I finally relented because of John Goodman. My interest in this film began and ended with his role here, which thankfully is very memorable.
For me the actors sold the movie (I like Goodman but am also a fan of Winstead and Gallagher), as well as the fact that several people told me that it was more of a thriller than a
monster/alien
movie. I thought that the original was okay, but have had no desire to revisit it. I'm not a huge fan of the found footage thing, so I was also relieved to find out that
10 Cloverfield Lane
was not found footage but rather traditionally shot.

I am just a casual viewer of the "Cloverfield" franchise, and for me, the plot line about the aliens runs secondary to the primary story, The first film didn't seem to have much of one, as far as I recall. I resisted this film for months thinking it would be more of the same, but I finally relented because of John Goodman. My interest in this film began and ended with his role here, which thankfully is very memorable.
If future installments feature compelling actors like him in substantial roles, I will give them a chance. If they instead focus on self-involved young people talking on their cell phones like the first film, I'll bow out. But that's just me.

I mean, obviously it would depend on how much they knew about the original film.
For example: suppose that at the end of
Cloverfield
the
aliens were successfully fought off and defeated and the "invasion" really only lasted one day? In that context, a character like Howard could pretend that the attack was still happening, even though in reality it had been resolved. So you could go into the movie knowing there were monsters, but not sure if the threat is
ongoing.
Even having seen the movie I was not sure what to think about
Howard's claims that the air was toxic and would possibly be unbreathable for years
.
I get what you mean about the movie standing on its own. At the same time, I'm kind of intrigued by the idea of several movies showing different stories and characters all centered on or related to the same fictional event.

Very good points. On the other hand, even if someone had not seen "Cloverfield," wouldn't they still know it is a
monster
movie? The title seems to be a spoiler, and I think the film itself would have been stronger standing on its own rather than attaching itself to the earlier film, which to me was must less satisfying.

I kind of go back and forth on this point.
MAJOR SPOILERS!!!!!!
I think that the one advantage of seeing the first movie before this one is that
you know that the alien attack is real. Without knowing that, I would be 100% rooting for Michelle to knock out or kill Howard and escape as soon as possible. But knowing that the attack is real adds some tension to the movie because I know that if she does escape there might be something worse waiting for her outside. So as a viewer is makes me more conflicted about everything and it adds a dramatic irony because I so sympathize with Michelle's fear and I so understand why she thinks the whole attack story is a load of crap. But knowing it is real makes it more painful watching her try to figure out what's going on.
. So in that sense it does add some tension.

Bit late now but if anyone else wants to know the answer, as Stovepipe said this movie would have been a lot more enjoyable if you had not seen Cloverfield.
It adds nothing to the movie but takes so much away.

I tried watching cloverfield last year and had to quit after 5 minutes, the shaky c gave me a headache. The 'unknown' made this film that much more enjoyable, imo.

thanks

Without getting into any specifics, you might actually find it more enjoyable if you don't watch the original film first.

thanks

Yes. No need to see the first movie. I think this one is better, although, they're both good.