I don't think that this is a massively bad film, I'm sure it was groundbreaking to some people when it first came out ten years ago, but now with all of the cheaply made and dreadful bad "found-footage" movie copies that came soon after, it's probably lost some of it's impact when viewing it nowadays.

The things I like about this movie are the well-designed set pieces that we sadly don't get to see enough off, due to the "found-footage" format that is present throughout the film. Another thing I liked about this movie is how they decide to go with the "Jaws" approach, not showing much of the monster early in the film, to the point where we can see the creature staring directly at us through the camera lens in a later scene.

I thought the acting in the film wasn't great, as in Oscar-worthy material, but I think that it's not too bad to drag me out of the story either. All actors did a good and satisfactory job at portraying their characters. However, If I have to be nit-picky, I think that T.J. Miller is possibly the worst actor in the film, but we don't get to see him a lot in the film as he's the one documenting the action a lot of the time.

A few things I like to bring up, I have to give this movie credit for not "cutting-away" from intense moments after they happen or when they feel like they may be too much, so that there are very little moments of relief from the tension as soon as the first explosion is heard and all the lights go down. And lastly, the CGI in the film does look unrealistic at times, but I think it's acceptable considering the age of the film.

Movies about gigantic monsters don't come along nearly often enough for me, so when "Cloverfield" opened, I was there. This movie offered a fresh perspective on the genre with the entire film shot from the perspective of a victim on the ground. Many people said that the constant motion and jumpy movements gave them headaches or made them feel ill. The “shaky cam” perspective may have been too distracting if you sat too close in the theater.

None of the movie is told from the military’s or scientist’s perspective. There is no explanation as to where the monster came from, what it is or what it wants. It just shows up and starts tearing things up.

It’s interesting that the monster is gigantic, but the only time you see how huge it really is occurs during a newscast playing on a TV and when the guy with the camera ("Hud") happens to pass very closely to the rampaging beast.

There are some great scenes here. The opening panic of the initial attack is captured perfectly. There is also a crazy moment when the main characters run between the monster and the military who are firing at it. It's very intense.

Many will analyze this movie closely for 9/11 symbolism since it takes place in New York. There is a skyscraper collapse and subsequent dust cloud that recalls the WTC disaster. The "decapitation" of the Statue of Liberty symbolizing the attack on liberty. The repeated shouts of "It's Alive" meaning that terrorism isn't dead but alive and well as the creature symbolized. Even the parasites that fall from the beast could be symbolizing biological terrorism.

Actually though, if you don't dig deeply into this movie, you'll have a good time for the thrill ride it provides.

Perspective from the street-level as a towering, rampaging monster plows straight through the heart of Manhattan. At the time this was released, we were roughly a decade past The Blair Witch Project, long enough for the found footage trope to have thoroughly played itself out. Yet in many ways this feels like a revelation, one which would collapse without that same central gimmick. Like bystander footage from a major disaster, the placement of the camera makes the chaos and mayhem of this sudden, citywide catastrophe feel completely vivid and tangible. It's like we're there with the victims; our pulse racing, our eyes widened by the dead and injured, our skin coated by the dust of so much collapsed concrete. Moments that would've certainly felt cheesy from a traditional POV, high above the action, now deliver beyond any reasonable expectation.

We get to know the core characters well, their thoughts and quirks and feelings, and we mourn when they're abruptly taken from us in the confusion. It tells a desperate human story in a genre that usually struggles with such elements, and doesn't shy from the profound, lasting conclusion that everything seems to be building toward from the start. The plot does have holes, some larger than others, but given the frenetic pace and rapid developments, those are relatively easy to shake off and leave behind. I was surprised by how Cloverfield moved me today, nine years after the fact. Surely one of the most memorable, ambitious, effective films of the decade.