“Some thing has found us” read the tagline for 2008’s Cloverfield. That film had arguably one of the most interesting marketing campaigns in the history of movies. The untitled trailer that played during Transformers, the mystery surrounding the story, and the Easter eggs on the web provided much anticipation for its opening day release. It did not disappoint. Cloverfield remains one of the most intense films of the modern era, delivering a grounded monster movie. In 2016, a film titled 10 Cloverfield Lane was released. Producer J.J. Abrams called the film a “blood relative” to the first Cloverfield.
After watching 10 Cloverfield Lane, this reviewer had come away with the ambiguous question, “Can marketing ruin a film?” 10 Cloverfield Lane was undoubtedly a well-acted, tense film. But by using the “Cloverfield” name, certain expectations were set. The film had nothing to do with the 2008 giant monster movie, thus producing massive disappointment. It felt like marketing was just using the Cloverfield name to sell tickets. Fast forward to February 4, 2018, a brand new film with the Cloverfield title launched on Netflix. The trailer premiered during Super Bowl 52. Unlike 10 Cloverfield Lane, where the trailer did not align itself with the 2008 film aside from the title, the trailer for the third film proudly stated that the story would show why the monster appeared out of nowhere. We learn why artificially, in this film titled The Cloverfield Paradox, directed by Julius Onah. Though not coming close to the quality of the 2008 film, Paradox is nonetheless an engaging film, with an interesting story and sometimes unsettling atmosphere.
The backdrop for the film is that Earth is running out of energy resources. In order to combat that, the world governments send a space station to utilize a particle accelerator. If successful, the accelerator will be able to draw unlimited amounts of energy, thus eliminating the shortage problem. After a failed attempt, the space station’s crew once again fires the accelerator. It seemingly works, but something odd makes the crew look outside the space station’s windows.
The Earth is gone.
At first, it appeared the film was going to be like Alien or Life. (Tell me you didn’t automatically think Chestburster when Volkov started to have a seizure.) It soon becomes apparent that the story is going in a different direction. There’s a sense of great tension and dread as the characters can’t see the Earth. Did they just destroy their planet? That was an incredibly interesting concept, and really makes the viewers think how they would react if they had been part of this crew. Things take a turn for the mind-bending as other dimensions and messing with reality comes into play. It never becomes too sciencey however, just interesting enough to make sure the viewer is paying attention.
The cast features some big names, such as Daniel Brühl (Zemo in Captain America: Civil War) and David Oyelowo (Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma.) Oyelowo is particularly engaging as the crew’s captain, Kiel. One particular standout scene was him confronting Brühl’s character later in the story. “We trusted you! For two years!” Kiel shouts. Oyelowo did an excellent job showcasing his genuine frustration with a man whom seemingly is a traitor. Our main protagonist is Ava Hamilton, portrayed by Gugu Mbatha-Raw. Ava is an engaging character, showcasing a love for her family back home. Her character is further deepened near the story’s climax, when we learn she was indirectly responsible for a personal tragedy. Her relationship with her husband Michael feels genuine. Michael’s scenes back on Earth are always a highlight. It’s a shame there wasn’t more screen time dedicated to the intense Earth scenes with him.
Most of the characters are fine, but it does take a bit in the beginning to care about them. One character who did not particularly work even after the first half hour was Mundy. It seems he was just put there for forced snappy lines, such as “Well we found the worms” and “What are you talking about arm?!” His reaction to his limbless arm also came off as incredibly unrealistic and took away from the tense atmosphere. He was really the only severely weak character however. Tam and Mina Jenson, the latter whom emerges a particularly important character in the climax, were solid. Considering Mina’s explanation of the alternate dimension, her motivation in the climax is very interesting to watch.
This type of film can falter if certain aspects of the story isn’t explained. While the film attempts to explain the dimension aspects, there are some things that aren’t explored well enough. For example, what was the point of the worms? It was never given a reason why they were there, other than to look creepy. Why did the wall gain sentience and trap Mundy? These things aren’t truly explained. The other unexplored aspect is the film’s relation to the first Cloverfield. Let’s look at this. I said in the first paragraph that Paradox artificially sets up the first film. This is because the viewer is only left to assume why the monster appears. It’s difficult to infer if the particle accelerator is what woke the monster. It’s not explicitly said, and because the way things go in the film, it feels like the original Cloverfield aspect was thrown into the story in the last second. The storylines between Ava on the space station and Michael dealing with something happening on Earth almost seems like two separate movies. The final shot of the film is epic, though it comes off as forced to make up for 10 Cloverfield Lane having nothing to do with the first film.
Overall, The Cloverfield Paradox is an intriguing case of a film. Paradox has a great story, and unlike 10 Cloverfield Lane, it actually connects to the original monster movie. However, Paradox barely seems about Cloverfield, until the last few seconds. 10 Cloverfield Lane is a more consistent movie for this reason. It seems like the writing wanted to make sure not to further alienate fans of the original movie with Paradox, so they forced an unexplained reason for it to be a prequel. What if Paradox eliminated all references to the original film? Well, it would have fallen into the same boat as Lane, bearing the Cloverfield name, but having nothing to do with it. So, unless it stuck with its original title, “God Particle,” many viewers would have probably felt cheated again. Though, some might still feel cheated because of the forced relation to the original film, instead of it being an organic part of the story. It is indeed quite a paradox when discussing this movie. At the end of the day, The Cloverfield Paradox isn’t a bad film, with some engaging characters, an interesting story, and a decent soundtrack. If its relation to the original film had been more organic and explained, this could have been a fantastic prequel.