Monsters the Movie

I saw it last night, very unimpressed with the movie. I agree with Derkoi, the dialogue was forced and just not good. The writing was really weak too for this, it felt like I was listening to two people read something from a teleprompter, def not good acting at all. In the end, I was cheering for the aliens to kill both of them just to end the film off quickly. Which leads me to the ending... I won't give it away but it's tremendously wasted, simply not good.

I will however give point to Gareth Edwards for effort and for the special effects. Not mind-blowing of course when you match this movie up with something like Avatar or even War of the Worlds but still pretty impressive if this guy did it himself. I'll give him props for doing this all himself too, good job indeed.

Story: 2 out of 5
Writing: 1 out of 5
Special Effects: 4 out of 5
Directing: 1.5 of out 5

Overall, a seemingly interesting story had the director chosen to focus on developing the characters, not only as they interact with one another, but as individuals. You never get the feeling you even know these characters even after the film is over. The ending left most of the theatre last night laughing at how it was left. Def a great film if it was done as a student film but falls short as a theatrical release. If I had paid for this film last night, most likely I would've asked for my money back.
 
So true Sprocketboy. Honestly, I'm not saying what Gareth Edwards did was crappy, he did a good job in shooting a very indie film. However, it was not the same film I was told about or expecting. I listened to the Canadian distributors back in September tell an audience how they pursued this film at the 2010 SXSW and there was a bidding war for it. Really? Does that mean there was nothing else at the SXSW festival worth going after or was it because it was pure economics (the film was apparently shot for $15,000 U.S. and completed for under 100k. I'm guessing the latter... if you can buy a film for cheap and then show it on cable and a few screens, maybe the profit margin is what they were ultimately looking for.

I can't say too many bad things though about this film (besides the writing and utter lack of clear storyline), it made the silver screen in the end.
 
I have to say this film leads me to think that I am Just too Fn Lazy... this guy took what, a sony with letus adapter and sound equipment with maybe some Lights and made a very nice picture with great direction, sure the dialog was iffy , but I was Most impressed by the soundtrack and emotion it made you feel while the two actors made their Journey, Honestly Dialog was not even needed in the Film. I think the director should go out and Get more money and Make a Back story about the 1st year of Infection and add to the story... I would go see it.

FX was great .. I could tell but , the average movie goer wont be able to
 
Not to be a critic of this film because, in all honesty, I really wanted it to be everything it was billed as (including being better than Cloverfield and District 9) but there were more than a few scenes where the lighting was horrible. Of course, that's what you will get with a non-Hollywood movie, most people can't afford huge sets of lights due to budget constrictions. Totally understandable and, again, a shame for this movie. In a perfect world, this movie would've got the funding it needed before it was filmed as it would've made a huge difference.

My wife made an observation though about the lead characters after watching the movie. She thought it was awkward at best to see them interact, no chemistry on the screen and even body language was really not in sync. She's no film buff or in the industry, this is coming from someone who observed the movie through unbiased eyes.

Special effects, yeah, I admit were good. Loved the one scene where they looked out over the valley with the huge wall erected, that was pretty cool and impressive. There were more than a few scenes that were really good... again, it just comes back to the writing for this movie, sorry. I'm a firm believer strong writing makes up for lack of effects, brand-name actors and even locations. People will forgive certain things a blockbuster can provide for them in terms of actors, effects, sets etc. if the story not only makes sense but entertains them.
 
I actually kinda liked this movie. Which is weird, because usually, I don't go for Cloverfield-ish type movies. I got to go to an advanced screening of it, and I liked it. The special effects were pretty amazing, too.
 
There's an interview with Gareth Edwards about the film in the NOV issue of American Cinematographer.
Shot with a Sony PMW-EX3 with Letus 35 Ultimate & Nikon lenses. Shot 23.97, 1080P MXF files to SxS cards.
 
IMDB is estimating the movie cost $200,000 to make, while the following article says Edwards himself puts the figure closer to 500,000:

http://horrornews.net/17934/interview-gareth-edwards-director-of-monsters/

It also points out that much of the special effects were done in "3d Studio Max", not After Effects.

I've been using AE for years and couldn't fathom for the life of me how he did shots like the plane disappearing into the water. Amazing compositing in AE though.
 
Last edited:
I personally loved this movie. I felt like the cinematography, effects, music, and fresh, fresh execution of a previously tired idea far outweighed the weak dialog / sub-par acting.
 
