Kinda "Plan 9"ish... but still enjoyable.

Rating: 7/10 (26 August 2014)

I really would like to know why this flick is earning scads of IMDb ratings below 3! I guess I'll do a survey of the comments and look for a commonality.
One thing for sure: There *is* a sort of "Plan 9" feel to the plot lead-up. It was beginning to look like we'd be left high/dry with respect to a binding mythos that lends credence to the concept. And then we finally get to the scene at Monarch where things sorta start to get explained; but it sounded a bit hollow, to me; like the alien fellow's speech in Plan 9 about why alien intelligence urgently needed to intervene in Earth matters. Yeah, it made a sort of sense, but... not really. They try to palm Cranston's character off as one of those crackpots-who-knew-all-along, but in the end it doesn't gel. You get the distinct feeling that Cranston's character was supposed to be tragic; but sadly, due to thematic mismanagement, he comes off as a bit pathetic.
Now, I've never been a monster aficionado: As a kid, I tended to get scared easily, and wouldn't watch monster flicks, even while my buddies loved 'em. So I'm trying to play catch-up here. But I sense that the key to making a flick like this work is to skip the pretenses to high-toned theatrics and go for the gut: Create a visceral sense of power and primal, atavistic, animal angst. I really don't understand, in the least, all the commenter remonstrations to the effect that there's not enough monster action. There's plenty, plenty, plenty of very tastefully choreographed monster action in this flick; and it's powerful, primal, angry... all that!
So, in the end, I give this guy a 7: It's not timeless art, but the producers, et.al. sought to paint a very big picture, and a big picture is delivered. For that, alone, it deserves more than the weird reprisal ratings it's been receiving.