NationStates Jolt Archive

I just saw it, and although my friends didn't seem to think much of it I actually quite liked, I guess that's because I didn't have any expectations.

My only gripes are that it was only about an hour and a half long, and you can tell; it's pretty short in the cinema, I so thought they could have put another 40 minutes in.

They overexposed the creature, too many shots where you saw the whole thing in it's entirety, and that demystified it from the trailers and the first 20 minutes or so.

I didn't have a problem with the hand-held, I thought I would hate it and I admit the first five minutes were annoying, but after that I got used to it and the frenetic pace and explosions with the camera moving everywhere was really good, I was reminded of War of the Worlds a little with the army etc.

Anyways, for anyone else who has seen it, what did you think?

Any giant robots show up?

This (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/funny-pictures-cute-fierce-kitten.jpg) is the Cloverfield monster.

haven't seen it yet, but one question...

does it have the cliche "the monster isn't dead/it had offsprings" ending?

This (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/funny-pictures-cute-fierce-kitten.jpg) is the Cloverfield monster.
Oh no, we're doooomedddd!

This (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/funny-pictures-cute-fierce-kitten.jpg) is the Cloverfield monster.

*dies of overdose of cuteness*

Three comments I have heard makes me not want to go see it.

The Blair Witch Rejected.
Godzilla meets 9/11.
The Dog crabs.

It will probably be a rental.....

I rather enjoyed it, despite being a cliche movie.

I thought the movie completely kicked ass, in that it wasn't goofy/cheesy like any of the Godzilla movies. The only thing that resembles 9/11 is the initial scene where everyone runs from the dust cloud of the Empire State Building; and possibly the crossing of the brooklyn bridge.

My only question is "when will it come out on Imax?"

haven't seen it yet, but one question...

does it have the cliche "the monster isn't dead/it had offsprings" ending?
It has a 'no idea what happened to the monster' ending since we weren't dealing with 'prime' characters. We don't know where, or how, the monster came about or really much of what it did. We only saw it in relation to what the people we were following was doing.

I don't know that the whole shots of the creature really de-mystified it that much. There was no even attempt to explain what was going on or what it was about, so seeing it didn't really clear up anything other than what it looked like.

With the first person perspective and some of the timing and pacing it could occasionally feel like a 'survival horror' video game.

The use of the previous contents of that tape was pretty well done.

It had a good threshold for how much I could stand. I was ready for them to go through the tunnels about 2 minutes before they did, and figured out that the camera had a light on it about 2 or 3 minutes after I was starting to go, "Dudes, there's probably a fucking light on the camera."

Ultimately, the giant monster attacks city is a straight forward story, there's only so much you can do with it. This was an intriguing approach. I didn't neccisarily buy all the characters and as such wasn't as anxious as I could have been, but over all interesting and well done.

T'was very entertaining; and it does bring up a strong reminder of 9/11. But it was also kind of strange.

You'd never see New York like that; with skyscrapers toppled on each other, US military forces battling it out with a Godzilla-esque monster, and B2 bombers pummeling Midtown with precision bombs. I guess that's one of the major reasons I liked it.

I hear that the monster on Cloverfield looks like Sin from FFX...Any truth to that?

I hear that the monster on Cloverfield looks like Sin from FFX...Any truth to that?

Not especially.

I hear that the monster on Cloverfield looks like Sin from FFX...Any truth to that?

Actually, yeah, kind of like a Sin with legs.:p

Have I seen the Blairzilla Project yet? Not yet, not sure I will bother. If it's as horrible as it looks then I might get it from the library.

I have to admit however that I loved the stealth aircraft bombing it.

http://www.citypaper.net/blogs/clog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/staypuft1.jpg
Above Photo: Not the cloverfield monster!

SO who's seen it? I wasn't planning on it but since I just happened to be bored outside the local movie theater I went and watched it. Of those of you who have seen it, who here liked it? Why? Why Not? For those of you who havn't, want a spoiler/teaser?

Plot Exposition: Godstupid attacks Manhattan Island and brings some zerglings with him. 7.7

Acting: The acting was pretty good I thought. The characters were believable for the most part; nobody was overdramatic (aka Blair Witch Project) and they acted like real sensible people would. As far as characterization was concerned after the first half hour I knew the characters, thier motivations, and all that jazz. One thing I did like is none of them went frantic and became stupid, you know like chasing thier little yap yap dog out of the mall in straight into the mouth of the waiting creatures outside and the like. I give the acting/characterization a solid 9.0.

