Cloverfield; A monster tale

Though I was apprehensive at first, I became very excited about this film. In the end, it did break alot of movie conventions and redefined the concept of how a big monster movie can be made, but it got bogged down where classic monster movies excel. I would say, in the end, I was disappointed by Cloverfield. It is going to be difficult discussing this movie without giving away too much.
Hits:
Opening- This movie began by throwing the audience off the route movie track. It was interesting and intriguing, while still developing the plot.
Monster- Though its origin can be thought out, at least in part, this monster was terrifying, but still believable. I could see this monster walking out of the sea, or sky, and I'd be terrified, but first I'd think, "Dang it, are you telling me no one saw this coming!"
Multiple Attack Patterns- This movie did to monster movies what House of 1,000 Corpses did to slasher films, it kept inventing new ways for passer byes to get hurt. It would have been awesome to see more of the varied attacks instead of focusing so much on the huge lumbering beast.
Military Might- So many films make the military the stone wall that must be overcome. Here, I feel that the military operated in a much more human pattern, wanting to help in what ever way help might be defined.
Camera Motivation- The cinematographer was able to find reasons to shoot a certain angle of an event where the camera move didn't feel forced to move there and told more about the experience of being there that a picture would be able.
Misses:
Film Style- Although innovative, painful at times. The angles and vantage points the hand-held field allowed gave this film an edge over the classics, but ultimately was nearly if not definitely painful to watch.
Acting- The acting in this movie can be compared to the acting found in Saw I. Many may not feel this way, but to me it was distracting and stilted.
Emotional Connection- If a monster is attacking a city, and I know the characters' relationships, I'm good to go for the film. I don't need to see long passages of characters being upset or crying; it gives me no new insight, as my imagination has already compensated and created the grief they feel, and it slows down the motion of the piece, the monster's aren't attacking.
Plot Holes- There are several items in the story which seem to not quite follow the logic of the established guidelines. First off, a monster can destroy Manhattan, but, presumably, cannot cross the water. A rain of small monsters can fall from the big monster, but there are only a handful running in the city. Etc.
Up-Close shot of the Monster's Face- Through the entire movie, the filmmakers were able to avoid directly showing the monster, though it was seen from enough angles to know what it looked like. Then, in the end, there is a close-up of a face that looks like the most simple cross between the things from I am Legend and the Shriekers from Tremors III.

Cloverfield was over-hyped and the production staff spent too much time trying to recreate a genre and ignoring what informed the genre in the first place. I feel that Cloverfield will do to monster films what 28 Days did to zombie films, so for that reason I am very excited about the next crop of monster movies, but what would really excite me would be the entirety of Cloverfield being about a fifteen to thirty minute intro to another film which focused on the aftermath. This film would begin when the monster retreated or died, but now Manhattan is flooded with little monsters, and zombies/exploding people. This way Cloverfield could truly finish the what it started by opening the door to so many attack patterns.
*Additionally*The picture I have posted for this film came from a fan posting on The unofficial Cloverfield Blog