It's more frustrating than anything; due to the insanely small budget, it's mostly slow and meandering. The aliens are nearly non-existant, but their off-screen assaults could've worked if the director knew anything about building tension or shooting in the dark. Still, it almost glides by on its premise, hampered mostly by the leads; they're annoying and unlikeable and totally uninteresting. I guess you get what you pay for.

It's still better than District 9 though.

I heard somewhere it was like Malick, e.g., lyrical, beautiful, haunting. Not true?

I very much agree with what trixster said, though it is admirably what the director created with the likely very very small budget.


I think a big issue for me was the absolute lack of chemistry between the leads (it is a love story afterall).

If Malick had no budget and no clue how to shoot at night, yeah, sure.

I could see how some would make that comparison, but it's simply not that good.

Monsters is an astounding achievement. British writer/director Gareth Edwards, 35, shot the film for just $500,000 over three months in Mexico and South America. He completed the film's 250 FX shots himself on a pair of laptops. The near-future conceit: over half a decade ago, NASA discovered extraterrestrial life. Upon returning to earth with alien samples, a probe crashed. Now there is a large "INFECTED ZONE," and enormous, multi-tentacled creatures roam the land. The film opens in San José. A photographer (Scoot McNairy) living on the border of the infected zone is ordered to escort a rich publisher's daughter (Whitney Able) home to America, which is, of course, easier said than done. During their adventure, the photographer and his charge form a tentative romantic connection.

In theatres in select cities and available on demand, Monsters is described on iTunes as a "sci-fi epic." This is false. What Edwards has crafted is, by design, not epic. It is a haunting, intimate drama with science fiction elements, à la this year's Never Let Me Go and last year's Moon. Whereas Cloverfield's tone was immediate, vicious, Monsters opts for a more subtle tone; there's no monster-movie theatrics. This is a world where people still fear the alien invaders, where war zone-esque scenes are still often commonplace, but life has continued, and the infection zone south of the border has given America an "out of sight, out of mind" sense of security. Much of Monsters, the first act in particular, is defined by a slow-burn tension.

The stars, who improvised a great deal of their dialogue, have a subtle, warm chemistry; they sell the intense longing which blossoms between them. Both are relative newcomers, but should have bright futures. And the D.I.Y. CGI is impressive, at times even awe-inspiring. The creatures, often glimpsed, seen in full once, are convincing--equal parts fierce and majestic. Coldplay/Eno collaborator Jon Hopkins contributes an atmospheric, poignant score.

I used the word "haunting" before in this review. It's the best word to describe Monsters, from the palpable sense of isolation and paranoia from which the protagonists' affection springs to the deserted, exotic locales, this is a deeply haunting film. It will move you, and it will get under your skin. The last ten minutes, where the film's various dramatic and science fiction concerns coalesce, will leave you breathless.

A

As always, I try to read as little about movies as possible before I see them, but in the case of Monsters I wasn't able to elude one fact: it's budget of only $½ million. I've known people with koi ponds worth more than that.

Monsters is a great movie. No need to qualify it by it's budget - - Monsters simply rocks!

It just goes to show ya what a talented mind can put together with the combination of today's technology and highly evolved film techniques. You can make a quality low cost feature film, if you can set a budgey yo can finance and assemble the following ingredients at the optimal reasonable price:

- professional quality lighting
- professional quality sound
- an excellent story
- fantastic low key lead actors
- a gifted director with an eye for composition
- high quality low end cgi
- a brilliant location scout
- mood setting music
- maximized focus cinematography
- sharp editing
- a tripod and the sense to use it

Monsters looks like a graphic novel written expressly for the screen
and feels like a live production of a play - - it is a true screen play.

Of course, the whole allegory thing is kinda cool, but the viewer is not constantly hammered with it. Monsters is all about a creating a mood, an epic tone, set within an entirely believable universe that looks and sounds a lot like present day Earth.

It's a triumph.


88888 out of 5.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monsters is an excellent companion film to the simultaneously released Skyline (budget $10 million), the two of them would make a splendid double bill showcasing what young directors on a budget are capable of doing in the underserviced sci-fi movie genre here in late 2010. And if you throw in a screening of 2004's Primer (budget $7,000), you'll have a triple bill of a veritable showcase of what money can't buy.

I can't wait to see the next projects of Gareth Edwards, Brothers Strause, and Shane Carruth.

And I also must seek out Gareth Edwards' superb 2007 documentary on the Apollo 11 mission In the Shadow of the Moon and watch it for a second time.

I adamantly disagree. It was a feature, not a bug. The standoffish chemistry portrayed by the pair was a refreshingly realistic change from the rote romantic convention. And, as I mentioned in my review, the actors were aces!

Yay, Bradley!

I thought that the non-monster/non-action elements it had were perfect (acting, music, cinematography etc.) and at times it had a D9 feel to it which was good, yet the scenes with the monsters in it were just alright.

I disagree with Lecter as well. To me, the whole love story angle was the strongest point in the film, really. Ironically, I don't find it to be the best sci-fi/action movie of this year, but the best romantic movie of this year.

B+

i liked it. it's a little blunt and heavy-handed in parts (i think my eyes involuntarily rolled like eight times during photographer dude's monologue while they're looking at the giant wall), but for the most part it is pretty good. the ending is especially nice.

geographically this movie blows. there are no jungles nor pyramids in northern mexico. overall slow... very slow but alright.

B-/C+

I'm finally going to watch this. I've had it from Blockbuster online for about a month and just couldn't muster up the energy to watch it because I wasn't very interested in it. I figured I may as well finally watch it so I can send it back though.

How can you not appreciate what has been accomplished here with very little money? "Monsters" looks great and like it cost much more than it did. The cinematography and visuals are fairly stunning, and the score music beautiful and haunting. I had no qualms whatsoever with the creatures taking a backseat. In fact I preferred it.

Whitney Able must have taken acting lessons since her terrible turn in "All The Boys Love Mandy Lane." I found her very charming here. Wasn't as impressed with Scoot McNairy, but together they make it work.

"Monsters" isn't perfect, but it's still a small, under-appreciated gem. I can't help but wish a bigger studio had released it and given it a wide release. Yes, audiences would have hated it, but it could have been acquired cheap and it wouldn't have been difficult to turn a decent profit. It would be pretty easy to sell, even if you'd have to resort to a bit of false advertising. I'd be fine with them doing whatever they had to do to get people to see it.

8/10 (B+)

Glad you enjoyed it.

I love this movie. I've watched it a few times since I bought the Blu-ray. It's atmospheric, hypnotic, romantic, subtle, etc. A very compelling and satisfying film, and the fact it was made for only $500,000 is so impressive. The visual effects--the creatures, the helicopters and planes, the INFECTED ZONE signs throughout--are completely seamless. Gareth Edwards is clearly a major talent, and WB were clever to snatch him up for their Godzilla reboot.

I also love how the first few minutes are truly the ending. It lets the scene where the film itself ends (right after they kiss) feel hopeful and sorrowful at the same time.

Monsters is a sci-fi that doesn't rely on big special effects to get its message across. There is not very much action that happens in this movie, except for a quick scene or two. I think this makes the whole setting of the film more realistic and all that more scary. The two leads work very well together and its surprising how much of a romance angle there is with this film. A nice little sci-fi. ***

Not surprisingly, there is very little enthusiasm among the KJ rabble for Gareth Edwards' only other film, compared to the hysteria surrounding his new remake.

Marketing works.

Well the main reason I'm looking forward to Godzilla is because of how impressed I was by Monsters.

Man, this was a shit film.