Great, realistic portrayal of a typically cheesy premise

Rating: 8/10 (25 January 2008)

First of, I want to address an important issue:
Those of you who went into this movie KNOWING that is was first-person hand-held camera and then COMPLAIN are fools. THAT IS THE POINT! The idea is based on the YouTube era where everyone has a camera and all events are now documented by normal people Yes the camera is an incredibly shaky, and no you never get a good image of the monster (which remains off screen for most of the film).
But this is where the film succeeds. The monster is not the center of the picture, you don't have clichÃ©d scientists and generals trying to fight this thing,you have five normal civilians constantly threatened by a great terror that is often out of sight but overwhelms you when you are in it's path. The monster is off screen but it's presence is constantly felt (the distant explosions, the loud crashes from above the subway).
Are the characters flat? Yes. Do they make dumb choices? Yes. But this makes it realistic. Sitting at your desk and ranting about how running into the subway was stupid, consider the actual situation. In that moment, with the monster right above them and tanks and soldiers coming down the street, what choice would YOU have made? Yes the acting wasn't great BUT IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE. If this was you would you be given an Oscar for you performance? NO.
Where does the monster go? Does it matter? Only if you like a story tied up in a nice little bundle. The best stories are the ones that leave you guessing.
If you are looking for The Godfather or Citizen Kane, you won't find it here Finally, the movie is an allegory for terrorism. Think about it.
If you ask me, the monster should have been shown LESS