Miniblog: The Cloverfield Paradox Spoiler Review

cloverfield-paradox-image

Before I go into the review, I want to say that I didn’t see the ad for The Cloverfield Paradox during the Super Bowl.  I watched the trailer afterward on YouTube and only then saw the big marketing ploy: it was airing that very night on Netflix. The last Cloverfield movie, Ten Cloverfield Lane, was advertised maybe a month or a few weeks before its theatrical release. The Cloverfield movies have had unique marketing campaigns that draw attention to the strange concepts and seemingly different genres of each film. In this case, the marketing campaign succeeded again. I was totally surprised when I saw the release date and immediately wanted to watch it. It was Sunday night though and I had class in the morning, so I watched it Monday and…
The Cloverfield Paradox is an otherwise straightforward isolated space thriller with interesting elements of mystery and visual appeal, however, in regards to its story, characters, and the answers to questions it sets up, it simply falls flat.
Cloverfield-Paradox-Trailer-Netflix
Let’s start with the fact that we don’t get any interaction or development for the majority of the crew members. The only identifying feature is that they come from different nations. Given the incredibly talented cast including Daniel Bruhl and David Oyelowo, it’s unfortunate that a film with such good performances provided such little detail to its characters. The only character with a backstory is the protagonist, Ava Hamilton, played by Gugu Mbatha-Raw. I know that in typical space thrillers the crew ends up dying anyway, but at least one moment of comradery between them establishes that what is happening to them is tragic. In Alien the crew is laughing and joking around right before the alien rips out of Kane’s chest. In this movie, the crew members are at each other’s throats in the very first interaction they have on-screen.

 

Once the story gets going and the crew fires a particle accelerator, it’s obvious when we see a flash from the earth that the will be transferred to a different dimension. This leads me to my second point about the film, it’s incredibly predictable. The fact that they were transported to an alternate Earth was predictable, the fact that the gyro compass was inside the Russian character was predictable, the fact that Elizabeth Debicki’s character (the one from the alternate Earth) had sinister intentions was predictable, and the fact the Cloverfield monster had ended up on their Earth as a result of the firing was predictable. Elements of the film come out of nowhere, the plot point of the main character’s children burning down in a fire because of her decisions is expositioned out towards the end of the film for dramatic effect. The entire sub plot with the main character’s husband where he finds a little girl is entirely pointless and boring. The sci-fi elements, once they get going, are interesting enough. There are exploding bodies full of worms, sentient hands, and gruesome mutilations. However, none of these incidents are ever explained, they are simply chalked up to “quantum entanglement”, the two worlds are messing with each other because they are close. That doesn’t explain how an arm can just gain sentience and start writing instructions, or someone could collapse and die then explode worms. Once the movie ends with the giant Cloverfield monster attacking the ship, there is no context to the situation. Is it the same Cloverfield monster from New York but grown up? Is this the same world as Ten Cloverfield Lane with the alien mothership? None of this is explained, and the ending just feels tacked on for thrills.

clover

As a film, it has narrative problems and its characters are thin. As a space thriller it has enjoyable moments and pretty good visual effects. It contains some sci-fi movie clichés like the dumb scientists, in this case the comic relief character is so enamored by an incident of magnetic interference that he stares at it and lets the metal material he was using behind him swallow him up. Elements of the film are very derivative of other sci-fi films like Alien, Life, and Event Horizon (although really all of these films derive from Alien).

cloverfield

It is definitely the weakest of the Cloverfield movies but I enjoyed watching it. Maybe I’m just desperate for semi-decent science fiction films by major studios, a topic that will be explored in an upcoming blog.

Kong: Skull Island-What Makes A Better Movie, Visual Elements or Literary Elements?

58c2d14f8c794.image

I just saw Kong: Skull Island, a very entertaining and interesting movie. The action scenes are on point. The visual style is attention-grabbing and the cinematography is splendid. Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts does an admirable job of recreating the 70’s Vietnam Era aesthetic, and he exceeds in his ability to depict human characters in sweeping long shots that indicate their vulnerability. However, where the visual elements of the film soar, the literary elements fall flat. The characters are almost nonexistent, the narrative is kind of all over the place and the dialogue is just TERRIBLE in some scenes. Now, keep in mind, this is a monster movie. We came to see King Kong fight a bunch of dinosaurs and attack some soldiers, so why should the film’s success be measured by a good story and characters? Furthermore, is a film with superior visuals, sound, and direction a better film; or is a film with superior writing, story, and characters better?

