From: bermuda999 <>
Subject: Re: The Cloverfield Paradox
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id p202mr605546itc.43.1517881737187;
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 17:48:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id g7mr32449oti.14.1517881736939; Mon,
05 Feb 2018 17:48:56 -0800 (PST)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 17:48:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <qSWdC.4239$YR7.3667@fx34.iad>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=;
References: <qSWdC.4239$YR7.3667@fx34.iad>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: The Cloverfield Paradox
From: bermuda999 <>
Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 01:48:57 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 21
Print Article
Forward Article
On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:03:53 AM UTC-5, Greg Singh wrote:
> Doesn't sound too good:

As mentioned in your link, it was originally a cheap sci-fi movie called "God Particle" unrelated to
Cloverfield. It was retro-fitted with references to Cloverfield.

The Cloverfield Paradox Lands With a Thud"

"The Cloverfield Paradox should have been a comedy — and almost is one"
(Netflix’s abrupt release of the third Cloverfield film was apparently meant to beat the bad press)