The Cloverfield Paradox

Spoilers!

First, let's get this out of the way: The Cloverfield Paradox is no 10 Cloverfield Lane. They're not even the in same league of films, but they still invite comparison because they are a part of a spiritual franchise of genre scifi films loosely connected by Easter eggs.

Calm down kids, it's not that bad.

But The Cloverfield Paradox is a Netflix film. It was surprised on us after the Super Bowl yesterday, when the last we heard of it, its February release date was getting pushed back. I guess the existence of a release date at all was a deception in order to juke us. Classic J.J. Abrams.

So it's a February release after all, but not a theater one. And that's a good thing; if I'd spent $10 and a few months anticipating this thing, it might've been a letdown. Instead it was a surprise freebee; a gift that I got to go into totally blind, with a short, energizing spurt of hype, that, I'll admit, helped me enjoy the movie more. In my case, the unorthodox marketing strategy worked. But from here on, I'll try to forget all that, and review this movie as a movie.

Written by Oren Uziel and Doug Jung, and directed by Julius Onah.

Earth is dying, and a team of scientists go into space to try and save it. A classic space-survival horror thriller ensues. Gugu Mbatha-Raw is Hamilton, the leading lady, a woman who is encouraged by her husband to go and save the world, though she doesn't want to leave him as their marriage has hit a rough patch. She is clearly the main character, as none of the other characters get much more than basic background. They are Daniel Brühl, Aksel Hennie, Ziyi Zhang, Chris O'Dowd, David Oyelowo, John Ortiz, and Elizabeth Debicki. The Cloverfield formula is used for Hamilton, as her past is darker than is first apparent, and she must deal with it in order to survive and save the day.

Everyone else was made to die. This is a horror film after all. All they needed to be was memorable enough to give us effective deaths and that they did. Except for Brühl who wound up surviving along with Hamilton. From the second I understood what formula the movie was going to use, I knew I wanted those two to survive, so was I invested enough to be happy about it, but he could have used a bit more development considering the outcome. Roger Davies played Hamilton's husband on Earth, who gets his own plot line, but it was useless and could've easily been excluded.

Good job you're not dead!

The movie's greatest commodity was the freaky weirdness surrounding all the one-by-one elimination of the crew. The film doesn't carry a whole lot of weight, but inside those moments, it was thrilling. Maybe I'm a horror/thriller lightweight, but I found those elements to be sublimely freaky, and thoroughly enjoyed them. The subtle build up to Volkov's was great; when he rubs his eye in the scene before and you think nothing of it. And the arm thing turned out being so strange and weirdly humorous. And when they find Jensen in the wall is seriously disturbing. All the moments had the usual suspense buildup, but unusually, the suspense build was of eager anticipation rather than one of dread.

Once the deaths stop being so weird the movie loses a bit of energy. We are asked instead to recommence caring about Hamilton as she's further developed and pushed to the edge. Her arc is well-done, and I appreciated how she had to face her demons in order to win. It was classic. It wasn't super subtle, but neither was the rest of the movie. Say "clichéd" if you like; I love this kind of genre film, and the tropes don't feel tired to me yet. Hamilton's arc is concise and complete and ties into the story -- but it didn't move me probably as much as it was meant to.

Also plot points and twist were all obvious. I didn't care, but it's still true.

Same goes for the plot overall. It doesn't get distracted, but plows through everything like a kind of evenly destructive breeze. Some things "don't make sense" but everything is explained. And all those scifi elements feel exactly how scifi elements should; inspiring awe and terror alike, and stimulating the creative side of the mind to ask questions, and think beyond the realm of reality. Still, I was moved more in a shallow moment-by-moment kind of way rather than an overarching one. That may dampen rewatchability in the future, but in the moment it was all as effective as it needed to be.

This is one of those movies where I loved the direction they took, and only wished for more. If they had just let loose, not held back, and gone deeper and darker and stranger -- as far as I can tell it could have only gotten better. I don't mind the clichés, and wish they'd have committed to them even more. The production is excellent -- judged as it should be, as a Netflix film and not a theatrical release -- with a thoughtful and cool design of the ship and special effects that get the job done without a single misstep. There are some excellent visual moments, but with a lack of exceptional cinematography, it makes sense why this was never meant to be a big-screen experience.