To go back to Kong, the story is straightforward, a team of scientists and soldiers go to Skull Island, damage the ecosystem, get attacked by Kong, and have to survive a rough landscape of monsters and dinosaurs. The characters are either one dimensional like Samuel L Jackson (a hardened veteran), Tom Hiddleston(a generic badass), and Brie Larson(a photographer…that’s basically all there is to her character); or the characters are plot points used to move along the story like John Goodman, Toby Kebbell, and Cory Hawkins. By the way, I’m using the actors’ names because of course, I don’t remember any of the names of the characters. I’m even good with names so it’s not like I wasn’t trying (I know literally every character’s name in Game of Thrones just try me).  In fact, what happens with these characters is something that I wrote about recently where the actors are so good they make you think the characters are better than they are. When John Goodman and Samuel L Jackson are talking to each other, the dialogue isn’t good, there’s little insight into their characters, yet it still sounds intense. That’s because the actors are intense, and they can make terrible dialogue like “I am the cavalry” sound somewhat plausible. If you just look at the cast for the film: Brie Larson recently won an Oscar, John Goodman should win an Oscar, and Samuel L Jackson is…well, Samuel L Jackson. These are all amazing actors, and the only reason I wasn’t falling asleep watching these characters is because of who they were played by.

King-Kong-Movie-Poster-1-

But again, we don’t need the characters to be Shakespearean good, it’s a monster movie, so why be overly critical? Well, just because a film’s purpose is to scare people with monsters, it doesn’t mean it’s a good movie even if it succeeds in its purpose. I’d like to compare this film to the 2005 Peter Jackson directed King Kong movie. In my opinion, Jackson made a better film, with a better story. You actually cared about Kong as the film did its best to establish a true connection between Kong and the female lead. However, to the film’s detriment, the third act isn’t as good as the rest of the movie and it often becomes too slow and sappy. The action is good, but the film tends to drag and is overly long. With Kong: Skull Island, the action is unrelenting. It seems like every few minutes there’s a new scary creature leaping out at its victims. The story is barebones but the pace is intense and focuses on the visual creativity and scope of the creatures rather than the struggles of the characters. Kong is an unstoppable, overpowered death machine and it’s awesome. Rather than get bogged down in the third act, we get treated to an awesome action scene between Kong and a giant dinosaur-lizard thing. With the Peter Jackson Kong movie, you have a thoughtful, more character driven film that wants to shed light on the gentle nature of the giant ape. With the new movie, you have a pretty straightforward monster movie with epic action scenes.

kong-skull-island-kong-destroys-helicopters-and-kills-skull-crawlers

So what does make a better film? Is it the visual elements, or the literary elements (story and screenwriting, etc.)? I think it varies from person to person. If you’re like me, and you can’t appreciate a film as much if it doesn’t have a strong narrative and well-written relatable characters, then you probably swing more towards literary elements defining films. If you’re more interested in the art and the crafting of a scene, the cinematography, the visual effects, the music, the production design (I love all these elements too, don’t get me wrong), but you might then define a film through that lens rather than overanalyzing the story and narrative. This would also apply to Kong: Skull Island, which I wouldn’t even consider a bad film. I would consider Kong an ok film from a story point-of-view and a very enjoyable one from a visual point of view. The purpose of many films is to entertain, and if that is the case, then Kong: Skull Island passes with flying colors. If you as an audience member are looking for something more in a monster movie, I would suggest looking elsewhere; but for all you monster movie lovers, Kong: Skull Island is another good addition to the pantheon of monster films, and I can’t wait for this version of Kong to fight Godzilla.

Star Wars: The Power of Nostalgia

I’m going to describe a movie to you, and I want you to guess which movie I’m talking about.

 

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, a small group of freedom fighters is desperately trying to run away from a tyrannical galactic regime. One of the insurgents is able to stow away vital information containing some kind of schematic inside a droid. The droid escapes and the insurgent is captured and tortured by a helmet-wearing dark overlord. The droid somehow ends up on a desert planet and encounters an opportunistic youth. The youth and the droid meet a self-interested rogue, an older mentor figure with knowledge of the force, and Chewbacca. Together, they all escape the desert planet on the Millennium Falcon and confront a giant planet-destroying superweapon/enemy base. There, the evil lord confronts the old mentor and kills him without much struggle, the giant base is blown up by X-wings, and the young protagonist is truly connected to the force for the first time.

