In this column, I discuss the surprise release of "The Cloverfield Paradox" by Netflix:
Before Netflix dropped a trailer in the middle of the Super Bowl on Sunday, nobody knew that a “Cloverfield” sequel — produced by J.J. Abrams and with a budget of $40 million — would be available to stream by Sunday night.
By early Monday afternoon, the film already had a Rotten Tomatoes score of 15 percent positive reviews. The critics — who had no prior access to the film than anybody else, or even knew more than anybody else did that it was coming at all — had spoken.
As for me, I liked the movie a whole lot. It was on my most anticipated films list for the year, and while it will be nowhere near my top 10 at the end of the year, I had fun with it. It’s kind of a mashup of a lot of other (superior) sci-fi thrillers, and it was certainly a letdown after “10 Cloverfield Lane,” but it has a terrific cast, and it offered a few exciting moments, along with a handful of bizarre “wait, what?” moments (which I am an unapologetic sucker for).
I was disappointed to see how unanimous the disappointment seemed to be for this movie, and I wonder if deep down, some of my fellow critics out there felt a bit miffed to have been completely overlooked.
We didn’t get to see the movie in advance. We didn’t even know it was happening. Our opinions mattered even less than they already didn’t.
I’ve actually been thinking a lot lately about the ways in which the job of an entertainment commentator has shifted away from relevance in the few years since I have occupied the position (which I’m sure is a total coincidence).