I think it was what it was meant to be. And if it wasn't, and the Netflix release was because they knew it wouldn't be received well, then that was a wise move.

But that's just it -- it wasn't ever meant to be a big-screen experience. And as far as exclusively small-screen experiences go, this one stands out. It's only exceptional in small moments, but I'm a fan of the space-survival scifi-horror genre, and that is what this movie was through and through. I don't care if it's a Cloverfield movie and there are "expectations" to go with that. I don't care about the mythos, the fan-theories, the erroneous idea that every installment needs to be comparable to or compatible with the last one: Isn't this franchise about breaking expectation? The first one was a found footage film, for crying out loud. Then the second was a suspense thriller with such immaculate character-crafting that the only criticism people could think of was that it shouldn't have been a Cloverfield film at all.

Now they're saying the same thing about this one, just because it was released in a smaller medium, and embraced genre clichés. It's still a totally cohesive film; put together to make sense in its senselessness, to have arcs and themes -- and to feel like a Cloverfield film, which it undeniably does. So no, it's no 10 Cloverfield Lane; but it's only in comparison with that film (which apart from the titles couldn't be more different films) that it can be imagined to be significantly lacking.

It's getting a surprising amount of hate. I say it's undue and unjustified, but have I mentioned I'm a fan of the genre?

The Cloverfield Paradox not a perfect film, but its main flaw is that it didn't reach the heights of which it seemed to be capable. How much of that potential is mere projection? Does this movie really need to be any better than it is? Here are four things I know for sure: One: It's a crazy, out-there scifi plot that drives without finesse to its conclusion with thrills, freak-out moments, and thoughtful character drama. Two: It's got a talented cast who put in effort, and elevate a classically clichéd script. Three: It's a got visual style at least five times greater than what is acceptable for TV movies. And four: I really, freaking enjoyed it.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Spoiler-free.

Well James Gunn, you've done it again. It's been three years for us, but for the Guardians it's only been about a month. They're using their status as "Galaxy Savers" to get odd jobs of general protecting/guarding around the universe, and when Rocket (Bradley Cooper) takes advantage of their proximity to valuable objects, they get in trouble with an uber-race of pretentious gold people (led by Elizabeth Debicki). A mysterious man appears to help them out of this situation, and then reveals himself, telling Peter Quill, AKA Star-Lord (AKA the one and only Chris Pratt) that he is his father, Ego (Kurt Russell).

But -- did he look like Kurt Russell to Peter? Or does Kurt Russell not exist in this universe? Or does Kurt Russell not look like Kurt Russell? Asking the deep questions here.

This is of course huge news for Peter, and becomes the center for the movie's plot and heart. That the movie has this center is important to the film's quality as from it is born every exceptional aspect the film provides. Ego himself is the best character here, in that his character arc is the most natural, yet also the most intricate, and is most closely tied to the center of the film. Kurt Russell does his part brilliantly and with the ease of a practiced veteran, sometimes making less confident performances from his cast-mates more noticeable by comparison; sometimes elevating performances along with his own. Chris Pratt gets both sides of this.

I love Pratt, and I love Star-Lord, and I love the premise of the journey he goes on with this adventure, but none of it played out as well as it should have. He has that suggestive flirting scene because that's the Peter we knew, but it doesn't make sense anymore once we're told that he's going after one girl now -- Gamora (Zoe Saldana) -- now it's out of character for him to flirt with other women like that. His father provides a ton of fodder for character drama, with multiple stages of their relationship for varying emotions to expound on. Only one stage had time spent on it; the rest were breezed over in one swoop. To utilize them would have meant a re-haul of the film's events and pacing, but it would have been to the benefit of Peter's character. As the film is, Peter at best only gets equal benefit as every other character.

It all needs to come down to this guy. Or else, what is the point?

