THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is bad, but not bad enough to be interesting. It’s weird, but not weird enough to be memorable. A few neat visuals and tech demonstrations aside, it mostly amounts to 100 minutes of bad exposition, unanswered questions and ideas from about three different screenplays. Once again, as seems to be the Cloverfield model, the franchise this has become part of seems to have been reverse-engineered after the fact. You find yourself clamouring for more of the fun stuff where objects and people end up inside things they shouldn’t (doubtless why the experiment that drives the plot has to take place well away from civilisation) but instead we’re left slogging it with first-draft characters trying to recreate the experiment that plonked them into another dimension in the off chance it might reverse itself because…science? We really were spoiled by 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE weren’t we? SSP
Search a Film Thing
I'm not paid to write about film - I do it because I love it. Favourites include Sam Mendes, Guillermo del Toro, Bong Joon-ho, Steven Spielberg, Danny Boyle, Edgar Wright, Taika Waititi and the Coen Brothers. All reviews and articles are original works owned by me. They represent one man's opinion, and I'm more than happy to engage in civilised debate if you disagree.
I’m also on Twitter: Film in 133My Tweets
Fresh Thoughts on Film
Archived Thoughts on Film