Chris Jordan reviews the new indie
time-travel thriller, Paradox,
starring Death Proof's
Zoë
Bell and Empire's
Malik Yoba
 |
| "I'm regenerating! ...oh wait, wrong time-travel story." |
Of all the sub-genres of science
fiction, the time-travel thriller offers some of the most fascinating
narrative possibilities, right up alongside the
extraterrestrial-contact story. The way that time-travel tales allow
narratives to fold in on themselves and causal logic to warp opens
the door to imagination-bending, twist-filled storytelling that can
ratchet the complexity of conventional thrillers up a few notches.
But by the same token, the sub-genre really puts filmmakers to the
test: the internal logic of a time-travel plot can be notoriously
tough to keep consistent, and sloppy time-logic will surely cause
your script to stumble and draw the ire of sci-fi fans (I'm looking
at you, Timecop). As such,
it's always very cool to see a smaller indie film step up to the
challenge of this sub-genre and try to do something unique and clever
with it, since it presents a not insignificant risk. Paradox
is the latest indie to try and tackle this most headache-inducing
branch of sci-fi, with a plot all about causal loops and the
difficulties of trying to change known outcomes. It explores this
premise in the context of a small-cast claustrophobic murder mystery,
making for a genre mash-up with quite a bit of potential. Its
potential isn't fully realized: the film has undeniable low-budget
flaws, and an uneven script that isn't as strong with its dialogue as
it is with its time-bending thrills. But at its best it is quite
effective, and it builds to a legitimately strong and suspenseful
third act. While far from perfect, its stronger qualities certainly
make it worth a look for fans of the genre who are willing to cut it
some slack for its flaws.
The
film follows, in almost real time, the staff of an underground
research facility, who are about to run the inaugural test of their
newly-completed time machine. They successfully send a member of
their own team one hour into the future... but the celebration of
their achievement is cut short when he returns with the alarming news
that an hour from now they've all been murdered by an unknown killer.
They have less than 60 minutes to test the ultimate time-travel
dilemma: can they solve the mystery of their own future killings and
find a way to escape the fate they know is coming, or does their
knowledge make it predetermined? A murder mystery depends on the
ability of its twists to thrill and surprise, and a time-travel
mystery doubly so, so no more should be revealed about the story, but
needless to say it has some tricks up its causally-looping sleeves.
The script is fascinated by the concept of future-knowledge and the
consequences of looking ahead, and it tackles these topics more in
the thrill-centric vein of The Terminator
or Looper than the
more intellectual vein of Primer.
But that said, it takes its story to some pleasantly high-concept
places, and it keeps solid track of its internal logic to make sure
all the pieces fit once the wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff has
settled. When it starts really getting into the meat of the
time-travel-paradox plot is when it finds its footing and discovers
what it's really good at. It creates and sustains a pretty strong momentum in the second half, keeps us in suspense, and pulls a couple pretty unexpected changes of course.
 |
| "Ok, if I explain it one more time will you stop asking me what Primer was all about?" |
Unfortunately,
the first half of the movie which sets up the twistier parts of the
plot is dragged down by what it's not that good at:
specifically, dialogue and character development. This movie has some
pretty cheesy and pretty clunky dialogue which rears its head now and
again to pull the viewer out of the story. Some expository scenes
(like when one of the scientists explains the concept of a
time-travel paradox) feel rather awkward and too on-the-nose, and
some moments of character development end up making the cast look too
exaggerated, or underwritten beyond one or two obvious personality
traits each. Also, the script on at least three occasions commits the
fourth-wall-breaking act of directly quoting an
instantly-recognizable line from a popular movie (“Game over, man!
Game over!”), which is a big pet-peeve of mine as it totally pulls
me out of the film at hand. The story remains interesting enough to
keep the viewer reasonably involved throughout, though, so it's not a
deal-breaker if you're feeling forgiving; this is a case of a solid
plot let down by script that needed a few more drafts. Fortunately,
it more or less overcomes this limitation as the second act builds
steam, when it can shift focus away from dialogue-heavy scenes and
onto the thriller elements that it's good at. If you can stay
on-board until this shift starts to happen, it's a lot of fun from
there on out.
The
acting is mostly passable to good-but-not-great; most of the cast
members do a decent job with the material they're given, but most of
them also get stuck with lines that would be very hard to deliver
convincingly. The standouts are the two top-billed stars:
actress/stuntwoman Zoë
Bell (Death
Proof and
every Tarantino movie since) and Malik Yoba (Empire,
Alphas).
Bell is clearly a talented actress, and brings more depth to her
character than the script really gives her. She too struggles to
overcome a handful of poorly-written lines, but her performance is
good enough to show that she clearly deserves better material with
which to really show her range. While the claustrophobic setting
doesn't allow for too much action, she also gets at least a couple
chances to show her strong physical presence as a stuntwoman. Malik
Yoba fares the best as far as good dialogue is concerned – probably
because his mysterious character, the head of the project, is a man
of few words for most of the first act. He gives a very good
performance, full of genuine mystery and multiple layers, and he has
a commanding gravitas which anchors all his scenes. While the movie
made me realize how much Zoë
Bell needs better roles, Malik Yoba is the one who ultimately carries
the troubled first part of the script, and gives weight to the
stronger second half.
 |
| "I can't believe they cast Joseph Gordon- Levitt as my younger self too... This Hollywood whitewashing is out of control." |
Paradox
is written and directed by Michael Hurst, who has been around for
over a decade, making indie and low-budget thrillers and horror
films. His debut feature, 2000's New
Blood,
boasts the impressive cast of John Hurt, Carrie-Anne Moss, Shawn
Wayans, and Joe Pantoliano, but since then his more recent films have
included made-for-TV/DVD sequels to established horror franchises,
like House
of the Dead 2 and
Pumpkinhead
4 (which,
to be fair, are reviewed as significant improvements on both House
of the Dead
and on Pumpkinhead
2
and 3,
for whatever that's worth). Given that context, one can't help but
see Paradox
as the signal of a return to form; trying to move away from B-movie
horror sequels and back towards more intelligent and prestigious
thrillers. In that goal I would say he is at least mostly successful.
He still needs to polish his skills as a writer of character
development and dialogue, but when it comes to crafting stories he
clearly has some smart ideas, and as a director of suspense-thrillers
he certainly knows what he's doing. The strengths of the latter half
of the film show that if he keeps on this current trajectory and
keeps honing his skills, he can make a really good movie; it would
just be wise for him to work with a co-writer to improve his
dialogue.
Yes, Paradox has problems which betray its low budget and B-movie roots, but its strengths are compelling enough, and its high-concept goals are ambitious enough, that it's hard not to be a bit forgiving of the flaws. Once it finds its groove it pretty effectively sweeps the viewer along on a suspenseful ride through its twists and turns, and I wound up having a much better time than the first act led me to expect. Go into it with guarded expectations and the patience to forgive its cheesier qualities, and there's plenty for fans of time-travel thrillers to enjoy.
Yes, Paradox has problems which betray its low budget and B-movie roots, but its strengths are compelling enough, and its high-concept goals are ambitious enough, that it's hard not to be a bit forgiving of the flaws. Once it finds its groove it pretty effectively sweeps the viewer along on a suspenseful ride through its twists and turns, and I wound up having a much better time than the first act led me to expect. Go into it with guarded expectations and the patience to forgive its cheesier qualities, and there's plenty for fans of time-travel thrillers to enjoy.
Score:
-
Christopher S. Jordan