Monster(s): Yes, there are two of them.. well two types. The really big one, that is based off of some Japenese creature sort of like Godzilla... I call it Godstupid; I thought it was probably the worst monster I have seen since Creature from the Black Lagoon, I was thouroghly unimpressed. The creators seemed to have a lot of issues with scale, at times the thing seems to be 300 feet tall and able to walk through buildings, at others it looked about 30 feet tall... and somehow managed to have a mouth that was just the perfect size for eating people while amazingly being wide enough to cover two inner city boulevards.
The other monsters were in the form of these.. parasites? babies? who knows? They were so totally zerglings to my way of thinking. 6 to 8 eyes, able to leep far and climb on walls and cielings, sharp teeth they used to eat you... and my personal favorite.. front forlimbs with bony potrusions that they used to batter people with.. hmmm... where are space marines when you need 'em? Don't let those guys bite you though... unless you like to die a horrible death that shall not be described here!
I give monsters a 6.6.

Camera Work: Shaky, too dark, too bright, moved around a lot.. spent half the movie staring at people's feet; but thats how it was supposed to look.. like it was being filmed by people who were right in the middle of it, not a pro. It gave me a headache though so a solid 7.9 for camera.

Directing: Mwah, magnifique! 9.3

Overall: 8.1 Not too shabby!

Questions, concerns, gripes, groans? Helen Wayt is my secretary, please forward all corospondance to Helen Wayt.

This (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/funny-pictures-cute-fierce-kitten.jpg) is the Cloverfield monster.

I hear that the monster on Cloverfield looks like Sin from FFX...Any truth to that?what does sin-from-FFX (whatever that is) looks like?

what does sin-from-FFX (whatever that is) looks like?

Like this (http://www.warmech.net/special/awards/villain-ff10.jpg). Also, FFX is Final Fantasy X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_fantasy_x).

Saw it last night. I liked it...for the most part. The only major gripes I have with it are...SPOILERS:
















- The characters are so FRIGGIN' stupid, and we spend half the time talking about the protagonist's love life and how he needs to get to his injured girlfriend, and when the movie gets a chance to be really poignant, we find the girlfriend ALIVE in a building that's arched more than Piza IMPALED on some rebar. ALIVE. COME ON! Needless to say, I didn't care for most of the characters (Hud has his moments, moron though that he was).

- I really wanted to know more about the situation itself. What exactly was the monster? What were those little spider things that it was dropping. What do the spider bites actually DO? Why was it attacking New York? What does the government know, if anything.

The monster was unique, not your typical "gigantic lizard" fare, but not completely alien either...which kinda disappointed me: I really wanted an absolutely OUT of this world monster. Still excellent though. I really liked the monster and military moments of the film, which is why I'm hoping they make some sort of sequel (or prequel) that explains the situation...without stupid characters...

This (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/funny-pictures-cute-fierce-kitten.jpg) is the Cloverfield monster.

Wow, Deja vu. ;)

- The characters are so FRIGGIN' stupid, and we spend half the time talking about the protagonist's love life and how he needs to get to his injured girlfriend, and when the movie gets a chance to be really poignant, we find the girlfriend ALIVE in a building that's arched more than Piza IMPALED on some rebar. ALIVE. COME ON! Needless to say, I didn't care for most of the characters (Hud has his moments, moron though that he was).
I was actually prepared for her to be dead, but it would have been hard to sustain the movie past that point if she was.

- I really wanted to know more about the situation itself. What exactly was the monster? What were those little spider things that it was dropping. What do the spider bites actually DO? Why was it attacking New York? What does the government know, if anything.

The monster was unique, not your typical "gigantic lizard" fare, but not completely alien either...which kinda disappointed me: I really wanted an absolutely OUT of this world monster. Still excellent though. I really liked the monster and military moments of the film, which is why I'm hoping they make some sort of sequel (or prequel) that explains the situation...without stupid characters...
Now see, here, I profoundly disagree. With that it would have been just another unremarkable monster movie. This is also why I think the the "Blairzilla" comments are stupid. The use of first person narrative by way of found footage was different in both films and it's ridiculous to arbitrarily declare that somehow you can only use that once. They both relied on the intimacy of self-documentation to draw the audience into the 'horror' of the film. But where Blair Witch documented an unknown/unbelievable horror, the horror of Cloverfield is obvious to the world in which it happened. It's a major event, this is just one of the pieces of evidence after the fact that was recovered, it was one of the many stories that where told that day.

