Good film Bad sequel

Rating: 5/10 (23 March 2016)

Okay so for starters if more than half of your audience can't tell if this is a sequel or not to your film than it's already off on the wrong foot. This movie had absolutely nothing to do with the original Cloverfield and that's probably because it originally was called something else and then they decided to say it was a follow up to Cloverfield. Now I'm conflicted because while I enjoy these type of films and I did enjoy the movie in no way was it a good follow up to the original. I think we all can agree the first one was filmed pretty bad and god forbid you had motion sickness and tried to watch the original however it was action packed pretty much from start to finish. You got to see the military fighting the huge monster and the smaller alien creatures were attacking the main characters at times and even infected one of them. Not to mention the fx they did with the statue of liberty's head. It was just intense.
So logic dictates if they did a sequel shouldn't it be even more epic? This movie looked like it would be the first not the sequel. I mean you had a good cast, good story line, and good performances but this movie could very easily have been its own thing as opposed to a sequel. The aliens in the end weren't even the same as the original film and there were no spaceships in the original it was just a good old fashioned creature film in the tradition of Godzilla. I absolutely hate this film as a sequel but if it was its own thing it would have been good to me.
In laymen the original was like The Walking Dead and this film was Fear the Walking Dead. One's awesome and one's pointless.