Monsters Reviews

If you want to see what can be accomplished with some dedication, a low budget and just a decent idea. Here you go! A solid sci fi picture.

A photo journalist is grudgingly charged with escorting his boss' daughter through the "infected zone" of central America which has become home for a race of huge alien creatures. Although the DVD cover screeches "THRILLING" and "ACTION PACKED", anyone misguided enough to be hoping for Cloverfield 2 will be mightily disappointed. Monsters is more a road movie that just happens to feature creatures from outer space and reminded me more of a cross between The African Queen and Jurassic Park, with the occasional nod to Apocalypse Now. The actual content is hardly original but the approach is refreshingly different in that it doesn't concentrate on the sci-fi aspect of the story, instead focusing on the protagonists and it has quite a nice "screw with nature at your own peril" subtext. Most react to the "monsters" with fear and violence with inevitably tragic results and this forms the backdrop to a nice, character driven journey that has a really nice, low key vibe. It's interesting how the proliferation of CGI has meant that indie film now has access to some pretty impressive visual effects and along with District 9, Monsters is another example of some quality results.

A rare mix of romance, horror, and sci-fi that is both welcome and keeps you hooked throughout.

An average joe journalist gets recruited to safely convey an heiress cross-country, ala It Happened One Night, only this particular country is infested with alien beasts. Can two disparate souls find love while running for their lives? If they had stuck to that there might've been a cool movie, but noooo, the first time director felt it necessary to dilute his story with liberal commentary about immigration, entitlement, journalistic responsibility, ad nauseum, as well as the question of just who are the real monsters, removing what bite the tale might've had. An ambitious effort.

A mediocre movie, but it was entertaining nevertheless. It had some real pretty shots, especially when you consider the low budget it was filmed on.

Monster is decently constructed and has an outrageously genius premise but the execution was fairly poor and it barely lives up to it's title. I had high expectations and I couldn't help but feel I was let down a bit. Gareth Edwards' uses very skillful direction but nothing really grasped my attention and it wasn't all that interesting as it suggests. But it's different and it has it's moments. It wasn't great, the characters were cardboard. However it's, unique and quite intriguing so I do sort of recommend it. Kinda.

I for One enjoyed this film, many others have not. My reason might be for the fact that the location seems to have been a place I spent a lot of time in an d long to return, the movie itself had very little computer generation and of the monster movies of late this one seemed believe able. When this came out on the big screen it got very little billing, would have enjoyed this one on the big screen.4 Stars

I have to say I really enjoyed this movie. It's highly original and unique. It is definitely not your average alien invasion film. This is about human characters trying to get home. The aliens are not even considered aliens anymore, they are residents. Monsters is gorgeously shot, suspenseful, exciting, the acting is so real and believable, and the special effects are just jaw-dropping for such a low budget film. I can't wait to see what Gareth Edwards does next!

Monsters is a slow paced indie flick that has nothing to do with monsters in the sense that visually there are not any creepy crawlies. Onscreen we have two travelers trying to get to their respective homes while running from large, floating aliens that have inhabited a zone between the United States and the Mexican border. Because this film was single handedly helmed by Gareth Edwards and didn't have the budget to be an epic monster movie or invasion film, it had a lot of chances to be an understated character study of two people in a hard to understand situation and how normal aliens can be, once integrated into society. Up until they decide to go into the infected zone I was digging the storyline and the growing relationship between the two leads. We were getting into their flawed personas and the way aliens were now something regular on the news but not in their lives. They weren't romantic but there was jealousy, there was commentary on the relationship between Americans and Mexicans and the political hubris around immigration, and the destruction of the alien species who hadn't reached out to the human race. After that, when they're running around the jungle, and the aliens become more of a threat, the character development dribbles down to key problems including the heiress' impending marriage and her employee's enstrangement to his son. These aren't directly put to good use and then romance is thrust on the two leads. Everything afterward feels contrived and forced. I still really liked the ending and the use of the title as an introspective view of social commentary, but the main focus of this film was supposed to revolve around the two leads and to be honest they're not that interesting. The acting is bland, the characters are one dimensional, and it didn't hold enough tension or awareness to be anything other than a tortured couple amidst a strange situation. I didn't see anything new or daring about this, and using the adjective understated instead of dull is not a saving grace.

Monsters' own title has a double meaning. It's asking one which of the two species was the beast. A great film, with fairly well done acting, the movie is a higher-class-indie-road film. Most of the effort shows from the director and writer and special effects artist. Enjoyable as a sci-fi, or as metaphorical film.

