The Cloverfield Paradox

The longer I think about it, the more The Cloverfield Paradox resembles an idea that simply didn't work out. An attempt that originally wanted to be part of an ambitious series but somewhere halfway through falls short of that intention. The resulting connection is almost an insult to the viewer because this time there are no surprising twists, turning clichés upside down, or even deepening familiar genre boundaries. The earthly storyline jumps from nothing to nothing, and the main attraction, the space part, doesn't come close to any of its thematic counterparts (Sunshine, Prometheus, Life) and is most notable for Chris O'Dowd once again playing Chris O'Dowd, which is as striking as it is liberating. Cloverfield was supposed to be an original series that turned expectations upside down. I don't understand why, a decade later, after the first film crushed me months in advance, its development is desperately clueless. (06/02/2018)

It was passable. Although it has almost nothing in common with the previous episodes and is clearly the weakest, it's still watchable. Story-wise, it's a rip-off of all the better known sci-fi properties, but the kills are pretty good. Visually it's OK, and the crew is also passable, there's always something going on, so there's no boredom either, so an average three stars without a problem. 55% (27/02/2018)

The Americans decided to turn the original found footage Cloverfield movie into their cash cow, so they keep shooting one flick from this universe after another. In film in particular, you have to ask yourself what the Monster has to do with a space ship flying somewhere through space. There’s really no logic in this connection. But it’s still a b-movie with the most stellar cast in the last thirty years or so. So technically it looks fine, the cast is good, but you still cannot shake the feeling that you’re watching a terrible bullshit that makes no sense. This movie is a prime example of the thin line separating good sci-fi movies with a message from pieces of horrible crap. (28/04/2020)

It’s good, but far from excellent. I was actually expecting a lot worse, which may have lowered the bar. Imperfect for sure, and the logic is also quite flawed... (where did O'Dowd's hand get the information about the gyroscope, for example, well?), but it is nice to look at. It’s visually stunning and the cast led by Brühl and Elizabeth Debicki is fine too. Actually, only Gugu is pretty bland and he’s the lead! The talked-about connection with Cloverfield was very strong, but fortunately not so much that it was distracting. The plot had a much higher potential, but it turned out to be like a Stargate Atlantis episode of Daedalus squared, with better effects and a few extra scares. Onah should work on the themes and leave the direction to someone who can do it better. (19/02/2023)

The world revolving around the Cloverfield monster fascinates me. The first film brought a fresh and intense action experience, while the second delivered a gripping thriller with an atmosphere that was almost palpable. The third installment appeared out of nowhere, and I wasn’t expecting it, which made it even more surprising. But honestly, I was expecting a much more intense film. The space setting was quite good, but the script sometimes felt almost absurd. The cast might not be full of big names (except for Daniel Brühl), but don’t be fooled. Although I didn’t expect to form any attachment to the characters, I did. The story takes place in 2028 and mainly revolves around jumping from one dimension to another and the subsequent effects. It had a more than decent pace (though it fell into the classic slasher mode in the second half), the ship’s environment felt quite claustrophobic, and the visual effects could be considered above average. However, one might wonder why this belongs in the same category as the previous two Cloverfield films. If there weren’t any hints (and I’m not just talking about the ending, which I’m still unsure about), you might not categorize it that way. I’d mark that as the film’s biggest drawback, along with the plot holes. Otherwise, the film was entertaining; the idea with the hand wasn’t bad (though the hand skittering across the floor seemed ridiculous). Objectively, it deserves a solid three stars, but due to the somewhat inexplicable low rating here, I’m giving it a weaker four. 70%. (13/02/2018)