That's compelling enough on its own. I think it would have been less interesting for it to be, basically, Godzilla (American) where we follow the plucky scientist who figures the monster out and the gruff military man who puts the hammer down.

Now see, here, I profoundly disagree. With that it would have been just another unremarkable monster movie. This is also why I think the the "Blairzilla" comments are stupid. The use of first person narrative by way of found footage was different in both films and it's ridiculous to arbitrarily declare that somehow you can only use that once. They both relied on the intimacy of self-documentation to draw the audience into the 'horror' of the film. But where Blair Witch documented an unknown/unbelievable horror, the horror of Cloverfield is obvious to the world in which it happened. It's a major event, this is just one of the pieces of evidence after the fact that was recovered, it was one of the many stories that where told that day.

That's compelling enough on its own. I think it would have been less interesting for it to be, basically, Godzilla (American) where we follow the plucky scientist who figures the monster out and the gruff military man who puts the hammer down.

Oh I agree, they took an excellent route with the handicam footage and the everyday characters. The mystery added a great deal to the chaotic atmosphere. I think the movie did exactly what it set out to do in that regard. Maybe the characters just pissed me off so much that the exposure that the monster got seemed minimal in comparison (probably wrong, but ugh).

I think if they are going to make a sequel (and knowing how much money this movie is going to make, they may) they should continue with the first person narrative, but this time around follow the military somehow, maybe from a soldier's helmet-cam.

T'was very entertaining; and it does bring up a strong reminder of 9/11. But it was also kind of strange.

You'd never see New York like that; with skyscrapers toppled on each other, US military forces battling it out with a Godzilla-esque monster, and B2 bombers pummeling Midtown with precision bombs. I guess that's one of the major reasons I liked it.

You have to wonder why in monster movies the military would think that sending ground troops with Humvees and M-16's would be really effective against a 100 foot monster. The only way you deal with that is heavy firepower, not a bunch of soldiers firing wildly with M-16s.

I saw it and I still don't know what that monster was. Maybe someone asked Ann Coulter to do a New York appearance without her make-up.


:D

They had heavy firepower there too (at least a couple of tanks). And maybe it was just me, but the military seemed to get there awfully fast, with tanks and a battlefield hospital.

Someone must've told the Department of Homeland Security about Ann's visit. ;)

You have to wonder why in monster movies the military would think that sending ground troops with Humvees and M-16's would be really effective against a 100 foot monster. The only way you deal with that is heavy firepower, not a bunch of soldiers firing wildly with M-16s.

They had heavy firepower there too (at least a couple of tanks). And maybe it was just me, but the military seemed to get there awfully fast, with tanks and a battlefield hospital.

They had heavy firepower there too (at least a couple of tanks). And maybe it was just me, but the military seemed to get there awfully fast, with tanks and a battlefield hospital.

maybe, but after 9/11 they probably have some sort of rapid response unit that can be deployed within a couple of hours.

As for what happened to the girl, they show you about five minutes before it happens. When the group comes first reaches the hospital, a stretcher goes by with a soldier on it, with stomach exploded outwards, as someone says "another bite" in the background.

Rolling squid;13386597']maybe, but after 9/11 they probably have some sort of rapid response unit that can be deployed within a couple of hours.

As for what happened to the girl, they show you about five minutes before it happens. When the group comes first reaches the hospital, a stretcher goes by with a soldier on it, with stomach exploded outwards, as someone says "another bite" in the background.

According to the viral videos that thing had attacked oil rigs and other nonsense, so the military had probably already been mobilized. The people at the party weren't watching the news so they didn't get any kind of heads up.

According to the viral videos that thing had attacked oil rigs and other nonsense, so the military had probably already been mobilized. The people at the party weren't watching the news so they didn't get any kind of heads up.


ah, I didn't follow the viral videos. How long before the NYC attack did the thing go after the oil rigs?

Rolling squid;13386614']ah, I didn't follow the viral videos. How long before the NYC attack did the thing go after the oil rigs?

No idea. A friend showed me the news feed videos and I half assedly watched them.

