The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)
Cloverfield (2008) was a surprise hit, earning $172 million worldwide at the box office against a $25 million budget. Paramount Pictures naturally wanted a sequel but director Matt Reeves and writer Drew Goddard struggled to find a suitable narrative means to progress the original story. Both eventually left the project and the production descended into development hell. The subsequent success of Godzilla and Pacific Rim saw the Kaiju genre becoming oversaturated and so the decision to make a direct sequel was re-evaluated. Eventually a “speculative screenplay” called The Cellar was purchased and repurposed to include some additional science fiction elements and became 10 Cloverfield Lane. Despite being a curious genre hybrid which only tenuously links to the original movie, this too fared well at the box office. Therefore it was inevitable that a third movie in the so-called “Cloververse” would follow.
Cloverfield (2008)
I did my best to avoid the hype surrounding the initial release of Cloverfield. Such media saturation and public interest can often cloud the issue of whether the actual film is any good. Five years later and having watched the movie twice, once in the theatre and once at home, I am still somewhat conflicted about this movie. The use of hand held video cameras is both a boon and a bane. The constant movement of the image has proven to cause motion sickness for some viewers, although this is not so overwhelming when viewed on a smaller screen at home. Yet the medium of news footage mixed with handheld cameras does create a palpable sense of immediacy. This helps immensely when trying to sell a fantastic concept, such as the one that Cloverfield features.