Paradox In Itself?

In a time when teaser/theatrical trailers and release schedules are more heavily reported and dissected than ever before by both film enthusiasts and journalists alike, it’s a rarity to perceive within the cinematic industry a recognised franchise that goes beyond the speculative think-pieces and distributes a feature in secret. The closet example where a specific franchise does go under the radar, away from all the deep-rooted analysis of others, is the Cloverfield series of films since the features that comprise the said franchise are shrouded with mystery and intrigue. From the original 2008 production of Cloverfield that initially had a viral marketing campaign synonymous with what The Blair Witch Project had, to 10 Cloverfield Lane, the second instalment, which wasn’t even announced as being part of the aforesaid franchise months before the films release into theatres, it’s clear to see that this anthological series of films pioneer a distributing practise that goes against the grain. This is further established with the recent and surprising release of the aforementioned series’ third instalment, The Cloverfield Paradox, a now-Netflix product that fits in-line with the streaming sites differentiating filmography that came about from the plethora of Super Bowl LII ads to many peoples surprise. As much as the unexpected appearance of The Cloverfield Paradox signifies that marketing of this kind is far from forgotten, does this third instalment dexterously interlink with the preceding features and instil new ideas? Or, does it fall short due to its rather predictable yet ambiguous storytelling?…

It is the year of 2028 and Earth is suffering from a global energy crisis. The only hope that remains rests with the collective space agencies of the world to prepare the launch of the Cloverfield space-station where seven international scientists are sent to harness the Shepard particle accelerator and provide unlimited energy to the entire world. However, with many pundits theorising that this Shepard device could create the “Cloverfield Paradox”, whereby portals to other dimensions open and horrors from unknown origin threaten the Earth, no one knows for sure what the outcome will be in using this particle accelerator. On one fateful day, in using the device, the seven-person crew are sent somewhere else; a destination where the Earth has disappeared…

What I’ve come to find most profound about watching both the original Cloverfield and 10 Cloverfield Lane is the manner in which both of the respective features exhibit wholly different yet subtly linked premises that imbue tension and originality. Indeed, from the ever noticeable found-footage camera aesthetic that realistically grounded the Godzilla-esque scenario that took place in the first film, to the second entry in the franchise that makes the most of its confined space with believable enactments from its cast of three actors, the features that comprise the Cloverfield name thus far have each presented edgy yet mysterious accounts that make you want to know more of the aforesaid franchise and where, in particular, it’s going to lead in future films. In relation to Julius Onah’s The Cloverfield Paradoxhowever, much of the nicely woven restiveness that we’ve come to know in the preceding features, is boldly discarded for more convention means here. With Paradox ascertaining a concept and setting that hearkens back to the familiar horrors seen and put together from every space-centric sci-fi film since Ridley Scott’s Alien, what’s palpable to notice of the aforementioned third entry into this anthology is its overall dubious nature and how it presents plot-points that are simply conventional and predictable. With it upholding a title-name that warrants creative license in pursuing different and distinctive outcomes that could lead to a conclusion that would be unanticipated to perceive, it’s rather warranted that Paradox would display a context fully embraces the inevitability of twists and precarious outcomes. Yet, the film somehow manages to not do any of that. Much of the inspirations that is borrowed is never established into something that intersting to watch and ponder over. From characters going against each other with their separate views on what they respectively should do, to sequences that rather embellish other scenarios depicted in other acclaimed features, each of the plot-points that unfold are not surprising to fathom in the least, and are typical at best. It’s cleat that the idea of different times clashing together is there when the film reaches its second-act. However, what results from this catalyst of the characters using the Shepard device and transporting to a completely different dimension, are scenes that are painfully mediocre and anticipated at best. In many ways, Paradox rather amalgamates the outlandish silliness one might find in a Paranormal Activity film with the erratic optimism found in an episode of Doctor Who. It’s a conception that never truly feels like a cinematic-outing, and instead reminisces events and effects that are common-place in a show such as Black Mirror. In saying this, it’s no wonder why Paramount sold the Cloverfield franchise to Netflix; being that the said streaming-site is synonymous for producing fictional shows and films of similar ilk.  