Every returning character is developed equally and in distinct pairs. Gamora and Nebula (Karen Gillan) dig deeper into their relationship of sisterly hate. Drax (Dave Bautista) is paired with newcomer Mantis (Pom Klementieff) for some wonderfully effective scenes of meaningful comedy. Mantis benefits greatly from being new; her unique character is established, and calls for nothing more. And Rocket and Yondu (Michael Rooker) bounce off each other to push along their edgy characters. Baby Groot (Vin Diesel) is never too far from Rocket, but is developed by himself, and also Kraglin (Sean Gunn) who gets bumped up the character ladder. By themselves, these pockets of characters are perfectly sufficiently compelling; when put into the film and viewed as a whole, they feel like more of a distraction. The thread used to tie them all to the film's center is too thin and too long, so though everything is technically connected, they might as well have not been, for the significance they add to the heart of the core.

I understand the idea. Fans love all these characters, as I'm sure James Gunn does, and the desire to focus on all of them was just too great. Sadly, that decision, made with the best of intentions, was the film's downfall (such as it is), because with the focus so widely spread, no one gets the attention they deserve. The original Guardians focused solely on Peter, and through him the others were also developed. That was impossible to do this time with the plot as it was, so perhaps it was as good as it could have possibly been -- it still pales in comparison with the groundbreaking first.

It's a conundrum with no easy fix.

So while the film had a heart in place as a source for grounding the emotional journeys and creating a common theme, the film's focus was too widespread to properly utilize it -- thus the film felt disconnected. The problem traces back to not showing the story through the sole eyes of Peter -- that is the root of any problems this films has. That being said, I enjoyed this movie like nobody's business. After it was over I had to come to terms with its domino-effected shortcoming, but in the moment I was all in, %100, let go, tickled to the core. The visuals (perhaps over-the-top at times) thrilled me; the jokes and gags landed (though they were generally of a slightly lesser quality there were more of them); the twists and plot developments involved me (they were, in fact, unexpectedly well done, and grounded in the film's darker core) and the music compelled me to be open to every bit of character-love I could glean. That was all I asked for and more; I was satisfied.

Who knows if a second viewing will be so carefree and eagerly open, (it's one thing to ignore and push aside issues; it's another to deny their existence) but no matter what I'm glad for the one I had. If nothing else I want to give a hearty "thank you" to James Gunn for the scene where Peter is asking the other Guardians for tape. That is half of the embodiment of why I love The Guardians of the Galaxy in the first place. The other half is the unexpectedly deep heart hidden under that kind of fun and humor -- here, it wasn't embodied in one thing, but wasn't completely absent either, you only have to scrounge around for it.

"I can still hear you sayin', you would never break the chain..."

Too much of a carbon copy of the original where it didn't matter, not enough of a spiritual copy where it did, Vol. 2 is a traditional Marvel sequel; more of the same on steroids. It both creates problems and brings back the sources of our original adoration. Its success is drawn out of that of the original's, and with the doozy of an original this one had going for it, it's no surprise it features such a cosmically high concentration of fun -- if only all that fun substance could have been applied to a more concise and well constructed framework, to better enhance the fun and the thrill the characters and the heart alike. Two-time Galaxy-savers? Absolutely -- but repeating the past can only get you so far.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

This review is Spoiler-free.

Based on the classic 60's TV show of the same name, this Guy Ritchie-writ and directed spy caper focuses on the adventures of an American spy (Henry Cavill) and an Russian one (Armie Hammer) when they are partnered together to protect a German girl (Alicia Vikander) and catch some evil bad guys who have a nuclear bomb.

I still don't know what U.N.C.L.E. stands for. Probably only because I wasn't paying attention.

Plot really isn't the important part of this movie. It gives way to the movies sense of style, and before you know it 60's glam is permanently in the driver's seat. And credit to where credit is due; it's all quite effectively glamorous. Costumes and cars and cheeky characters lounge around and give off the impression that this is less of a movie and more like a fashion magazine. And eventually the glam turns to glare. I write this a few weeks after seeing the film, and what has stuck with me most is the lack of impression I had concerning almost anything except how the movie looked.

I didn't expect too much from the characters, and got about what I expected to, but the results were turned around a little. I thought Henry Cavill's character would be the most interesting since he was the "main character," but Armie Hammer's character wound up being just as "main" and even more likable and interesting by far -- in spite of the distracting Russian accent. His Illya turned out to be quite a sweetheart with endearing complexities while Cavill's Solo was charming on the surface, but too cool to touch underneath. Vikander's Gaby fell victim to the confusion of an overly-sharp plot twist, and never regained footing back in her character for me after that. Elizabeth Debicki was endlessly stoic and elegant, and the most convincingly retro, but her villainous character never strove for anything beyond the surface, in a classic case of style over substance.

