The Cloverfield Paradox
Photos via Netflix
There’s a whole lot of things about the surprise release of The Cloverfield Paradox tonight that were shockingly brazen. It’s a sci-fi horror film from a relatively unknown director. It’s a film that had zero official promotion until midway through the second quarter of Super Bowl 52. It was announced to the world in a single, 30-second ad for the cost of $5 million dollars, which was NBC’s going rate for 2018. It features a multiracial, multi-ethnic ensemble cast without any bankable Hollywood “stars” to speak of. It’s everything that a traditional studio wouldn’t dare put this kind of promotional push behind. Ava DuVernay might have said it best:
Woman of color-led, sci-fi thriller released worldwide day date w/ big Netflix muscle for black director, his super producer POC cast. No advance press, ads, trailer. Straight to the people. Gamechanger. Congrats to helmer #JuliusOnah + my dears JJ, Gugu, David. #Cloverfieldpic.twitter.com/m186Hprhqz
— Ava DuVernay (@ava) February 5, 2018
So with all that said: Is it any good? Well, yes—often it is, but it’s sometimes tough to find those moments. The Cloverfield Paradox can’t ever fully shed the reality that it was never intended to be a part of the “Cloververse,” and its attempts to connect itself concretely with the events of the first film are both misguided and illogical, but when we’re able to simply enjoy the premise it presents us with, this movie is equal parts thrilling and utterly batshit crazy.
Let me first say this: The fact that this film could give itself the “Cloverfield” name is obviously the reason we’re watching it today. The clout of J.J. Abrams can’t be overlooked, from his contributions to both Star Trek and Star Wars to his work as a producer. You can feel the desire in this film to tangibly tie itself to the original Cloverfield as a marketing tactic first and foremost, the result of some suit in a boardroom deciding that the answer to “why” the first film happened was an effective hook to put butts in the seat (or on the couch, in this case). It’s a much more cynical approach than in the well-liked (and ultimately superior) 10 Cloverfield Lane, which at no point ever officially connected itself with the giant monster story of the original Cloverfield. This one, on the other hand, is a little too desperate to get that connection across, even when it explicitly does not make sense. In particular, it seems impossible that this film, set in the distant future, could somehow have led to the events of the first film … which was set in 2008.
Ultimately, though, those Cloverfield tie ins are just a framing device—an excuse to be able to get this movie in front of millions of eyes on Super Bowl Sunday. This isn’t a movie about giant monsters; it’s a movie about mad particle physics and scientific derring-do. And that film is quite a lot of fun, although it never quite settles on a specific tone to convey.