CRITIC'S CORNER
'Cloverfield' is a monstrous disaster
By DNA Smith
"Cloverfield" Running time: 84 minutes MPAA rating: PG-13

A mysterious monster terrorizes Manhattan in "Cloverfield."

"Cloverfield" is a monster movie (think of the Matthew Broderick version of "Godzilla" that came out a few years ago) filmed from the point of view of a video camera carried around by one of the monster's eventual victims (think "Blair Witch Project").

Like "Godzilla" and "Blair Witch," "Cloverfield" has been overhyped to the nth degree. Also like "Godzilla" and "Blair Witch," "Cloverfield" stinks.

"Cloverfield" has been hyped on the Internet for months - which is ironic because I don't think the filmmakers have ever been ON the Internet. If they had, they'd have realized that an entire generation of Americans has grown up using camcorders, and their children are sometimes as adept as camera operators as anyone in Hollywood. A 12-year-old vlogger can frame a shot better than the doofus in "Cloverfield." Apparently, this guy is the only person in New York whose camera doesn't have a motion stabilizer.

"Cloverfield" is a little more than an hour-long ordeal of ShakyCam and hyperventilating, as a handful of vapid 20- something Manhattan twinkies go on a rescue mission to save another vapid 20-something twinkie. The filmmakers spend the first 20 minutes of the movie introducing you to the main characters. Unfortunately, by the end of that 20 minutes, you realize that the world won't be any worse if they died.

In the ensuing hour, a few buildings fall down, you get blurry, brief glimpses of something big stomping through the city, you watch a few people die, you watch a few people miraculously survive something they shouldn't have lived through (I won't spoil it), and then you get a good glimpse of the underwhelming creature and .... that's it.

I really can't recommend "Cloverfield." It's an interesting concept executed poorly. At best it's a rental.

GRADE: D (c) 2008 King Features Synd., Inc.