Yes, a nap sounds like a nice idea...

The plot never engaged me enough for me to bother to really try and follow it, and by the time I realized that waiting for the action scenes was going to leave me unsatisfied in the end (because action scenes were rather few and far between) it was too late. It was certainly my fault, and thinking back the dramatic scenes were not at all bad, it's just that I was only really engaged in them when they were specifically developing character. And then only really in Illya's case. There were more action scenes at the film's beginning (which in my defense did give me a wrong first impression) and there were only three or four really memorable scenes -- two being a car chase sequence. After the latter car chase, the film puttered off to an end climax based on non-action things -- spy stuff and plot things that I didn't want to pay attention to, and the last "gotcha" moment was just dramatics which, I found, was pretty unfulfilling.

A little romance never hurts, fortunately.

I was hoping this would be a fun and funny caper where I could turn my mind off and enjoy a film that was made to be enjoyed, with no effort required. Unfortunately, the movie didn't have the cotton candy/popcorn flavor that would have found success with me. I knew it wouldn't be a ground breaking feat of the cinema, but it turned out to not be the kind of goofy cheesy spy-flick that turns my head either. Its main goal seemed to be setting up for a sequel that will probably never happen now because they forgot to make the one it had memorable. I simultaneously found it too serious, yet not serious enough; charming, but not drawing, often humorous, but not funny, and dramatic, but not witty. Characters and action stood out, but didn't get enough attention devoted to them to be truly rewarding. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. fades away into a brightly colored, jumbled, and hazy ball of not-quite-good-enough.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - August

July turned out fantastically! I saw my two must-watches, and they were both even better than I expected. Ant-Man was hilarious and a wonderfully fun time (read my review here), and Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation was one incredible, gleeful action sequence after another. (Stay tuned for a very positive review of it.) I didn't get to see Paper Towns quite yet though -- I'll be seeing it later today, actually.

August doesn't have a large number of film of interest to me, but of the films that are interesting, they're very interesting. There may end up being two must-sees for me this month too! Which end-of-summer flicks are you excited for? Any I don't mention? Let me know about them in the comments!

Fantastic Four
Aug 7th; PG-13
This one will only reach must-see status if the reviews come out right. As in, better than the 2005 F4. To make it interesting let's include the Silver Surfer sequel to the too -- it was a little better, but both were bad enough to be easily topped by this reboot, which is looking pretty neat by the trailers. And by "pretty neat" I mean really, very, super neat. The cast of Miles Teller, Michael B. Jordan, Kate Mara, and Jamie Bell is fantastically promising, and the cool concept, science-y elements are very intriguing. I have every confidence that this team will finally live up to their name.




The Gift
Aug 7th; R
Written by, directed by, and starring one of my favorites, Joel Edgerton, along with Jason Bateman and Rebecca Hall, this psychological thriller I've seen floating around, but it only just now actually caught my attention. An oh my goodness -- it looks good. I mean, it looks terrifying, but really good. I don't think I would survive a theater showing, but I'll be waiting for the DVD/rental with... suspenseful anticipation.




The Man From U.N.C.L.E.
Aug 14; PG-13
It may flip-flop around (or it may not) but right now, I'm actually more excited for this movie than I am for the previously mentioned last superhero movie of the summer. Just because of the trailer. It just looks like an absolute blast. The kind of brilliant fun that makes you laugh at all the awesomeness and then say things like, "I can't even" just because you can't find any words to actually describe all the things you're feeling. Even if it doesn't quite meet those expectations, I can't see it being any less than a movie worth seeing. Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer star with Hugh Grant, Jared Harris, Alicia Vikander and The Great Gatsby's Elizabeth Debiki co-starring.




American Ultra
Aug 21st; R
This one will probably be too much with too little interest for me to actually ever see until it's television days, but it is a good action-comedy idea, and the trailer certainly is amusing. Jesse Eisenberg is a loser stoner who is really a sleeper spy, and is suddenly activated to stylishly violent, and comedic results. Kristen Stewart is his girlfriend.

