Generally, if we love a film we are more than happy to see a sequel. In the case of Cloverfield, however, a sequel would actually take away from the enjoyment and purpose of the first film. But director Matt Reeves is saying that there could well be another on the way. No, Matt Reeves, NO! There are minimal spoilers in the following paragraphs.
Reeves told Comingsoon.net : "This was so fun 'cause we'd never done anything like it, and I think we'd want to find a similar challenge, to find a way to have its roots in this but be fresh and new, otherwise you're just repeating yourself. There's a moment on the Brooklyn Bridge, and there was a guy filming something on the side of the bridge, and Hud sees him filming and he turns over and he sees the ship that's been capsized and sees the headless Statue of Liberty, and then he turns back and this guy's briefly filming him. In my mind that was two movies intersecting for a brief moment, and I thought there was something interesting in the idea that this incident happened and there are so many different points of view, and there are several different movies at least happening that evening and we just saw one piece of another. That idea sort of tickled me. We'll have to see if anyone would want a sequel. If the movie does well and we find a compelling reason to do so then it would be fun to do a sequel".
Obviously, the movie has done very well this weekend. But, the whole point of the movie is that you're experiencing a monster attack as if you were there and with no other information on the beast other than what immediate news reports and the fact that it's almost stepping on you can provide. It's about an experience more than a story, which a sequel could only dilute. Explaining the origins would just make for a generic monster movie. Or, just following the same events from a different camcorder would be utterly pointless. Some films should just be left to stand alone and this is one of them.