Three people alone in a bunker waiting for the world to end

John Goodman and Mary Elizabeth Winstead in "10 Cloverfield Lane." Image courtesy Paramount Pictures.

J. J. Abrams has a penchant for shrouding his work with mystery, selling the intrigue of an idea instead of the actual film. It’s a fun gimmick too, with the ad campaigns providing just enough information to tantalize but not enough to describe what the film is actually about. The question, though, is whether or not these projects (and they feel more like projects than films) are good enough to justify the secrecy. In the case of “10 Cloverfield Lane” – a film which bears Abrams’ name as a producer – the answer is a resounding no.

Even if the big twist (or twists?) are asinine at best, I’ll still be a good sport and limit the plot outline to the bare essentials. “10 Cloverfield Lane” is the film equivalent of a television bottle episode, placing three people within the confines of an underground bunker in the boonies of Louisiana. One participant, Michelle, (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) wakes up there after a car accident, carried in by the owner, Howard (John Goodman), a farmer and professional doomsday prepper. The third player is Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), a self-identified disappointment who built the bunker for on Goodman's behalf. What brings the three of them into the bunker remains a mystery. Goodman and Gallagher claim some sort of an attack – the cause of which is speculated at frequently and ranges from aliens to Russians – has contaminated the air and killed millions of people. Winstead, who was in the process of leaving her fiance prior to the accident, doesn't quite believe the outlandish story, and the rest of “10 Cloverfield Lane” is spent delving into the mysteries of the circumstances and discussing abusive parents and broken families.

There are in effect three mysteries in this film split between the inside of the bunker and the outside world, and those mysteries are tied to the trustworthiness of the bunker’s inhabitants – the movie poster raises that question – and the circumstances above ground. “10 Cloverfield Lane” does a rather poor job integrating all three together into one coherent film, deciding instead to tackle the queries it raises one at a time with just a few less than stellar hints as to the nature of each mystery. The effect is like three acts told in a linear fashion, a bit of a disappointment for a film that sells itself as esoteric, with the pieces mashed together with the deftness of drunken thief. The effect is a film that drags out once the first two mysteries are resolved but still feels short because the three sections don't receive enough time to breathe..

Perhaps things might have been different if the film played up the claustrophobic nature of the environment – a feature that should be the main selling point for a film that mostly takes place in an underground bunker. While the place is indeed small, it's never depicted as uncomfortably tight for its three occupants. There's more than enough space for characters to chat and plan behind another character's back, or to construct things without the third party knowing exactly what is going on around his or her back. This is “10 Cloverfield Lane’s” grandest weakness; the movie still could have been something if it at least maintained some level of intensity within it’s theoretical small confines.

Failure in that aspect makes the film’s other flaws even more glaring, one of which is really a shame to have to say because it involves Goodman. The Howard role calls for someone capable of evoking menace, which just isn’t a level Goodman is capable of reaching. He can do strange, avuncular, fatherly, and definitely crazy, but his presence in this movie never ascends to discomfiting or creepy: He's usually far more comically odd than he is terrifying, drawing a surprisingly large number of laughs for someone who is characterized as being unhinged.

That last point infects “10 Cloverfield Lane” far more than it should. Even the opening scene, an homage of sorts to “Psycho,” tries so hard to be intense it comes across as light and humorous. “10 Cloverfield Lane” has a habit of accidentally deescalating the intensity instead of ramping it up, resulting in a surprisingly campy experience for a film that, again, positions itself as mysterious and esoteric. Then again, to paraphrase Public Enemy, you shouldn’t necessarily believe the hype when it comes to films tied to J. J. Abrams.

Review: Two out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 103 minutes

Genre: Mystery

Ask Away

Target audience: People wondering what all the rumpus is about.

Take the whole family?: The violence in it is graphic enough to ensure a tough viewing experience for kids younger than 10.

Theater or Netflix?: Wait for it to come to you.

Does J. J. Abrams have any substance?: If he does, he hides it pretty well behind all of the lens flares and glossiness of movies like “Star Trek” and the pretty good “Star Wars” sequel he just directed. Abrams does have a sizable amount of talent, especially when it comes to juggling the wants of fervent fan bases like the two mentioned earlier, but he takes these projects far, far too seriously when it comes to the marketing. I think there’s more to him than easy gimmicks, but he needs to do one film without that sales pitch to prove it.

Watch this instead?: “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” is way more fun than this thing is. Plus, try getting the theme song out of your head. I'm also a fan of “Super 8,” another Abrams film that marketed curiosity but is often engaging and at least shows Abrams can make light of himself.