More info here: http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/01/cloverfield-man.html

As I’ve followe the viral marketing for the film, I’ll give you a rundown of the Monster’s origins.

First off, within the film itself the monster’s origin is never made explicately clear. In fact, multiple theories as to its origin are given ranging from space alien, to out of control government weapon, to deep sea monster, etc

Second, Clovie, as many have dubbed the Cloverfield moonster, is not related to Lost. Not a single shred of evidence supports their connection. I’m very certain that as Ahbrams did not direct Cloverfield, he intended the two franchises to remain seperate.

Three, basically the monster is so big not because he’s a “naturally occuring” giant monster, but because he’s a deep sea creature suited to living under thousands of feet of pressure in the marianas trench AND because he’s been exposed/emits/injected with some type of biological substance roughly translated as “Seabed’s Nectar”.

Seabed’s Nectar happens to be the secret ingredient of Slusho. It causes “increased cellular growth, increased energy, feelings of happiness” Basically in small doses it acts like an addictive drug, but in larger quantities has nastier properties.

The bite of the parasites that dwell on Clovie do NOT infect people with little baby parasites. The bites just cause them to explode. The effect is supposed to be similar to someone suffering like an extreme reaction to an insect bite by puffing up.

There’s more, but I’m tired.

there you go
BAMikeyD

That’s the reason I never go to horror movies. I can live with physics holes. I can live with minor plot holes. I can even live with huge character flaws. But that doesn’t mean I can excuse overwhelming stupidity in main characters. Rob sounds like he deserved.
Of course I had a similar reaction to the little girl in War of the Worlds (new version) and most of the main characters in Shakespeare (Macbeth most notably).