Green Shinobi said:
So you'd rather it had just been a movie about a monster attack without any kind of real emotional weight and with shallow characterization?
There have been dozens and dozens of monster movies that fit that description. Cloverfield was so good because it focused on a limited number of characters and their reactions to the events. The characters are far, far deeper than in any other film in this genre that I can think of, and the film touched a broader emotional spectrum. That's what made it so good, IMO.
Deep compared to what? Hamlet? Not so much. Independence Day, Godzilla or other films about a massive disaster/attack? It's like the Marianas Trench.
The main guy (not the guy filming, but the guy who's going to Japan) was one of my favorite heroes ever. Not sure why, maybe it was because he was so damn real.
I'd rather have a movie (advertised to be a monster movie) have a story surrounding the monster.
I told you, it's a fun ride, but it's turn out to be a drama about this group of people, with the monster becoming the background.
Now if you compare this movie with other movie also featuring a group of people and their drama dealing with chaos and lost, the character is nothing "deep".
I can go as far and say this is not a monster movie at all. You can replace the monster with the event of war (or some type of natural disaster, zombie, w/e) and everything still make perfect sense. The story is that swallow.
The only thing cool is the handheld camera concept.