The Cloverfield Paradox review

THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX:

NOT QUITE THE FOLLOW-UP 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE DESERVES, BUT OFFERS SOME POTENTIAL, CHILLS, AND A SOLID CAST!

By Nico Beland

Movie Review: ** ½ out of 4

NETFLIX, PARAMOUNT PICTURES, AND BAD ROBOT

A station crew is about to discover something they weren’t prepared for in The Cloverfield Paradox

            In 2008, producer, J.J. Abrams (Mission: Impossible III, Star Trek (2009), Star Wars: The Force Awakens) cashed in on the fad of found-footage scary films that were popularized by The Blair Witch Project in 1999, with the smash hit, Cloverfield under direction by Matt Reeves, who would later go on to direct the Planet of the Apes reboot sequels and written by The Martian writer and The Cabin in the Woods director, Drew Goddard. Eight years later, the film was followed up by a critically-acclaimed standalone sequel, 10 Cloverfield Lane with Abrams returning as producer, Reeves as executive producer, and directed by Dan Trachtenberg, which unlike the first film was shot in a third-person narrative rather than found-footage.

            So, two years after the release of 10 Cloverfield Lane, we have the third installment of the Cloverfield franchise, The Cloverfield Paradox, originally under the title, God Particle, which premiered on Netflix immediately following the 2018 Super Bowl. This marks the first Cloverfield movie to not get a theatrical release, and normally I wouldn’t review TV or direct-to-video movies (Unless it received either a Fathom Event or limited theatrical engagement), but since I already reviewed 10 Cloverfield Lane back in 2016, it makes sense to review the next one.

            Wow, what a fascinating yet cluttered mess we got here, The Cloverfield Paradox falls victim to the most common “Third Movie” trapping of not being as good as its predecessors. But on top of that it has inconsistent genre shifting and so many theories and science mumbo-jumbo that it’ll most likely leave you scratching your head rather than feel like your questions been answered, on the plus side it at least had some good acting and some chilling moments.

            The film follows a group of scientific researchers onboard a space station attempting to harness a new energy source called the God Particle to save our planet from a global energy crisis. However, they soon realize that something terrifying has been unleashed from the God Particle and they have no idea what it is, what it wants, or what it can do.

            The film stars Gugu Mbatha-Raw (Belle, Beauty and the Beast (2017), A Wrinkle in Time) as Ava Hamilton, David Oyelowo (Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Selma, Queen of Katwe) as Kiel, Daniel Brühl (Inglourious Basterds, Rush, Captain America: Civil War) as Schmidt, John Ortiz (Carlito’s Way, Fast & Furious franchise, Kong: Skull Island) as Monk Acosta, Chris O’Dowd (Bridesmaids, Thor: The Dark World, St. Vincent) as Mundy, Aksel Hennie (Headhunters, Hercules (2014), The Martian) as Volkov, Zhang Ziyi (Rush Hour 2, House of Flying Daggers, Memoirs of a Geisha) as Tam, Elizabeth Debicki (The Great Gatsby (2013), The Man from U.N.C.L.E., Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2) as Mina Jensen, Roger Davies (Renford Rejects) as Michael Hamilton, and Donal Logue (Little Women, Grounded for Life, Gotham) as Mark Stambler.

            Overall, The Cloverfield Paradox is an ambitious project and has some solid performances by its cast as well as some interesting theories and moments of terror. Unfortunately, any potential its narrative could have is completely wasted to give more questions and theories for die-hard film analysts to listen to, with some last minute Cloverfield references shoehorned in.

            The movie also doesn’t know what kind of genre it’s trying to be, one minute it’s a horror movie, the next it’s an isolation sci-fi film like Moon, then it becomes an unintentional comedy, and finally a bunch of clichés and tropes leftover from Alien, Event Horizon, Interstellar, and Life all thrown together. The movie is so inconsistent by its tone and so overblown by its possibilities that my brain ached after the movie was over…and not in an accomplished way, it’s like listening to Christopher Nolan’s science theories while stuck in The Matrix, can we please go back to Cloverfield monsters destroying cities?

            As much as the movie fails in certain areas, there are some elements that are worth admiring. The production design and visuals are impressive and atmospheric, some of the references to the previous films are done well, the scares when they do them right, and the acting is good had they were given a better script that tied the Cloverfield references in better, this could have been on par with 10 Cloverfield Lane.

            But even after those pros, I don’t think I could recommend The Cloverfield Paradox to anyone. Fans of the franchise will be disappointed by the lack of Cloverfield elements and people looking for a decent sci-fi flick will be bombarded with questions and theories that don’t really add up. Unless you’re a science-expert and frequent Christopher Nolan movie analysist who can analyze scientific theories in movies as fast as a ninja on speed, this “Paradox” isn’t worth your time.