With a title like "Monsters", and a story that begins with "six years ago NASA launched a probe..." one might think this to be a sci-fi extravaganza with aliens trying to take over the world or something. That aliens may indeed be taking over the world, yet in such a natural and subtle way, is what makes this small budget film work so well.

Who are the real monsters, remains the question. One could certainly argue that it is the good old US of A who, after bringing the organisms to earth (and then crashing the probe into Mexico - how's that for hands across America?) set up a quarantine zone to keep the creatures in check. Of course a bit of forward thinking - something our government seems incapable of - would have humankind either embracing the species - which somehow doesn't seem likely - or removing the "contamination" by whatever means necessary. Spending billions building a wall across the US/Mexican border is, as usual, wrongheaded and, as usual, doesn't work (although it makes a nice allegory to the current immigration issue in the US).

Delving further, one could also look at humanity itself as a monster - as for sure the alien species does come off as rather sympathetic, and for all their alienness, not all that different in their main desire - to exist, and therefore propagate. The film does a really nice job of giving the aliens some very animalistic tendencies, including migratory cycles that the US is aware of, but can't seem to deem as earthly and "just like us". The film's climax aptly draws that parallel ( by including what has to be the most unsexy kiss ever filmed - but perhaps that was the intention... to show that humanity is really just our base instincts and a bunch of rhetoric).

The film also shows us the seedier side of humanity in that we always seem to find a certain type of profiteer who hover around any catastrophe - anxious to make a buck while people suffer.

First time director, and film's writer and effects creator, Gareth Edwards has taken an idea and made a very true film, beautifully filmed, and has the gift of being able to say much by inference, although he is a bit obvious, especially concerning the female lead and her "engagement issues". Really, the interplay between the two main characters (arguably the ONLY characters) isn't all that poignant or dramatic, but works in its own quirky way - in spite of some overzealous acting by the male lead).

Yes, the film isn't perfect, and if you were expecting War of The Worlds, well it's not that type of film (thank goodness), but rather a fine expose that allows you to think about who we are as a species and why we are so bad at all types of relationships.

A modern rendition of the classic ultra-low budget post-apocalyptic monster flick. Geeky guy and hot girl have to travel across a monster-strewn land. Neither a particularly original concept nor a clever story with a rather listless delivery. The cinematography, sound and sfx were all pretty good though given the one-man production team.

A solid movie that delivered what was promised on a low budget. A seemingly deep metaphor for what we don't understand and striking similarities with District 9 in my mind, this movie aimed to give a more personal view of the "creatures" rather than a narrative from them. Overall it was worth watching and was in no way endured, with parts of the movie being genuinely entertaining, but I cannot say that it stood out or provided anything notable to remember in the future or mention here with any terrific merit. A decent low budget alien invasion movie.

"Monsters" is a really enjoyable character piece; don't let the title fool you. It's a film about two people, and that aspect is played to great, convincing effect by two strong leads.

The monsters in question, though rarely seen, set the mood and ambiance of the film, while giving it (scene to scene) a surprising sense of unease. The cinematography and digital effect shots throughout are striking; an extraordinary feat considering how low of a budget the film was made on! On a technical level, everything just works.

The film's most beautiful and effective scene takes place at the end of the picture in an isolated gas station. Two Monsters, not forced into defending themselves, majestically communicate to one another, which inspires our two heroes to finally act on the feelings shared between each other.

"Monsters" is a marvel of Low-Budget filmmaking. Not only a sum of it's technical merits, it provides a worthwhile human drama in an intriguing, original setting. I can't see many viewers not liking this one.

If you are looking for a great Sci-Fi film then keep looking. Monsters main problem is that it targeted the wrong demographic. The premise of the film serves as the excuse for two people to spend time with each other who ordinarily would not (a la Six Days, Seven Nights.) So the movie would be better framed as a romantic film. The film does have this eerie undertone though as they run from imminent danger and the entire film seems raw, without the Hollywood polish. It wasn't bad, but not what I was expecting.

