Spoilers The Cloverfield Paradox

Ok, how about 51% on RT?

 

So you agree with these ratings or disagree?

 

They tell me whether or not I am supposed to like something. For example, if I like some movie with a very low rating on both RT and IMDB, I wouldn't go spouting about how great the movie is on the internet. That would be trolling.

 

War Machine has a 56 rating on Metacritic, signifying "mixed or average reviews," which is hardly a "complete creative flop," so crookeddy either doesn't know what the words he's using means, or he's too sloppy to care.

 

I enjoyed it, but it wasn't anything special, especially on a science-fiction level. Some of the dialogue was been meh, but most of the cast rose above it. The story was straight forward and the science was iffy (but at least no one said "God Particle").

More importantly, I actually liked the characters (even if Hamilton, the so-called lead, was largely in the background for most of the film), which is something I *cannot* say about the original Cloverfield, and for that reason alone, I like Paradox a lot more than the original.

That said, 10 Cloverfield Lane is still easily the best of the three.

While I don't mostly disagree with Ignatiy's review, he really needs to get his facts straight: Abrams only produced and only had direct involvement with the film during reshoots.

 

Abrams gets treated as the starting quarterback by people who don't know his level of involvement, even if he's sitting on the bench in street clothes. A lot of TV shows with his name on it, he's only helping friends get their shows made and has no actual creative involvement, yet he'll still get blamed for anything that goes wrong.

 

You see the monster several times.

(click to enlarge)

 

Why, it's almost as if putting your name on something implies some kind of ownership, or even collaboration.

 

I mean consistently. I know a big complaint I've seen by a lot of people about the original is the monster doesn't get enough screen time. I guess I should have been clearer (since I know you see a bit of it, just not enough).

Not that it matters. I was just saying you don't need to see the film, and I never bothered because of the combination of lack of monster stuff, no answers about the monster, and the POV style. So, I just wanted people to know that its totally possible to watch the new movie even if you didn't see the first one.

 

Weird, the most common complaint I've seen about the original is that you see too much of the monster

 

Yeah, I am right here. No need to talk about me to others.

 

I thought it was ok, with some dark humour at points and a good cast. Was it me, or were there a lot of Kelvin references in this?

A reasonable way to spend Monday evening after this week’s episode of DSC, but not one I’d rewatch.

Agree 10 CL was the best.

 

I really enjoyed this. A pleasant surprise from Mr Mystery Box.

 

That was a lot of fun, in some ways it reminded me of Life which I wasn't a fan of but thought had potential, and SPOILER: the last two episodes of Star Trek Disccovery. Thumbs up, don't know about the monster at the end...

 

The whole point of the Cloverfield franchise is that they are all different takes on a common genre, no? So why would you want to see the monster all the time? It absolutely intentionally isn't a traditional monster movie.

 

So from eagerly anticipated, to released to yesterday's news in three days.

Is this a glimpse into the future for everything that's not a superhero or Star Wars movie?

 

It's a direct to dvd quality movie that got a Cloverfield sticker slapped on it, duped Netflix, and received a huge paycheck. It got the right amount of attention for what it is.

 

They should make a Rom-Com, throw the monster on a newscast in the background, and call it First Date in Cloverfield.