No idea. A friend showed me the news feed videos and I half assedly watched them.

At the end of the movie, the last scene on the videotape is the lovebirds at coney island. In the background, you can see something splashing into the water. *nod*

Oh I agree, they took an excellent route with the handicam footage and the everyday characters. The mystery added a great deal to the chaotic atmosphere. I think the movie did exactly what it set out to do in that regard. Maybe the characters just pissed me off so much that the exposure that the monster got seemed minimal in comparison (probably wrong, but ugh).

I think if they are going to make a sequel (and knowing how much money this movie is going to make, they may) they should continue with the first person narrative, but this time around follow the military somehow, maybe from a soldier's helmet-cam.

COPS Half-Life, anyone?

At the end of the movie, the last scene on the videotape is the lovebirds at coney island. In the background, you can see something splashing into the water. *nod*

Dammit, I missed that...

Dammit, I missed that...

SO did I. A friend told me. :)

I missed it as well, but It asks the question, why didn't anyone see this huge thing hurtling through the sky?

Rolling squid;13386842']I missed it as well, but It asks the question, why didn't anyone see this huge thing hurtling through the sky?

It was Coney Island. :p

It was Coney Island. :p

hmmm, i stand corrected once again. Very good Mr. Goofball.

haven't seen it yet, but one question...

does it have the cliche "the monster isn't dead/it had offsprings" ending?

Yes - after the credits it plays an audio clip which sounds like 'Help me' forwards and 'It's still alive' backwards.

Yes - after the credits it plays an audio clip which sounds like 'Help me' forwards and 'It's still alive' backwards.

At first, I thought that it was going to be Jason, and that he had survived the crash somehow, gotten into a boat, and was calling Rob's cellphone. Then, I found out that it is in fact "It's still alive backwards."

I thought that it was one of the most intense movies I have ever seen, despite the discrepancies in size, because while watching the movie, I realized that this was the most realistic approach to a monster movie ever. You have a camera, which has been recovered from a site that was either nuked (Unlikely given that the camera survived with it's SD card intact, or MOAB'ed (More likely as it lacks the EM pulse.

Also, am I the only one who thought that Hud was an appropriate name for the POV character? I thought it was genius, seeing as how in games and RL, displays like in Halo are called Heads Up Displays.

Though there wasn't much character developement, there didn't need too be. This movie was more along the lines of capturing what happened, not making the characters out to be more human. And the way they did it was expertly done.

As for sequels, apparently current plans are to make TWO more movies. No idea on what they will be about, but I like the idea of it being from a UAV over Manhattan, with the panicked voices of MI trying to kill it, or the idea of using the Helmet Cam of one of the soldiers.

Though I have to say, that the idea I heard last night of using a News Chopper for the POV is an interesting idea, as we will learn more about the monster that way, while being able to see the characters in the News Chopper trying to figure out what just happened.

COPS Half-Life, anyone?

They've already done that. Look! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJDr6lCf4s0)

[POST WILL CONTAIN LOTS OF SPOILERS]

As strange as this may sound, I found that the human characters in Cloverfield required me to suspend my disbelief the most, and over-all were the most unrealistic elements of the movie.

The cinematography was actually pretty good and did a great job of making the surreal events seem more realistic. The behavior of the people when in large groups was very realistic, right down to the way that everybody had their camera phones out as soon as the disaster started. The CGI was far less intrusive than it usually is in movies of this type. The ending was left open, and you never get the neat wrap-up exposition that monster flicks typically include. I liked that.

The main flaw was that the human characters were so supremely Hollywood. They all looked like models, except for Goofy Friend, and they all had the kind of problems that only rich white models have. "Oh dear, I had sex with a girl who was just a friend and now I'm moving away and aren't we just going to be so sad? Waaaaaah, it's like summer camp all over again!" It really felt like they went out of their way to make the most one-dimensional, unsympathetic caricatures possible, and then tried to make the movie revolve around those personalities. BIG MISTAKE.

The biggest problem for me was how Our Hero spends the movie trying to Save Damsel In Distress. Bullshit. The movie would have been 10 times better if he actually made a human decision: I have to give up on being Hero for my Damsel, because acting like a Hero in this case will get me and all my friends killed. But no, he's hot and white and rich, and hot white rich guys must save hot white rich girls, or else Hollywood will implode.

