So the third installment of the "Cloverfield" movie franchise came to Netflix just recently, and it's causing some head-scratching, raising some questions. One such question being: "There's a "Cloverfield" franchise?" Another being: "Is it any good?" Well, let's dive into that.

I don't know how many people remember how big a deal the original "Cloverfield" was. And I don't mean quality-wise (though I liked it a lot way back when, disaster movies, monster movies, and found-footage movies all being guilty pleasures of mine). It came out in 2008, and was just post-9/11 enough (what with its ungodly destruction of NYC, including a decapitated Statue of Liberty), and used enough early-ish Internet viral marketing campaigns (including fake MySpace profiles for the no-name cast) that it sent droves of people into the theaters, making a $170 million Box Office profit off of a $25 million budget. Reception of the movie was spotty and all over the place (partly because of the scattered sightings of the film's monster-antagonist, who was kept from the audience's view like the "Jaws" shark), but suffice it to say that "Cloverfield" was something of an original-idea success. So hey, even though they waited 8 years, it was time for the inevitable sequels to roll out.

"10 Cloverfield Lane" was the first of such sequels. And I stand by it as a good one. It follows a woman who wakes up in a bunker after a car crash, only to be told by the only other 2 guys in the bunker (one of whom is a quite deranged John Goodman) that an 'event' occurred, which is at times speculated to be nuclear war and at others to be martian invaders, which has left the surface world up above hostile and dangerous. It's a claustrophobic, tense and scary, simple story situation- and it works.

In fact, by the end of the movie, you find out that the "Cloverfield" in its title doesn't even tie directly to its predecessor, that it's actually more a spiritual sequel than anything. That yes, there was an extraterrestrial threat in this movie, but it was a different one than the original. Which set the precedent that any future "Cloverfield" movie might follow a similar formula, might feature a separate alien creature/threat. A sort of sci-fi anthology franchise. Sounded pretty good.

And then "The Cloverfield Paradox" came out, and proved that that wasn't the case, that "Cloverfield" wouldn't be a franchise of anthologies, but a proper anthology. "The Cloverfield Paradox" was advertised during the Super Bowl as a sequel to the 2008 original "Cloverfield", as an explanation of the mysteries of the creature that destroyed New York a decade ago. Well, that kind of happens.

But it becomes clear when watching "The Cloverfield Paradox" that the movie is certainly trying to be its own thing more than anything else. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the Super Bowl TV spot was more cynical marketing than anything. 'Remember that thing you all liked from 10 years ago?! Watch the (air quotes) sequel on Netflix! Please?'

"The Cloverfield Paradox" takes place in a not-so-distant future, where the Earth is having an energy crisis. Roaming blackouts become a commonality, people siphon power from there more well-off neighbors, and things are not looking so good. All of which is somewhat clumsily explained to the audience via main character Ava Hamilton (played by Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and her husband Michael (Roger Davies). Ava is the member of a crew of international astronauts, tasked with going into space to test an experimental particle accelerator, that if it works, would save the world's energy crisis. Ava feels remorse over leaving her husband but knows she has a greater duty to the planet.

From there, we are shown the crew aboard the Shepard, in space, testing the particle accelerator. And in that first scene, we see it almost work, but then fail. It causes a massive power surge and subsequent power outage. It is a failure, and the crew of the Shepard has to deal with the fallout of that. And it is played totally straight. It feels dire and horrible, like a worst-case scenario playing out right before your eyes.

I like that kind of simple plot set up. A situation is presented, and the characters must deal with it. Very similar to "10 Cloverfield Lane", with its one location, one scenario type of story. So I was digging the movie for the most part at the beginning- the dialogue was a little stiff and exposition heavy, but it was a cool concept, and I'm always willing to give the benefit of the doubt to 'original' seeming sci-fi movies.

The movie plays well with some of its concepts. In attempting to get the particle accelerator working, the Shepard crashes into a parallel world, where parallel world shenanigans ensue, some of which are played with the same sort of bleak horror that exists in the scene where the Shepard originally fails. And some of these scenes really work.

The movie becomes a little difficult from there. The dialogue problems remain, with lots of characters reminding us 'if we don't do this, then this will happen". Which is never a good sign for a sci-fi movie. At times the movie feels like a SyFy Channel made-for-TV movie. The tone is really the problem, more than anything. At times its played straight and bleak, at others, it feels kind of hokey, silly.

It's a shame that "The Cloverfield Paradox" wasn't as good as it could have been. There were some parts I really enjoyed about it. But underwritten characters and expository dialogue did this movie no favors. Had this movie's cool concept been done something like "Arrival", it could have been one for the ages. Or ya know at least something kinda good.