Gareth Edwards deserves plaudits aplenty for this directorial debut. Not only is he the director, he's also the writer, the cinematographer, the production designer and as if that's not enough, he's does the special-effects aswell. The only one that really needs honed though, is his writing.
Kaulder (Scoot McNairy) is an American photojournalist working in Central America. After a phone call, he's compelled to pick up his boss' daughter, Sam (Whitney Able), from hospital and see that she gets back home to America safely. Thus begins a fraught journey - and a tentative romance - as a series of mishaps force the pair to trek through 'The Infected Zone', a strip of land along the US border inhabited by gigantic extra-terrestrial creatures.
After being warned that this film was far from a big budget effects laden sci-fi, I went into this actually knowing what to expect. However, I still left it feeling disappointed. It's undeniably impressive in being shot on a shoestring budget, using only one camera and a cast that consisted of only two trained actors, but overall, it's frankly boring. It thinks it's way more deeper than it actually is and there's a massive essential ingredient missing from it; a story. It's high on atmosphere and ambience but very low on excitement and thrills. I realise that Edwards shot the film as and when he could, without any pre-planned scripted scenes - which I greatly admire - but it doesn't make for very good entertainment. The two unknown leads give fine performances but are left with a lot of staring into the beyond with slow meditative shots as they ponder their feeling for one another. The aliens or 'creatures' are kept to a minimum and finally when our two protaganists are treated to a touch of soft core alien porn, it helps them realise their own feelings. The title of the film is also a problem. Yes, it may well just be reffering to the American army, leaving devestation in their wake with their Gung-ho approach in eradicating the alien entities, rather than 'monsters' being the entities themselves. However, I still think the title is as misleading as the pace is misjudged.
An impressive low-budget shoot that definitely looks the part but despite it being hard to criticise a film that has been molded by the talents of one man, it's still highly uneventful and painfully dull.
It'll be interesting to see what Gareth Edwards does next though. He's certainly got the skills.

I found Monsters to be quite an original film all things considered but as much as I don't like to, I can't help but compare it to Cloverfield. In my rather lazy review of Cloverfield I facetiously commented that I liked it but would have liked it better if Lars Von Trier had directed it and as if by magic... Ok, so Gareth Edwards isn't at Von Trier status just yet, he comes from SFX for starters but I digress, this is a brilliant debut. Godzilla represented Japan's fear of the atomic bomb, District 9 was about apartheid, Cloverfield, supposedly, represents the fear of terrorism in the western world post 9/11 (although personally I think it is just an excuse to make a monster movie), every monster film out proclaims to be about representing peoples fears of what ever is scariest that decade but Monsters seems to be the exception. You can read so much into it though, at first I thought it was about American paranoia, fear of the unknown and the fact that when you try to keep things out, you only barricade yourself in. Like I said, you can read a lot into it and after watching the making of, I'm not so sure any of that was the intention. Besides, he's British and seems more interested in the emotional affect of the scenario, its really a simple love story, another reason why we don't actually see an invasion as such but join the story when the monsters have already settled. I think the most impressive thing about this film, apart from the fantastic and quite beautiful last scene, is that it cost next to nothing to make and was shot with a crew of 8 or so people including cast. That is impressive. Spielberg made Jaws, Gareth Edwards made Monsters, this is the future of film making or at least, I really hope it is.

Cloverfield: Six Years Later.

Obviously there are undeniable undertones of immigration reform and environmentalism but the structure of the script kept the politics from becoming a distraction. Compared to bigger budget productions like Cloverfield and District Nine this one seems more intuitive and humanistic. Definitely a tentacle in the right direction.

A breakout success, but as you might have read, make sure you know what you're getting yourself into. This is only a monster movie in the barest sense of the word, where the monsters are typically used as a backdrop for what is essentially a story of human interaction and struggle. They're a very threatening backdrop that happens to occasionally kill people, but this is not a horror movie, or an action movie, and it's barely a sci-fi movie. It's a strange little geopolitical relationship drama with a few extraterrestrial tentacles slithering in from the edges. It isn't perfect, saddlebagged primarily by a main character who never quite manages an appropriate payoff from his palpable first act douchiness. It's not that the film fails to make Andrew unsympathetic, necessarily, but that it doesn't really give him enough traits to complicate his incessant selfishness. Our perception of him essentially shifts from "overgrown bro" to "overgrown bro who is sad." Sam is more complex - her character's fundamental emotional struggles with restlessness and unease have been mined pretty thoroughly in other films, but she takes the lion's share of the depth from Monsters. It's much easier to see the impact that her immediate situation, locked in a foreign country and surrounded by murderous aliens, has on her personal circumstances; it's evident in the first few scenes we have with her, where she's nothing but a liability to Andrew but she knows it.

Monsters, shot almost entirely improvisationally and on a budget of less than a million dollars, was almost certainly a risk of a film. Gareth Edwards' approach doesn't show an ounce of anxiety, though - his locales are bold, the performances solid, and the story, though quiet, is constantly moving forward with considerable momentum. Sure to be filed under the vastly expanding roster of films marketed contrary to their real genre, Monsters is nonetheless a striking, original dialogue piece with a vivid cinematic hook that livens it just the right amount.