The Great Gatsby (2013)

Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby starts out exactly as F. Scott Fitzgerld's stupendous, classic book -- "In my younger and more vulnerable years..." Nick Carraway, who is now apparently depressed and alcoholic stares dramatically out the snowy window, and relays his story to his doctor. The story of how he moved to West Egg, just outside NYC, into a tiny cottage squeezed between two huge mansions, one of which was always alive with wild parties and belonged to a man called Gatsby, and what happened there that summer of 1922.

Spoilers ahead, sweetie. If you haven't read the book, you shouldn't be watching this movie. Or reading this review!

The movie, also like the book is (almost) always in Nick's perspective. His doctor encourages him to write everything down, and he narrates as he does throughout the whole film. Often, ruining a moment he should be only witnessing by jumping in and whacking us over the head with the subtlety that we would apparently never understand without his helpful insight. If you beat someone to death with subtlety, is it still subtle? Tobey Maguire plays Nick, and reminded me very little of his Peter Parker, and when he wasn't smashing his "insights" over our heads, or (over) dramatically quoting the book word for word, I liked him. Still, he was too involved in the story, not a simple observer who reserves judgment. Somehow he was inserted too much into the story, but simultaneously removed, as his entire relationship with Jordan was completely cut.

Nick trying to work. He didn't spend ALL summer observing other people's drama.

Gatsby is the main guy here, obviously. Rich, mysterious, personable Jay Gatsby. Hopeful to a fault. And Leonardo DiCaprio is just as good as he should be in the role. Let me just go ahead and point out that everything in this movie is overdone, most obviously the acting, and if I can, I blame the director, not the actors. That being said, there are some very good things about DiCaprio's Gatsby, and some not-so-good things. The way he said his catchphrase, "old sport" for instance, feels unnatural. It's either because that's how the director wanted it, to emphasize that Gatsby wasn't naturally that way, or, DiCaprio just couldn't pull it off. You guessed it; I've decided to lean towards the former. In general, DiCaprio's performance is very good; he does especially well with Gatsby's mysteriousness, and the desperate way he pursues his dream. His Gatsby is also obviously a man who has worked hard to make himself appear to be someone he naturally isn't.

The mysterious Gatsby.

Now Daisy Buchanan, that beautiful, conflicted girl whose voice is probably the most perfectly described in history. I knew from the moment I saw who was playing her that if anyone could do her justice, it was her; Carey Mulligan. Not only does she fit the part physically, but her voice seems to naturally be exactly what Fitzgerald heard as he wrote those lines about murmuring, music and money. One thing I didn't consider though was the character, and after the movie was over, I realized that Mulligan's Daisy was too likable. I shouldn't be surprised, it's very hard to make Carey Mulligan dislikable, and I doubt that Luhrmann wanted to make her so -- who'd want to watch a romance between two dislikable people? At times she sounded like she was trying too hard to get the voice right, and she didn't murmur enough for me, but otherwise she was exquisite, and I still maintain that she is the perfect choice for Daisy. Luhrmann just didn't know how to use her correctly.

Beautiful Daisy.

Her husband Tom Buchanan is the main character I have the least complaints about. He is undeniably a dislikable character, and played wonderfully well by Joel Edgerton. He lends a kind of tenderness to the character that I saw in the book, and was very pleased when it not only showed in the movie, but wasn't overdone -- I credit it solely to the actor. And of course his violent, racist, and other dislikable traits were there, and done very well. The only thing concerning his character that I missed was when Nick runs into him on the street at the end and shakes his hand. I thought it was an important scene that helps give the story its conclusion, and completes the character arc of both Tom and Daisy. But hey, what do I know, right?

Tom. "One of those men who reach such an acute limited excellence at twenty-one that everything afterward savors of anti-climax."

At first I thought Tom's mistress Myrtle Wilson was strangely cast as the young, cute, sweetly voiced Isla Fisher, but she impressed when she got the chance, which was basically just her introductory scene, but still. She may not have been like I imagined her, but she got the job done admirably. Same goes for her husband George Wilson played by Jason Clarke, except his appearance was considerably more like I imagined him. I would have been happy to see both of the characters get more development, and I think it would have been good for the movie.

