Where Did Superversive’s Cloverfield Paradox Review Go?

I really, really, hope this a clever meta review of the film which features a space-station vanishing into a parallel universe… because the review of the film at Superversive is just a 404 page: http://www.superversivesf.com/2018/02/08/movie-review-the-cloverfield-paradox/

If that was intentional then I think they deserve a round of applause – even better if the review is actually appearing on some unrelated blog somewhere else.

A check of Google cache shows the review was there – it starts like this:

“Orbiting a planet on the brink of war, scientists test a device to solve an energy crisis, and end up face-to-face with a dark alternate reality.
The Cloverfield Paradox is a great science-fiction romp. I highly recommend it.
The critics’ response to The Cloverfield Paradox once again proves that ‘Critics Don’t Know Science Fiction’ or what’s good. The special effects are awesome. The suspense is great. The science referenced is deep (but don’t over-think it). The actors, although completely unknown to me, are terrific.

This third installment of the Cloverfield franchise is much more on par with the first.
The original Cloverfield was a great movie. The style (jerky camera footage) made me a bit nauseous when I watched it at first, but it made for a sense of realism that pulled me in as a participant rather than just a viewer. That feeling of not knowing what would happen next (or what the heck was really going on, for that matter) was what made it a great movie to me. Well, The Cloverfield Paradox does that again, only this time it’s in space! Spaaaaaaaace!

Now, I won’t compare it to the fail that was 10 Cloverfield Lane. That was just psycho-thriller garbage with aliens thrown into the mix. It was like Signs, but with John Goodman manifesting the crazy of the entire cast himself right after a screeching fight with Rosanne Barr. Swing away Dan!”

Which is fair enough. The effects were good and if you can avoid getting tangled in the ‘why?’ of it all, I can see how the film could be likable.

I did ask the Superversive twitter account why the review had vanished but they weren’t very communicative.

13 thoughts on “Where Did Superversive’s Cloverfield Paradox Review Go?

  1. Based on the portion of the review you quoted, I think it’s safe to assume such cleverness is completely beyond Superversive SF.

    I couldn’t tell for sure from your ‘review’ of The Cloverfield Paradox (given its reviews, I wasn’t about to waste time watching it), but I got the impression that, like 10 Cloverfield Lane, it basically had nothing whatsoever to do with the first film, but just had Cloverfield added to the title as a marketing gimmick. Is that right? Of course, even in the first film ‘Cloverfield’ is pretty much just a marketing gimmick with nothing to do with the content of the movie. (I know people, including my wife, who liked the first film, but I thought it was really predictable and stupid.)

    And why do I come away with the impression that the reviewer’s hatred of 10 Cloverfield Lane – a taut, gripping film with first-rate performances – had everything to do with the fact that its smart, brave protagonist is played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I watched 10 Cloverfield Lane first, badgered into it by a friend of mine — I don’t usually watch horror movies — and liked it a lot. Then I went back and watched the first one, which I liked okay. So I *started* watching the 3rd one. And if it had just been bad I probably would have kept going, because I like movies on space stations, and I liked that they had learned each other’s languages (that was a nice touch). But it was just so BORING.

      And then when they found the woman in the wall it went from boring to boring and stupid and I noped out.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Kind of related: Remember when Crazy Lou “disabled” his blog and made it sound like he’d done it because he was stepping away from the internet and cooling off for a while? And that was the reason he couldn’t post his apology to Foz on his blog?

    Well, not so much. He’s still at it, and the explanation for the “disabling” is now that it was accidental. On the plus side, he did post a retraction of his claim that Cam is Foz’s husband, but on the other hand the “retraction” is full of woe is me stuff. Apparently Cam was a big old meanie to Paolinelli and that made Lou mad and that’s why he believed Freer. So really, its Cam’s fault that Lou went with Freer’s bullshit story. Also, Lou says he’s old, and as a result, this “internet” thing is just confusing for him. No, really, that’s one of the arguments he makes.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. People older than CUL built the internet (Sir Tim B-L, for starters). People years and even decades older than CUL use it just fine; I know many of them (husband, mom-substitute, friends). All of them manage not to launch hate campaigns based on crappy evidence and hurt fee-fees!

      Really, he should be claiming Dave’s the one with terrible Intarweb skillz. Also be angry at Dave for setting him up on the attack with the bullshit “evidence”. But a) that would be logical and b) CUL hasn’t learned (after repeated happenings) not to serve as a useful idiot/semi-guided missile for other people.

      At this point, CUL is actually C, if one goes with the definition “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” I’m just sayin’.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.