Monsters - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Monsters Reviews

Page 1 of 195
August 30, 2016
Monsters does not really live by its title. Maybe it should be called "Relationships" instead because that is all this movie is about; the choppy relationship between the two main characters. By the way, these so called monsters are just giant octopi that glow.
½ August 18, 2016
Don't expect to see a lot of monsters like district 9 it is more about the human relationships and social commentary. The budget was half a million with 2 actors and a film crew you can fit in a van at a half million budget. It was decent but the title was misleading. I can see why the director was asked to reboot Godzilla and hope that he can show his work in Rogue One.
August 5, 2016
Underrated movie. Had no idea the budget was so low until after my 3rd time seeing it. Different type of movie, very entertaining, suspenseful story. Look forward to seeing the director in Hollywood.
½ July 27, 2016
An interesting premise and a good story about two characters living in a time when humanity is dealing with an alien infestation.
July 6, 2016
A love/road movie with a few cameos from the name of the title, One review on the DVD cover said it was action packed but there wasn't any at all so dont know were that review came from maybe he ended up in the wronge screen but anyway I still found it watchable and well acted plus the monster effects were amazing to say they were done on a laptop.
½ July 6, 2016
This movie is a great example of how to use human instinct and the horrors of what we can do, without just pure gore. It is very suspenseful at times and heart felt during other times. I feel like this film is shot documentary style, which gives it a great esthetic. Overall a great little catch available on amazon prime.
½ June 29, 2016
I give this films props for at least trying to mask its heavy handed message in some ways, but ultimately it dismally fails to create a connection and ends up looking like a shifty propaganda movie.
June 22, 2016
so i sat through this fucking brilliant movie which was a bloody rolercoaster of emotio and tense moments.JUST. TO. HAVE.a SHITTY FUCKING ENDING LIKE W T F!!!!!!!!!!!!!! seriously 2/10 would have been one but there is a guy in the credits whos name was LOL something ahahaha
½ May 22, 2016
This movie wasn't very good. Gareth Edwards did what he could with the budget he had, but ultimately, his script was flawed and the movie was just boring. So far I am not much of a fan of his work.
½ May 8, 2016
Simplistic big budget idea achieved with subtlety and restraint. There's only a handful of genuine moments of terror and/or suspense and for a movie called "Monsters" that seems an unusual choice, but ultimately its an interesting and enjoyable film. Edwards goes from strength to strength from here.
½ May 6, 2016
Very real, but also not much to show. A romance with a scifi film happening in the background.
½ May 4, 2016
When it was released in 2010, director Gareth Edwards cannot have possibly imagined that Donald Trump would be polling so well in the race for the White House and that he was suggesting that the US build a wall to keep Mexicans out. There are some scarily prescient ideas on display in Monsters. The premise is that humans discover a form of unknown life in the solar system and send a ship to investigate it. On returning, the ship crashes in New Mexico causing a kind of undisclosed infection. The whole area is quarantined and within the exclusion zone, giant, tentacled creatures migrate backwards and forwards, depending on the season. The daughter of a wealthy publisher is trapped on the Mexico side of the border and her father arranges for one of his employees to act as an escort and get her home to America before the border closes. Missing the last ferry, the couple have no option but to try to sneak into the exclusion zone and try to make it to the giant wall that protects the southern states. The story focuses on the developing relationship between the two. The giant aliens, while present, feature fleetingly are are hardly explored. You do get the impression that their is some kind of conspiracy of silence by the authorities surrounding the situation and the frequent air-raids and bombing runs that scream overhead. If I'm honest, I wanted more explanation and background to the story. It really felt as though the people in the know were trying to keep the population deliberately in the dark and it's a bit frustrating not to be in on the secret. Nevertheless as a low budget, first full-length movie for the director, this is a really great effort in the mould of films such as Cloverfield.
May 2, 2016
The outcome of this film is great with what cast crew and money they where given to make this film yet some scenes do slow down the film but the tension and suspense doesn't go anywhere 3 1/2 stars
½ April 18, 2016
Saw this on 17/4/16
Despite having a lackluster plot, this film has enough human drama, performances and sensible social commentary in an alien invasion. How far all these adds up depends on how much the viewer is expecting.
½ March 27, 2016
It may be slow paced and not the action horror it seems to be marketed as, but I prefer it this way. It's a visually spectacular movie with one of the best soundtracks ever created that might lack in plot but makes up for it in flawless composition and moving, genuine interaction between the characters.
½ March 2, 2016
Well made sci-fi movie with some excitement and suspense. Good acting and direction. Interesting story and concept
February 24, 2016
Doesn't quite work as a relationship movie or as a monster movie, has a few good ideas as the latter but doesn't quite explore them enough.
½ February 6, 2016
What a complete waste of time!
February 2, 2016
Being a Gareth Edwards monster film that preceded his work on Godzilla (2014), Monsters sounded like a chance to return to the man's roots.

