When Cloverfield came out, my wife and I watched it. It was ok, but wife REALLY didn't like the herky jerky camera work. Part 2 was a little better. I only saw maybe 15 minutes of it, she watched the whole thing and thought it was ok. We both took in The Cloverfield Paradox last night. It was....... ok. Nothing glaringly bad about it, some nice twists. Me getting to explain the paradoxes and non-spoilery type sci-fi things to my non-sci-fi wife was kind of fun. ;-)
Every time it had a chance to get really weird, it stepped back. It looks great, and the cast is really good. But it's a slight movie. Even with fewer people and a smaller closed environment, Cloverfield Lane had more meat on the bone.
I know someone who is a massive Cloverfield fan, and she is dismayed this changes the canon of the first film's monster. He's no longer the American Godzilla. Me? Eh. I'm more intrigued by the implication that the threat is no longer singular.
I love that we got such a film on Netflix within hours of the first trailer. That's fun.
"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
As a stand alone story it was the sort of generic "crazy shit in space" story we've all seen a thousand times. The weirdness, the drama for the lead character and her choice, the dwindling crew, the evil one, the noble self sacrifice. It was all there. Still fun but nothing special.
As part of the bigger Cloverfield patchwork it was cool. We now (maybe) know what caused the monster in the original. we now (maybe) know why the world in Cloverfield Lane seems different. Wait...we don't know anything still. But perhaps that's the best part of this 'universe' that they can just create and hint at things and just have fun with it.
Why Winslet but no Carrey? I thought they were equally good in "Sunshine". Winslet does an excellent job hiding her English accent in the movie. I almost forgot about it 'till I heard her interviewed on the DVD.