In the end, I was left rooting for the monster to destroy humanity, because the main characters convincingly argued for the total inferiority of our species.

I thought the monster itself was pretty cool, since it didn't look like anything we can easily identify and that made you keep trying frantically to see it and figure out what the fuck it was.

Although, I really wish that they had made the modern Godzilla movie in the style of Cloverfield. I think it would have been amazing to see Godzilla transformed from a campy monster into this type of nightmarish creature. The quintessential Godzilla movie moment is the goofy citizens pointing up at the monster and saying something loony, resulting in laughing and cheers. It would have been awesome to see that moment recast and portrayed the way it would probably happen if a real Godzilla started eating New York.



TLDR Version: The monster of Cloverfield was approximately 100 times more believable and entertaining than any of the human characters. Evil space monsters 1, humanity 0.

Cloverfield? Umm never heard of it.

The biggest problem for me was how Our Hero spends the movie trying to Save Damsel In Distress. Bullshit. The movie would have been 10 times better if he actually made a human decision: I have to give up on being Hero for my Damsel, because acting like a Hero in this case will get me and all my friends killed. But no, he's hot and white and rich, and hot white rich guys must save hot white rich girls, or else Hollywood will implode.

In the end, I was left rooting for the monster to destroy humanity, because the main characters convincingly argued for the total inferiority of our species.

What redeemed that for me was that he didn't really save anybody. If he had kept on like he was supposed to then he would have died on the bridge with his brother, they threw that in. I would have vastly preferred that the story had been that the group had gotten separated and were trying to escape while making sure they all got out, instead of convincing people to go back with him to get his chick. Of course that wouldn't have worked as well because it would either still be told from only one perspective or compromise the aesthetic by clipping together two sources of footage. I did have the same 'bullshit' moment when they decide to go back, that Saving Private Ryan kind of thing, how many lives are worth the chick you can't get back on the phone and is probably already dead?

But, like the teens who have t eh secks and do the drugs in slasher movies, these pretty but stupid people either got eaten, bitten, or...well, that one chick who was dating one brother but seemed to love the other brother, which is totally what I thought was going to be revealed at some point, I guess she got away...

The only good thing about Cloverfield was the Star Trek teaser.

It has a 'no idea what happened to the monster' ending since we weren't dealing with 'prime' characters. We don't know where, or how, the monster came about or really much of what it did. We only saw it in relation to what the people we were following was doing.

I don't know that the whole shots of the creature really de-mystified it that much. There was no even attempt to explain what was going on or what it was about, so seeing it didn't really clear up anything other than what it looked like.

With the first person perspective and some of the timing and pacing it could occasionally feel like a 'survival horror' video game.

The use of the previous contents of that tape was pretty well done.

It had a good threshold for how much I could stand. I was ready for them to go through the tunnels about 2 minutes before they did, and figured out that the camera had a light on it about 2 or 3 minutes after I was starting to go, "Dudes, there's probably a fucking light on the camera."

Ultimately, the giant monster attacks city is a straight forward story, there's only so much you can do with it. This was an intriguing approach. I didn't neccisarily buy all the characters and as such wasn't as anxious as I could have been, but over all interesting and well done.
sounds like "The Host" where the monster is just there, the real story is the people who are affected by it.

sounds like "The Host" where the monster is just there, the real story is the people who are affected by it.

The Host was really bad though. The key to good horror films is not showing the monster too early. The Host ruined it. Plus I didn't buy formaldehyde causing that type of mutation.

The Host was really bad though. The key to good horror films is not showing the monster too early. The Host ruined it. Plus I didn't buy formaldehyde causing that type of mutation.

The point is... or was. the monster was not supposed to be the focus of the movie, but the struggle of the family to find the missing girl. The monster was just the 'event'. (btw... did the girl live at the end? the pictures kinda point to yes, but the family's reaction when they pulled her out of the creatures mouth tells me no.)

same with the Modern Godzilla flicks (this last grouping of movies.) it's not the monsters that are fighting that the view is supposed to focus on but the poor humans underfoot.

that's why I classify The Host as a monster drama film... since it's not really horror and that's what "Cloverfield" sounds like. less monster flick more monster... survival or drama.

sounds like "The Host" where the monster is just there, the real story is the people who are affected by it.
It was very much like The Host and I feel that that is a much fairer comparison film to measure it by that Blair Witch
The Host was really bad though. The key to good horror films is not showing the monster too early. The Host ruined it. Plus I didn't buy formaldehyde causing that type of mutation.

