Describing is the wrong word, surely.

svsg:

On one level, it's a fairly simple monster film, a throwback to the likes of Godzilla (note the country to which one of the protagonists is emigrating: Japan), but it's also unique in that it's told entirely from the ground. Our knowledge of the "event" is necessarily limited to what the would-be victims can see.

You criticise the implausibility of this by attacking the fundamental problem of an indestructible camera. Fair enough, I suppose; another friend criticised the film for the audio being far too crisp and audible for its own good (suggesting it'd be better if the government had seen need for subtitles due to loss of sound - if that isn't critical gluttony I don't know what is). If the reverse were true, though, you'd barely have a film; the premise begs that sort of leeway, the same way TV's 24 "requests" viewers not to have a hissy fit over Jack Bauer's endurable bladder.

Talking of 24 and similar examples of today's media, I thought it was cool that at one point the protagonists raid an electronics store for phone batteries. Intended or not, it's an interesting comment on the way in which we consume media (how dependent we are in a case of crisis), the questions we ask of it ("how come Jack Bauer's phone never runs out!?" not to mention, all of the questions arising from Abrams's Lost), and its importance over stuff like foodstock (terrorism and invasive warfare now eliminate the option of pre-planned, long-term supplies such as groceries and nutrition, and calls for immediate necessities such as the cellphone, to tell loved ones you love them just before you die).

Throughout, too, I couldn't ignore the fact that other people are filming the same event on their own cameras and phones... this is very much a film about the filming and multi-media capture of world-changing events. The monster plays a secondary role to this; and, as one who felt its final on-screen moments seemed more disappointing than frightening, I'd venture to say its inclusion is only to give the film room to breathe so soon after 9/11 - though, of course, then it runs the risk of inducing reactions such as yours. Silly...? Maybe.

It's important to note the allegorical significance of an unknown, threatening Other attacking New York city. It's a brave and bold decision to make that the city of choice, considering how close to people 9/11 still is. The scene in which the camera and those around it take temporary refuge in a store as their view of the street outside is veiled by a horde of smoke, dust and debris (while mounting chaos ensues outside) is an effective evocation of the events of that day; people running, buildings falling, chaos to the fore; questions, screaming, and no answers.

It's not exploitative, though; and I found the otherwise annoying characters and trite characterisations that pop up in this sort of film were given much freshness from the POV camera; the in-camera edits make for interesting early development and economic character expositions, capturing only the back-end of conversations and the people involved reacting to their being spied on, etc. (and we are, throughout, literal voyeurs to the entire thing). I also found the "flashbacks" (footage shot before the film's narrative takes place, brought on by errors in the recording tape) highly effective.