The Cloverfield Paradox

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 Cloverfield Paradox tries to be a smart film, but fails on more than one front. You can never have too many alternate reality films, but in this case I found it bland and unpolished. I was expecting a larger dose of suspense and action from a film set on a spaceship that suddenly finds itself in trouble. On the other hand, the dramatic line didn't work either (Ava and her family). In many ways, the film is similar to Life and Aliens, but qualitatively it is quite different. As a result, you sense an obvious yet untapped potential. (04/04/2020)

"My arm helped us find the Earth!" This was written and filmed by people who love not only the original Cloverfield, but all of the space adventures of Alien, starting with a conversational episode of Star Trek. The Cloverfield Paradox is a strangely likeable film that barely stands on its own two feet and comes up with the most absurd paths to connect to its predecessor, yet it’s the process of connecting to a fictional world in motion that delivers a remarkably unpredictable and entertaining game with the viewer, starting from the opening minutes and ending with a perfectly bizarre last shot. Unfortunately, given the mood and physicality of the previous episodes, this is ultimately a maddeningly uneven project, naively weaving horror elements with over-the-top humour and blatantly ripping off just about any space sci-fi despite the original premise of the overarching plot. The fact that, after the psychologically and directorially tight second one, we get an ordinary B-movie with which less talented filmmakers try to pay tribute to everything and to reveal the mystery of the monster through unconvincing dimensional portals that is simply disappointing. I appreciate a few witty ideas and the effort to maintain a similarly limited narrative that lays down more than it solves, but here it has merely "bitten" more than one good film can chew. (05/02/2018)

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)