The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)
Cloverfield (2008) was a surprise hit, earning $172 million worldwide at the box office against a $25 million budget. Paramount Pictures naturally wanted a sequel but director Matt Reeves and writer Drew Goddard struggled to find a suitable narrative means to progress the original story. Both eventually left the project and the production descended into development hell. The subsequent success of Godzilla and Pacific Rim saw the Kaiju genre becoming oversaturated and so the decision to make a direct sequel was re-evaluated. Eventually a “speculative screenplay” called The Cellar was purchased and repurposed to include some additional science fiction elements and became 10 Cloverfield Lane. Despite being a curious genre hybrid which only tenuously links to the original movie, this too fared well at the box office. Therefore it was inevitable that a third movie in the so-called “Cloververse” would follow.
Cloverfield (2008) was a surprise hit, earning $172 million worldwide at the box office against a $25 million budget. Paramount Pictures naturally wanted a sequel but director Matt Reeves and writer Drew Goddard struggled to find a suitable narrative means to progress the original story. Both eventually left the project and the production descended into development hell. The subsequent success of Godzilla and Pacific Rim saw the Kaiju genre becoming oversaturated and so the decision to make a direct sequel was re-evaluated. Eventually a “speculative screenplay” called The Cellar was purchased and repurposed to include some additional science fiction elements and became 10 Cloverfield Lane. Despite being a curious genre hybrid which only tenuously links to the original movie, this too fared well at the box office. Therefore it was inevitable that a third movie in the so-called “Cloververse” would follow.
Due to an emerging energy crisis on Earth, a multinational crew on the Cloverfield Station test the Shepard particle accelerator in an attempt to produce clean and accessible power. The crew consists of English engineer Ava Hamilton (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), American Commander Kiel (David Oyelowo), German physicist Ernst Schmidt (Daniel Brühl), Brazilian medical doctor Monk Acosta (John Ortiz), Irish engineer Mundy (Chris O'Dowd), Russian engineer Volkov (Aksel Hennie), and Chinese engineer Tam (Zhang Ziyi). Ava worries about leaving her husband Michael, especially in light of the recent loss of their children in a house fire. After several years of failed attempts, the accelerator finally works but a subsequent power surge causes a series of strange events. Volkow becomes paranoid and potentially homicidal. A woman is found fused with wires behind a bulkhead. The crew learn that she comes from an identical Cloverfield Station in another dimension. Meanwhile on earth the interdimensional crossovers result in mass destruction. Can the crew of Cloverfield Station rectify the situation?
As Paramount Pictures were so successful in adapting an original script and transforming it into a tangential sequel with 10 Cloverfield Lane, it is understandable why they elected to try this a second time. Hence another spec script, this titled God Particle, was procured and retrofitted into a third edition to the “Cloververse”. The only difference this time is that that transition is far from seamless and results in a film that looks like it has been clearly assembled from separate elements. Many of the plot devices in The Cloverfield Paradox just don’t hang well together. The screenplay focuses on the particle accelerator experiments tearing the fabric of space time and opening portals to multiple parallel universes. Because these incursions can occur at any point in Earth’s timeline, this provides a convenient means to explain both previous sequels. Hence we have a Kaiju attack in 2008 and an alien invasion in 2016. But other elements of the story remain woefully underdeveloped. Michael Hamilton’s rescue of a young girl offers an opportunity to explore his own loss of his children. It is however neglected. The backstory and dynamics of the crew on the Cloverfield Space Station is also very thin.
Director Julius Onah does not manage to pull the elements together cohesively and so The Cloverfield Paradox often feels like a series of clever but ever so contrived CGI set pieces, linked by some clumsy and at times dull plot exposition. What makes it all the more frustrating is that there are some good ideas here and with more care and attention to the screenplay, this could have been a far better film. The final scene pretty much highlights everything that is wrong in the film, as it crassly crowbars in a reference to Cloverfield that couldn’t have been any less subtle if it tried. However, budget overruns and a lack of confidence in the finished product saw Paramount Pictures sell The Cloverfield Paradox to Netflix, rather than risk a theatrical release. Which means that this odd and vicarious trilogy of films, which grew into a franchise out of purely financial reasons, has more than likely run its course.