I think that the monster popping out like that was actually a stroke of genius. i think to a degree Jaws has trapped monster movie makers in its 'happy accident' (Spielberg notes that he didn't want to hold off showing the shark until the end, it's just that the shark didn't work, so that's all they had). I do not think at all that it's key to hide the monster and to my mind The Host proved that.

I think that it's a weaker movie that has to rely on the 'just show me the damn monster' for suspense than letting the situation create the suspense instead. Especially with the kind of monster that The Host was. In certain regards, I think a rampaging monster is scarier than a selective one. I think The Host did a pretty fair job of getting rid of what essentially has become a hacks crutch for creating suspense in a monster movie.

You have to wonder why in monster movies the military would think that sending ground troops with Humvees and M-16's would be really effective against a 100 foot monster. The only way you deal with that is heavy firepower, not a bunch of soldiers firing wildly with M-16s.

But it looks cool. Anyway, the military tried everything from field artillery to Abrams tanks to stealth bombers, and nothing worked. I want it as a pet now.

But it looks cool. Anyway, the military tried everything from field artillery to Abrams tanks to stealth bombers, and nothing worked. I want it as a pet now.

what I don't get is, after the normal bombing runs had failed, why didn't the army haul out some small scale tactical nuke and use it on the monster?

Rolling squid;13388920']what I don't get is, after the normal bombing runs had failed, why didn't the army haul out some small scale tactical nuke and use it on the monster?

because there is just something bad using nukes on your own city...

It worked for me. Nevermind the people, I was thinking more along the lines of "what if I were there".

You see explosions, and bombings and natural catastrophes on the news all the time, but they always give you a skewed, non-threatening view of what's going on. This was good because it got across just how scary and disorientating that sort of stuff is. And then that makes the evocation of 9/11 not just understandable, but almost a requirement.

Anyways, I don't think I've ever seen a movie where people just wouldn't get up after it was over. Not that that stopped me, which meant that of course I missed the bits after the credits. :rolleyes:

Three comments I have heard makes me not want to go see it.

The Blair Witch Rejected.
Godzilla meets 9/11.
The Dog crabs.

It will probably be a rental.....

A rental is a little harsh. I would buy a used copy on DVD.

A rental is a little harsh. I would buy a used copy on DVD.

rental's cheaper and you return it after you're done. thus it won't stay and rot your collection.

wish I did that with Bloodrayne 2. :(

rental's cheaper and you return it after you're done. thus it won't stay and rot your collection.

wish I did that with Bloodrayne 2. :(

You deserve what you get for daring to watch anything tainted by the UweBolla virus. :p

because there is just something bad using nukes on your own city...

there's something worse in letting the monster that just destroyed the city live. And besides, a small nuke like that wouldn't destroy too much of what was left of the city.

Three comments I have heard makes me not want to go see it.

The Blair Witch Rejected.
Godzilla meets 9/11.
The Dog crabs.

Dunno about the "Dog crabs", since they looked more like spiders to me, but the first two are straight-on. If you haven't seen it yet, don't waste your money. Spend it on something better, like dinner for your mom, you'll both be happier.

They overexposed the creature, too many shots where you saw the whole thing in it's entirety, and that demystified it from the trailers and the first 20 minutes or so.

OVERexposed it??? You get like, what, 3 full shots of it and the dude is shaking so much that the only clear shot you see is of the inside of its damn mouth!

Conceptual art from development phase.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkS2GuqQHVg

A coming-soon-to-a-store-near-you toy version of the monster.
http://www.movieweb.com/news/38/25538.php

Rolling squid;13388920']what I don't get is, after the normal bombing runs had failed, why didn't the army haul out some small scale tactical nuke and use it on the monster?
because there is just something bad using nukes on your own city...

reminded me of this :p

The President: C'mon, let me nuke that bastard.
Commander Gilmour: Are you suggesting that we blow up the moon?
The President: Would you miss it?
[looks around the table]
The President: Would you miss it?

It will probably be a rental.....

I can confirm that it is worth a rental ;) Just did so myself. It's definitely not worth a full theater price, but if you can find a cheap-o rental place, one watching is worth at least three or four bucks.