If you're willing to buy into the construct "What would 'Godzilla' seem like in the first-person perspective of the average man-on-the-street?", the framing device of the entire movie being shot by the handheld video of that person (including the silly functioning-cellphone, anachronistic tape-over and infinite-battery continuity issues), don't mind the occasional scene where the actors are looking up at the sky in different directions, and are willing to go for the roller-coaster ride without worrying too much about the implausible physics and biophysics, then you'll agree with Tyler Cowen that Cloverfield is a "remarkable cinematic event." If you aren't willing to buy into that, can't tolerate ambiguity in movies or get seasick without a Steadicam, you'll be very unhappy with the movie. It's a smart-and-subtle dumb movie that I like more the more I think about it, though I found the unspoken 9-11 references discomfiting when I was watching it.

Some reviewers complain about how unrealistic it is that Hud doesn't stop filming, but (1) it's sixty minutes of tape in a seven-hour experience--because of the lack of omniscient perspective, we don't see when he's not filming; and (2) I didn't have a problem with it, because I obsessively watched every 9-11 videotape and photo album put on the web and saw plenty where one is wondering why the camera is still running. Hud is adequately established early in the movie as the sort of clueless galoot who'd keep filming when it makes no sense to do so, and we're necessarily seeing the filming only because someone didn't turn off the camera.

When are you willing to suspend disbelief and immerse oneself in the movie? I was able to do so for "Cloverfield" and "Children of Men." For "Live Free or Die Hard," I shook my head repeatedly, but enjoyed the ride. For the trio of trilogy sequels "The Bourne Ultimatum," "Oceans 13," and "Spider-Man 3," I was just utterly annoyed.