Monsters begins by introducing an interesting story context. Cleverly introducing a way to tell a story about monsters yet confine it to a small setting, Monsters produces an interesting universe simply through the means of its intro text before having a brief sequence depicting humans battling aliens in the shadows. This scene cleverly uses visual techniques to hide the requirement for visual detail while also making use of strong visual effects. This sets up an interesting film, one which is ultimately non-existent.
Admittedly, Monsters is a fine example of a film which has such a small budget that it has to stretch its limitations very far to achieve feature length. It relies on an established universe that it never has to actually depict because it leaves everything to the implications and therefore the imaginations of viewers. Many people seem to have approved of this notion which has led Monsters to being a successful film, but it does not bypass me. To compare it to the horror film Pod (2015), both have miniscule budgets and attempt to stretch both character drama and the general idea of their material to feature length as a means of creating a prolonged story. Neither are truly great films, but Pod managed to keep things satisfying through the use of constant intensity in the actors and a consistent focus on its concept. Monsters gets its characters distracted with themes of relationship drama and subconscious political themes rather than harnessing the potential of its setting. If you walked in on Monsters at a random time without knowing its title, it is highly likely you wouldn't guess it was a horror film since there is so little horror in it. There are few seconds of actual monsters depicted in the film, and though they are captured with fairly impressive visual effects, they add no flair to the feature since nothing is done with them. Nothing is done with really anything in Monsters because nothing happens.
Monsters' budgetary limitations means that it cannot take advantage of the high profile story context it establishes and falls into a meandering path of slow distractions for the entirety of the film. There is an extensive period of slow "character building" after the intro until the characters begin to enter the war zone where they travel up rivers and through forests which do not maintain nearly any sign of extra-terrestrial life present, or even threats in general. The scenery is definitely nice and the cinematography captures it well, but it doesn't capture much that is all that innovative. The one exception to this comes from when the characters reach the ghost town that was Texas once upon a time only to find it abandoned and as dreary as the old west. Alas, this moment is too short in comparison to everything else which stretches nothing on for what seems like forever even though the film only runs for a total of 94 minutes. To put it simply, for a film titled Monsters there is barely anything to support the title actually depicted in the film. The main characters are uninteresting and have arbitrary experiences that prove irrelevant to the rest of the film and there is nothing interesting for them to say. And though there is the potential for interesting politics to be explored in the story, nobody bothered to touch upon the situation suggested by the introductory context and so it becomes forgettable very fast. The entire experience of the film itself is hardly a memorable one simply because there is nothing particularly likable or hateable about Monsters. It is just boring with nothing distinctive or all that original about it, even though it had the definite potential to be.
The fact that Monsters attempts to build a plot and use its visual effects sporadically is the same thing the director would do when he made Godzilla. However, Godzilla actually had more characters who were worth caring about and managed to do something with its monsters when they were on screen. It also worked to capitalize on the universe it was depicting rather than leaving it to the imaginations of viewers. This goes to show that the man has improved since directing Monsters, and Bryan Cranston has admitted that one of the key reasons he signed on to Godzilla was as a result of seeing this film. Alas, his enthusiasm is not infectious. The scope that Gareth Edwards reached in Godzilla was far higher than the one in Monsters, and though it is obviously because the man had a lot more money to do it, he still could have organized a better script or more engaging characters to support Monsters through its slower moments and make it more compelling as a genuine drama set within a monster film context. Even though Monsters has only five crew members, off-the-shelf equipment and has to use many locations illegally, Gareth Edwards doesn't seem to accept his limitations which ultimately means he shoots for a scale that is too high for a film on a budget that is too low. There is some admiration that comes from his ambition and his ability to harness so much despite there clearly being a lot standing in the way of creating a feature length monster movie which he transcends successfully enough to achieve effective box office returns and land the role of director for Godzilla. So the resulting effects of Monsters certainly did more good than evil, but in terms of genuine entertainment value Monsters is not a film I can recommend as any kind of spectacle or clever film in the first place.

Monsters has some interesting ideas behind it, but they are ultimately unexplored in favour of a slow-moving and generic monster movie which offers lifeless characters and generic dialogue in favour of any actual monsters or any kind of a spectacle in general.
January 8, 2016
Surprisingly dull, maybe because I found it difficult to care about the leads.
Page 1 of 195