Star-Wars-Force-Awakens-New-Hope-Similarities-Study

So was I describing the original Star Wars: A New Hope? Or Star Wars: The Force Awakens? Before you answer that, I want to give a little background:

Since the return of the Star Wars movies with the new trilogy, both The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi have made record-breaking debuts, each grossing over $200 million in their opening domestic weekends. They’ve also had much critical success with both films being over 90% on Rotten Tomatoes. With a sudden resurgence in Star Wars, a new generation of kids are growing up with the legends of Jedi and Sith, and old fans are once again embracing their fandom. Star Wars, is officially a success on all levels again after the divisive prequels. So how is it that Disney has managed to satisfy both hardcore old fans and new ones? The answer is…nostalgia. Nostalgia is an interesting little element of pop culture that has seeped its way into the film industry and is now a studio’s most powerful tool for making big bucks. The two highest grossing films in the past five years have been Jurassic World, and The Force Awakens, both sequels made long after their previous films. Jurassic World, harkening back to the 1993 Jurassic Park, features a bunch of dinosaurs running wild after failing to be contained in a theme park, the exact same premise as the original. The Force Awakens is about a rebel alliance which, with the help of a young Jedi, desperately fights against a powerful empire led by a mask-wearing Sith Lord, the same general premise as the original Star Wars trilogy. If you take into account other resurgent franchises in Hollywood such as Mad Max, Predator, Alien, Terminator, live-action Disney remakes of animated classics, you’ll see that audiences are craving their nostalgic franchises and studios are happy to oblige. So it is understandable why the Star Wars franchise is repeating itself.

Now I’m not saying that The Force Awakens is a carbon copy of the original Star Wars movie, nor am I saying that it is a bad film. I actually enjoy The Force Awakens, it’s an entertaining and well-directed flick. However, The Force Awakens is a narratively unoriginal film with some original aspects scattered through it. The shining trait of uniqueness is the characters of Rey, Poe, Fin, and especially Kylo Ren. These characters are diverse and dynamic. Even though Rey can be a bit uninteresting and Fin is often played too much as comic relief, they feel fresh and new to the Star Wars story. Kylo Ren is particularly compelling as a conflicted villain that is constantly getting things wrong, constantly one step behind the superior heroes.

But even after watching The Last Jedi, which I also liked, it still felt like the exact same story. No matter how much they change up the characters or even the plot itself, they are still limited within the confines of the basic outline for the original trilogy. You can even tie the elements of the new trilogy to their old trilogy counterparts. The Rebels are now the Resistance, the Empire is now the First Order, the Death Star is now Star Killer Base, Boba Fett is now Captain Phasma, the Battle of Hoth is now that weird sequence on the mining planet with the ATAT walkers in the Last Jedi. There is no going back on these similarities, the narrative is fundamentally familiar. Disney has decided to take the Star Wars franchise in a recognizable direction instead of taking it to bold new places. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing for fans looking to enjoy the same old Star Wars that they used to know, it’s also not bad for new fans who can get into the new trilogy without having to find faults in the similarities. However, as a fan of originality and creativity in film, it is a missed opportunity. What could have been a brand new story that explores different elements of George Lucas’s vast universe is now basically something you’ve seen before. The prequels, for all their faults, presented fans with a new timeline in the Star Wars universe. They brought the Clone Wars and the Jedi Order and exciting new worlds like Mustafar, Geonosis, Felucia, and Utapa. George Lucas’s prequel universe was unique and creative, breaching a realm of science fiction that hadn’t been seen before despite the fact that the movies, for the most part, had terrible dialogue and characters.

The new films are competently made and directed but aside from the appeal of the main characters, excellent visuals, eye-popping action, and a masterful film score by John Williams, it’s the same story. Because of this, Star Wars is now being cinematically defined to this narrative, the story of the outnumbered rebels holding on to hope and believing in the force (by the way it makes little sense to me that a defeated empire is somehow able to piece itself back together in 30 years, reassert its dominance, and become even more powerful than before, while at the same time the victorious rebels would be incompetent enough to be reduced to a handful of scattered forces). Many believe that this narrative is what Star Wars should be defined as. The comforting caress of nostalgia still gives them that same exciting Star Wars feeling when they watch the new movies, and that is perfectly fine. But for me, it is frustrating to see the same ideas repeated. It may be satisfying enough for everyone else, but I will always lament over what could have been if the franchise had decided to continue the story rather than restructure and rebrand the story.