As briefly highlighted, what’s considerably distinguishable to take note of in relation to Paradox’s contextual structure is its underwhelming lack of tension. As much as each of the plot points depicted are indicative of other familiar and tropey sequences seen in acclaimed features that centre around disasters or particularly horrific events, much of these absurd moments would have played better if Paradox didn’t go back-and-forth between different perspectives. Although the main crux of Paradox lies within the crisis on the space-station, the structure, quite freely and abruptly, scatters its structure between the actions that are taking place among the seven member space crew and the events of Earth. This divergence of the two different perspectives significantly loses the tense-edge that was so effortlessly executed in the aforementioned franchises preceding entries. 10 Cloverfield Lane maintained this tension by not leaving its core setting and profited in being a film that was not only original and different from what the first film displayed, but delivered in presenting a premise that was engrossing to watch right the way through. These scenes, told from the point of view of one of the space station member’s significant others, are far more distracting than adding any meaningful weight to the circumstance at hand. Certainly, they may add self-referential winks and nods to moments from past Cloverfield films that devoted fans will appreciate. However, in no way do these scenes add to what Paradox is desperately trying to compelling explain. 

The silver-lining in Paradox’s disconcerting amalgamation of conventional predictability and seamless contentedness, are the devoted enactments of the cast as they serve to be welcoming faces to a precedent that slowly falters as it goes along. Between Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Daniel Brühl, David Oyelowo and Chris O’Dowd, all of the these actors and actresses are sincerely faithful to the roles that they’re respectively performing and considerably make the events that unfold more justifiable. However, like with the actual context of Paradox, the characterisation that’s presented here is likewise formulaic. Other than Mbatha-Raw’s portrayal as Hamilton, who’s character has considerable depth and an arc that see’s her meander the supernatural problems on the space-craft and the shared tragic past she has with her husband who is on Earth, not only is the majority of the cast lacking any real meaningful attachment and respective singularity, but each of one of the characters shown are conformed to ever-seen clichéd roles. From O’Dowd’s comic-relief character of Mundy, who is not only comparable to said actors iconic role as Roy in The It Crowd but is also a persona that remarks too many awkward and forced jokes, to Oyelowo’s enactment as Kiel who hides his emotions from the crew and Brühl as Schmidt who many are mistrustful of, the characterisation of all the characters depicted are completely underutilised. Each one of them never break away from the conformed and formulaic roles that they’re placed under; which in turn makes for a cast that is not relatable to the viewing eye. 

For sure, the idea of an anthological franchise, in the form of the Cloverfield name, is an appealing one considering the climate of the cinematic industry at this moment in time. Through looking at Dan Trachtenberg’s 10 Cloverfield Lane, and even the success that the anthology series of Black Mirror has received, the Cloverfield franchise has shown that it’s possible to make a film series with disparagingly different sequels that each provide distinctive sci-fi/horrific parables that imbue mysticism and intrigue at the same time. As much as Julius Onah’s extension of the aforesaid franchise, The Cloverfield Paradox, carries on the tradition of displaying a different story from the preceding feature, it’s a film that never fully exploits its creative potential and instead settles for a contextualisation that is no different than watching either jump-scare centric horror-film or an episode from a science-fiction T.V. series. Indeed, as foreseeable plot-points occur and characters are situated amongst archetypes that are familiar and formulaic to perceive, there’s never a moment within the third entry of the Cloverfield franchise that was engrossing. If anything, with the way the context tries to present different dimensions colliding with different multiverses, there are questions to ponder over than answers since the rather conventional narrative structure doesn’t add anything meaningful and only subtly remarks small intricacies from the previous entries. The Cloverfield Paradox might have been passable as a sci-fi/thriller that didn’t have any connotations with the Cloverfield name, but even the strengths of the strong performances are ultimately discarded for it’s lack of ambition and creativity. The film never truly succeeds in being either a standalone space-horror or a key-linking in the already-mentioned franchises mythos. With a fourth film, named Overlord, set to be released later this year, do we ignore it in the belief that it’s going to underwhelm like Paradox did?…

On that note, it’s time for me to end this weeks film review. As always everyone, thank you for reading my latest film review of The Cloverfield Paradox and I hope you’ve all enjoyed the read! 😉 If anyone has an opinion on either my review or on the film itself, you’re more than welcome to comment your thoughts down below. For next week, I’ll be either doing a retro film review or analysis of a newly released cinematic feature. Thank you once again for reading this week’s Blog Post and I’ll be back at the same time next week! Have a nice weekend! Adieu! 😀👽⌛👋

★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ – Alex Rabbitte