When the first Cloverfield hit screens back in January of 2008, many praised the film for its style and approach to the creature feature. Undoubtedly it was a success, for its time being the most successful January release, making 40.1 million on its opening weekend. While the found footage approach may not hold up as well today, the film still told an old story in a new way. There was a focus on subverting expectations by showing rather than telling. While the main plot my seem skin-deep, it’s what plays out in the background the informs the viewer of the deeper story.
That’s what the Cloverfield franchise is about, or supposed to be about, subversion. Take the marketing for each film, with the a less-is-more mentality. Each ad, for each film in the franchise gave the audience just enough to get them interested, and wanting more. Just look at the newest release, The Cloverfield Paradox. The ad aired during the Super Bowl this time last year, and then the movie was immediately released on Netflix following the game. That came as more than a little shocking to fans and normal viewers alike.
Each movie’s premise stands on its own, and each movie doesn’t necessarily need to be connected. The title is really the biggest relation, ‘Cloverfield’ being a running title for interesting sci-fi movies, not necessarily hard connecting plotlines.The first Cloverfield was a far more, run-of-the-mill monster movie, while 10 Cloverfield Lane dealt with different monsters (look at the theatrical release poster), ideas of captivity, paranoia, and what the truth of the situation really is (I apologize for being vague but no one likes spoilers). The Cloverfield Paradox too attempted to do something new by explaining and tying all the films together, and it was interesting to say the least.
This is where the problem comes in however. While the first two movies were enjoyable, The Cloverfield Paradox isn’t. Cloverfield was a fun, semi-rompy, monster-thriller, something you could turn your brain off to (even then, there were hidden details to find if you were paying attention). 10 Cloverfield Lane was a far more methodical, albeit more enjoyable slowburn of a film. It left the viewer thinking, guessing, and had all of the edge-of-your-seat tension of the first, without the grand spectacle of explosions and city disasters. Where The Cloverfield Paradox fails is in its attempt to wrap everything together with a nice bow. The plot is convoluted at times, unnecessarily so. The film focuses on astronauts on a space station, so why am I supposed to care about minor characters screwing around on Earth? It’s one thing to have a convoluted plot when trying to explain how the Cloverfield movies work with one another. It’s another to take time out of the main story for the sake of characters that don’t get enough screen time to make the audience care (granted the scenes on Earth do give us some cool tie-ins and easter eggs to the first movie).
The question comes down to if you’re a big enough Cloverfield fan, or at the very least a big enough sci-fi fan. The first to movies, I would recommend. Cloverfield is a fun time, but only skin-deep unless you’re willing to delve into the lore and easter eggs presented. 10 Cloverfield Lane is by far the best in the franchise, telling a simpler story with memorable characters. Finally The Cloverfield Paradox while interesting in its attempt to tie things together, is lacking in its plot, because it tries to do too much. Two out of three isn’t terrible, but when it comes down to how much you’re getting for your money, maybe not. I’d personally recommend it to a friend, because with the added bonus features, there is a decent amount of content.
- 2 Great movies
- Additional lore, and easter eggs
- Bonus features