Myrtle makes her grand entrance as her men have a chat.

Newcomer Elizabeth Debicki plays Jordan Baker the elegant golf star and fellow observer with Nick. I thought she was a good choice for the role and really enjoyed her part, but her character seems to be the one that ended up mostly on the cutting room floor. She's really only used when needed to develop the story, or is there when she's supposed to be because the novel dictated it. And as I mentioned her and Nick's relationship was almost totally missing; it only progressed as far as it needed to, to develop Gatsby's plot, then was left hanging there uselessly, disappointingly.

Lovely. If only she could have played her part to it's potential.

Now I'm probably going to shock you, and say that I thought that Jay-Z's rap score was a very bold and surprisingly fitting move. I liked the way the cool, upbeat modern music blended with the cool, upbeat music of the twenties, it was very sharp. And speaking of sharp, the costumes! I love twenties costumes, and these, mixed with high fashion, "vintage" tends of today were particularly suave, bold and zesty. I fell in love with Jordan's lavender hat, and Gastby's wardrobe was spot-on and immaculate. Neither the score nor the costumes were truly authentic, but they fit in the style of the picture, making it more relevant to modern times, and really helped amplify the spectacle.

And what a spectacle it was. Nick never describes Gatsby's parties in the movie, (though he describes plenty of other obvious things) for one very good reason; he really doesn't need to. The parties are alive with bright colors, music, noise and people, nearly overwhelming the senses... and I didn't even see it in 3D. The problem occurs when the party is over, and a particular sequence is supposed to be mellower, but attempts to make it more upbeat and dazzling only annoy. The party in Tom and Myrtle's apartment got that treatment and was made way wilder than the book's description implied. During that scene I sat wondering what in the world was going on, hoping the rest of the movie wasn't going to be changed like it, and missing Fitzgerald's description of no one being able find each other in the thick cigarette smoke.

People party at Gatsby's place!

During other sequences, the "glitz-y treatment" results in some weird, distracting computer effects, like flash-backs appearing in the clouds, or Nick speaking lines as they appear in the falling snowflakes. It really snaps you out of the experience. So while they're putting text on the screen, they might as well have put some in flashing red that proclaims "THIS PART IS STRAIGHT FROM THE BOOK" because someone was obviously very proud of the fact, (whenever it was a fact) and it's already being screamed out as loudly as subtext can be -- just go the extra step, and it'll even be ironic!

This Gatsby is soaring in glamorous fashion and overflowing with unique style, but the only way it's like the book is that it's literally (word for word) like the book! Practically everything happens, yet almost nothing is right. Where are the intricacies and subtleties, the real life, the laid back humor, and the wonder? Gatsby and Daisy's over-the-top romance take precedence over everything that really resonates and makes you think when it's all over. Just before Gatsby dies, and falls slow-mo into his pool, he whispers, "Daisy" and words appear on the screen one last time -- "You can start crying now." (Okay, not that last part) Gatsby was obsessed with Daisy, but if we know better, we then begin to miss everything that was brushed aside for some pointless tragic romance. And in that last glimpse of his handsome face floating under digital water, there is no realism; no grim epiphany that Gatsby wasted his life chasing that dream that was already behind him, and died carelessly, alone and friendless; nothing more than a briefly dazzling carnival attraction. That's what this movie is too -- a two-hour showcase of digital beauty, fireworks and parties, and romance. A dazzling, hollow shell.

It's hard to live up to such standards as Fiztgerald set, and this movie does get it half exceptionally right, with its near-flawless cast, and breath-taking sets. I also give them the credit of at least attempting to capture the complexities of the novel, but I've come to the conclusion that The Great Gatsby is just an un-filmable book. What would the book be anyway, without "Carraway's" thoughts and observations, and our unlimited access to his mind? But including them in the movies is next to impossible. Nothing has worked yet, but so far Luhrmann has put in the best attempt. When it wasn't bothering me, I enjoyed it, and if the title wasn't The Great Gatsby, I would dismiss it satisfied, as an incredibly dazzling, slightly depressing film.

Number 7!