Warning: Film Spoilers Below, See The Film, Then Read The Article.

There couldn't be a better example of what Hollywood is doing to brilliant filmmakers and to their films. Calling "10 Cloverfield Lane" is a "Cloverfield" sequel is like saying Donald Trump isn't racist. The original script, "The Cellar," did not have any of that last quarter of J.J. Abrams garbage in it. Hey, I understand the concept of tying in the title to the other film so people can see something that is familiar, but Hollywood had to put their filthy little hands on the film so it could tie into the franchise (which how they did it doesn't really tie into it at all, it actually makes no sense) and give a really predictable, crappy ending to an unpredictable, incredible film.

The film is about a young woman (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) who, after getting into a car accident, wakes up in a bunker with a creepy older man, Howard (John Goodman) and another local Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) and is told the United States was attacked by an unknown force and the air is contaminated. The film creates the incredibly awkward and uncomfortable atmosphere from the millisecond the young woman, Michelle, wakes up in the bunker to when she escapes towards the end. It's a film that keeps you guessing on what is right and what is just our perception of the situation based on what we see, and it screws with you real good.

The film was supposed to be released under the now defunct Paramount Insurge, a part of Paramount that would have produced 10 low budget indies a year, but was scrapped. "The Cellar" was among those films and apparently was shot and ditched after the studio went out. It wasn't until recently that Paramount hired another writer to tie in "Cloverfield" into the mix. That last sentence is the problem. The problem when a studio, who learns the wrong lessons from successful films (here's to looking at a brand new heap of R-rated superhero films), gets their greasy hands on a project.

The script has been through some evolution from the "10" final product to the original leaked "Cellar" script. I'm much more of a fan of how they did it in "10" as opposed to how it goes down in the original. Though, I do wish there was the element of having Howard be a recovering alcoholic to make him more sympathetic like they had in the original script. The original ending showed Chicago post nuclear blast as Michelle gazed upon the ruins. This ending, or another version of the same idea, would have been perfect. AND, one intelligent writer could have tied in "Cloverfield" to it WITHOUT having the lame alien sequence at the end that made no sense and had nothing to do with "Cloverfield" (it wasn't the same alien, it looked like the Promethean dog from Halo 4). If we would have seen NYC a wreck after the military bombed the hell out of it at the end of "Cloverfield," the audience would have instantly figured out the ties to the original film and its placement in the timeline of that universe. That freaking simple.

Yet, when a major studio sees success from different formulas, they'll apply it to a film that they think won't do well in the hopes that it'll be another cash cow. But Hollywood always learns the wrong lessons from successful films, as filmmaker James Gunn (director of "Guardians Of The Galaxy" has said in a brilliant Facebook post about "Deadpool"), and end up ruining a film.

But, thank GOD that they left the majority of the film mostly intact (apart from the ending, I don't know how much the new writer changed), but the film is brilliant. It's unsettling, nerve-wracking and keeps you in suspense until the end (or, the kinda end). Hopefully, Paramount and all of Hollywood will read reviews and learn the right lesson from this: let filmmakers do what they do best. "10 Cloverfield Lane" might very well be the film that ushers in a new wave of studio-funded small budget original films. We can only hope.