortunately, for my review of the "Reunion" screener, I've only just finished reading Joe Hill's "Heart-Shaped Box" (2007), and ignoring the supernatural elements from that novel, I noticed more than a few coincidental similarities.

“Reunion” and “Heart-Shaped Box” both tell stories which feature a former rock star, contain scenes of domestic abuse fuelled by alcoholism, have characters with memories blotted out, exposition is revealed in flashbacks, and of course, their protagonists get stalked and sliced-up. There are other things, but I'm not allowed to say what they are at this time. My hands are tied, but I'm sure you'll finger it out... I mean figure it out for yourselves. Oops.

Although I've agreed not to give away any spoilers, some key elements also remind me of several of the late Richard Laymon's novels from my misspent youth, and I'll tentatively throw-in that there may also be some nods to "Halloween II" (1981), "Halloween" (2007), and ""Fright" (1971) as well. That being said, "Reunion" is far more modern and more in the realms of "extreme horror" than its precursors.

Lest I be misconstrued, I'm not saying that writer Bert Havird or director Shawn Chou consciously "borrowed" anything, especially as the movie adaptation of "Heart-Shaped Box" has been stalled for years, but "Reunion" is very much in the same vein and will definitely keep Joe Hill fans satiated. I know that I was.

With its non-linear storytelling and somewhat harrowing subject matter, "Reunion" might be a struggle for regular people to get through. There's a lot of shakycam for one thing, and there are several borderline arty moments which could put traditionalists off. If I wanted to be overcritical and harsh, I'd call the cinematography "pretentious and overambitious", but it's always better to be overambitious than to have no ambition at all, isn't it?

It's all very involved, and there's quite a lot (maybe too much) to keep track of. Even with a standard running time of just over an hour and a half, "Reunion" feels much longer and is emotionally draining to watch even for the most hardcore slasher aficionado. Underneath it all, however, you'll be pleased to know that the usual slasher tropes, character flaws, and stupid decisions abound. Yes, there's some fun stuff here too.

As I'm sworn to secrecy about the major plot points, I can't reveal anything more about “Reunion” other than it's a classy production with great performances and gallons of blood. I'm not sure if this movie is going to be as well received by the general horror fandom as something like “Starry Eyes” (2014), but it's likely to be very highly rated by millennial indie horror fans.

“Reunion” stars Maria Olsen, Jack Turner, Sarah Schreiber, Reign Morton, and Cara Santana. The supporting cast includes Ruth Reynolds, Arielle Brachfeld, Christopher Wolfe, Leif Gantvoort, and Matthew Jaeger.

For further details, please check out the official Facebook page.

Here's another teaser trailer: