'Cloverfield' take two, nearly ten years later: How does it hold up?

After seeing, and really enjoying, 10 Cloverfield Lane this past weekend I thought it was only natural to revisit its spiritual predecessor, the 2008 cult hit Cloverfield.

I remember liking it the first time I saw it, even though I found the opening stretch --which sets up the main characters and their personal dynamics during an extended party sequence -- a bit tedious.

On second viewing, this portion of the film, and much of the rest of it, holds up really well -- although the jaunty camerawork can be nauseating at times.

The conceit that everything we see is found footage is a stretch too, albeit an ingenious one.

That said, I think, as a film, I prefer 10 Cloverfield Lane. That film features superior acting, character development and arguably more assured storytelling, although that doesn't diminish what a feat this film is, especially for its director Matt Reeves.

Reeves has been a lowkey genius filmmaker, and he has a real facility with the camera that is awesome to behold. If you couple this film with Let Her In (his superior remake of the beloved Swedish horror film Let the Right One In) and his entry in the new Planet of the Apes franchise, you see a real auteur who knows how to stage action in a convincingly realistic way.

The most striking thing about the first Cloverfield film is the staging. Reeves not only made a comparatively low budget movie look like a pricey summer blockbuster, but he sets up the action at such a realistic pace and angle that you feel just as scared and disoriented as the characters on screen.

Cloverfield

The characters in Cloverfield try your patience at times. The 'hero,' Rob, is a pretty selfish guy whose single-minded quest to be reunited with a girl he likes is hard to stomach at times. And our cameraman 'Hud' is alternately annoying and endearing, which I think is supposed to be the point. But unlike 10 Cloverfield Lane, this is not a movie driven by character pers se; it's a brilliant visual experiment.

There has been some griping that the new film and this one don't really share much in common, but I disagree. They both have an appealing sense of mystery. There is no time spent on the 'why' which is usually the weakest element in any creature feature. Both movies keep the audience guessing and there really is no reprieve from the tension.

They also both attack a similar concept from very different directions. Cloverfield takes the perspective of panicked people on the run. While 10 Cloverfield Lane looks at people hunkered down, hoping to wait out the chaos. If there is a third film, and I imagine after the success of these two low budget films there will be, it could focus on the paramilitary people who strike back against the inexplicable creatures causing mayhem all over the country.

Yes, both films are more about style than substance -- even the name Cloverfield is meaningless. But this is still kinetic mainstream filmmaking of the highest order. And I'm excited to see where the shepherds of this franchise -- including J.J. Abrams -- take the series next.