Cloverfield (2008)
I did my best to avoid the hype surrounding the initial release of Cloverfield. Such media saturation and public interest can often cloud the issue of whether the actual film is any good. Five years later and having watched the movie twice, once in the theatre and once at home, I am still somewhat conflicted about this movie. The use of hand held video cameras is both a boon and a bane. The constant movement of the image has proven to cause motion sickness for some viewers, although this is not so overwhelming when viewed on a smaller screen at home. Yet the medium of news footage mixed with handheld cameras does create a palpable sense of immediacy. This helps immensely when trying to sell a fantastic concept, such as the one that Cloverfield features.
I did my best to avoid the hype surrounding the initial release of Cloverfield. Such media saturation and public interest can often cloud the issue of whether the actual film is any good. Five years later and having watched the movie twice, once in the theatre and once at home, I am still somewhat conflicted about this movie. The use of hand held video cameras is both a boon and a bane. The constant movement of the image has proven to cause motion sickness for some viewers, although this is not so overwhelming when viewed on a smaller screen at home. Yet the medium of news footage mixed with handheld cameras does create a palpable sense of immediacy. This helps immensely when trying to sell a fantastic concept, such as the one that Cloverfield features.
Well let's get the obvious out of the way first. Yes, this film is potentially an act of national catharses over the events of 9/11. In the same way that the 1954 Godzilla (Gojira) was the Japanese way of dealing with the Atomic Bombing at the end of the war. The hand-held mockumentary style does lend and element of contemporary credibility to the proceeding. However more discerning film fans will be familiar with this technique in several other productions, such as The Blair Witch Project, The Last Broadcast, Ghostwatch, Cannibal Holocaust, REC and Diary Of The Dead. The film also utilises the classic plot device of only hinting at the monster. The fleeting glimpses caught between the skyscrapers of the Manhattan skyline are extremely well done and certainly contribute to the sense of horror and unease.
The story moves at a fast pace and the movie has a near perfect plot to running time ratio. It does not out stay its welcome and concludes in a fashion one would expect from such a genre production. There is little or no information given out in relation to the nature of the creature that has appeared or where it has hailed from. This works well, as the central theme is not the monster per se, but how people and governments deal with cataclysmic events. It is both scary and shocking but the violence is never overstated. But where Cloverfield fails is with its central characters. They are not as under developed as you would expect. They are simply unlikeable. In an effort to appeal to the target audience demographics, the producers focus on quartet of young "yuppies". Sadly, they are shallow and crass people. The women scream and the men just bellow, unable to deal with the unfolding events. This is not implausible, just depressingly credible. It's a shame that the makers of this film did not show as much flare and imagination for their central protagonists as they did with the visual effects and production design.
Now the actual creature itself, as mentioned above, remains cunningly hidden for the bulk of the film. It is quite ironic that a creature of such size can remain so well hidden in the densely built urban environment of New York. There is a particularly good aerial shot that shows the creature striding between buildings and subject to an air strike from a Stealth bomber. It is hinted that it is eating people that cross its path, a fact that is later more overtly established when the beats is revealed to our gaze in Central park. I personally think that this was a mistake and that the once clearly observed, the well-designed creature loses some of its mystique. I'm sure that the production team were also influenced to the work of H.P. Lovecraft and the Cthulhu Mythos. Similar giant alien beasts are briefly seen in Frank Darabont's The Mist. There is also a secondary threat brought about by the creature in the shape of parasites that are shaken loose from its body. These arthropods are the size of a dog and their bite presents another set of problems.
Overall, Cloverfield is a very enjoyable film. It is scary enough to appeal to a range of audiences and maintains a steady pace that carries the narrative beyond the obvious flaws and plot holes. Slightly older viewers and Europeans may find the American youth a little grating but after the opening plot exposition, we are fully immersed in the ongoing disaster. We then have an exhilarating ride for the remaining hour. Hence the movie is recommended as an example of well-produced populist entertainment and as a better example of the found footage genre. It should be noted that the 2016 film 10 Cloverfield Lane is not a direct sequel per se but more of a tangential follow up. Allegedly a third film is being made that will bring the various plot threads of all movies together.
