First… watch Korea’s superb, politically entrenched yet totally funny film, “The Host” (2007). Second… watch it again in case you missed how brilliant it is. Third… check out a late showing of this apolitically entrenched, post 9-11 Youtube junk as a way of appreciating the myriad of subtitles that fall off the monster from “The Host” and a grip of other classic giant movie monsters. While “Cloverfield” may indeed be junk, it isn’t exactly bad junk. The reasoning being that there’s a giant monster running around New York, stupid. Monsters never bore me when they’re the size of a skyscraper. They’re kind of like zombies only, um, bigger (note to self: get rights to giant zombie movie). This mystery creature of unknown origins (prehistoric ocean creature? genetically engendered mistake? biological monster sent from Iran???) tears through America’s (…most overrated…) metropolitan city, destroying everything in its path including, but not limited to, (a) tall buildings that stand in its way, (b) bridges, (c) the Statue of Liberty’s head (at least it has a penchant for dramatic irony), and (d) annoying characters that seem to have sprung from a Light beer commercial and into this monster (date) movie. The last one, by the way, presented a huge problem for me. I don’t think I liked one character in the movie; five minutes in, I whispered to my friend, “when is it going to eat them?” and the best thing I can say about the film is that my wish was granted big time.

Take bits of “City of Men,” chunks of “War of the Worlds,” the vibe of the videogame “Half-Life 2″ and a slather of fricken “Gossip Girl,” wrap all that up into one hell of a slam-bang trailer that tells you NOTHING about the movie, and you have 2008′s first can’t miss concept flick. The year’s first “300″! The film, shot entirely handled by a character chronicling a friend’s farewell party, centers on a gaggle of insufferable preppies led by an unbelievably self-centered guy (or god?) named Rob who, at one point, is called a “douche bag” by his douche baggier brother and does his best to live up to that name as the film (and heads) rolls. As the upscale hipster shindig overlooking the city is broken up by an ominous smashing and ear bleeding howls (imagine a missed lunchtime at the Rosie O’Donnell household), Rob and co. spring into action… and instead of running for safety, only think about saving some hot girl from the party so Rob can make goo-goo eyes in the shadow of gor-goo monsters. The smell of death fills the air. The sound of buckling metal and industrial crunching assaults the ears. This is the end. Here is a city that is literally crumbling into a warzone that reduces the Big Apple into cinders and rubble… and all this Rob guy can do is go on and on about this girl. I know she’s a hot bird and all but, come on, bro, come to L.A.: we grow ‘em even hotter (and monster free) here. In the name of yuppie heroicism, the loose-tie dumb-dumb goes on to make classic horror movie mistakes like charging head first into fiery dust balls, toppled buildings and tunnels clearly infested with the movie’s second most annoying (and random) character; the monster’s insectilian babies (what the deuce?!). Even more obtuse than “Rob: The Movie,” featuring a walk-on by an actual monster, is the group of characters that seem to worship Rob’s every suggestion; beer commercial lackies include the jokey cameraman, obligatory hottie of ambiguous racial origins, and an “L-Word”-looking automaton. The blind end up following the blinder’s laughable, “lets go down that dark tunnel” advice. Why? Because HE’s ROB! is the best answer I can give you at this point.

This reforging of “Sex and the City” meets “Godzilla” may ooze and slither with prehistoric condescensions but, annoying characters/useless monster critters aside, the concept works in its own way and structurally holds up amazingly well throughout the film’s brisk running time. While any kid with a digital camera or Razer could have directed this film I feel I must credit the brazillent idea men JJ Abrams and Drew Godard (the screenwriter here, who also wrote for “Buffy” and writes for “Lost”) for embracing a limited point of view concept to what would have otherwise been a bloated epic.

… oh, the review’s over by the way. That final bit of praise may be abrupt but, err, it’s all I got at this point. The film annoys as much as it impresses but it does impress, however fleetingly. Plus, I just watched “Dragon Wars,” the film that makes “Cloverfield” look like the masterpiece that is isn’t.

grade: B-