I liked this movie. I thought the Monsters were scary.

What I didn't understand was why there was a pyramid so close to US/Mexico border...
 
Dale - Interesting that you say your wife thought they had no on screen chemistry. I was at the screening at TIFF, where during the Q and A, Edwards mentioned that they were long term boyfriend and girlfriend. I had quite the opposite reaction actually and thought the development of their relationship was well executed. I enjoyed the movie as well, not even knowing what the budget was.

To each their own of course,

Kegan
 
Geographically that movie didn't make any sense, but we'll let it slide from story purposes... except there was no story.

I'm usually a person who finds redeeming qualities in films. I understand what a lot of movies are trying to do, and how they differ from the kinds of movies that I consider to occupy a pantheon of "perfection". There are a lot of movies I will admit to like that a lot of people on this forum would look down upon. Monsters however is not a movie I like.

I felt like I was watching someone's VFX reel, a damn good one at that, but one lacking any storytelling ability. The movies pacing was all off, there were scenes that served no purpose, and the way it unfolded was just insulting to the audience. The ending was simply the dumbest thing I've seen a movie do in a long time. Not to spoil it but I thought it was a joke, and so did many in the audience that laughed.

I don't buy this mumblecore crap that a lot of movies are trying to do. I'm not going to root for characters that don't care about anything, and leave the movie still not caring about anything. I'm not going to be interested in dialogue that is poorly delivered and doesn't convince me of any real emotions. The chemistry between these two characters was so far off I could barely handle it.

I'm not a movie snob, but I am a filmmaker, who spends a lot of time and effort studying storytelling and finding ways of telling the best story possible. If VFX fit into that equation, I'll use 'em, if not they don't belong in my movie. This was an example of a filmmaker who let VFX get in the way of the story he set out to tell. Nothing good comes from a director who is also an effects supervisor.... something is lost on one side or the other.
 
Kegan:

Hey, you have to trust a woman's intuition when it comes to chemistry between a guy and a girl... they pick up on the little things more than a guy would. I liked the movie more than she did though. She was ready to walk out halfway through, she said the story made no sense at all and the scene with the trucks and the aliens was just like the original Jurassic Park... I kinda agree to a certain point.

Maybe the whole long term boyfriend and girlfriend thing backfired then... just because people are dating doesn't mean they would have any chemistry that comes out in a film. Some people are great at being each other's best friend and companion but it just doesn't show to the rest of the world.

I tried to like this movie but, in the end, I feel like Qzar, the movie was pretty good for special effects but falls far from great in writing and crafting a story that actually makes any sense in the end.

Don't know what the reaction was at TIFF but during the screening I saw, people were laughing near the end and the way it finished off. A good forte into the movie business for sure for Mr. Edwards, I'll admit he did good, but the movie was far from what people are claiming it to be.

And the whole claim this movie was done for $15,000 now just reeks of bad press now too. If the budget was closer to $500,000, then I'm even more disappointed in this film.
 
I just listened to an interview with Gareth Edwards here in Toronto on The Edge 102.1 (radio) and he was pretty funny to listen to. He confirmed the movie was closer to about $100,000 to make, the rumour of $15,000 was based on the equipment he used (camera, computer etc.) not the actual shooting budget. He confirmed he shot the one scene of the fighter jet in the water in his bathtub... unreal!

Maybe I was a little harsh then in my critque of this film. While I think it wasn't what I hoped it would be, hey, the guy is cool for doing it and I wish him nothing but the best with this film and his future features. The guy went out and did a film, that's what we all aspire to do on this site, right?

After listening to him, I have a new appreciation for the guy now... he did good with this film, even if it wasn't to my 100% liking.
 
I just saw this film in the cinema with my wife. She liked it but I loved it. I avoided watching any trailers and only read a couple of reviews. I think you are more likely to be disappointed if you had seen the trailer and think the title only refers to the creatures. I thought it was beautifully shot. I couldn't believe it was shot with a Sony EX camera and 35mm adaptor. Some of the low light was quite grainy, but even a low budget movie shot on film would be grainy. Some of the audio was obviously ADR but it wasn't too distractitng. The allegory (is that the right word?) of the film was a bit obvious but it did add to the film.

SPOILERS!!
Two things I didn't quite understand. They missed their boat because they lost their passport. But I remember seeing a sign at the ticket office saying something like "No visa, No passport, tickets $5000". And also there was a large group of people waiting to go through the infected zone, but going through the infected zone cost double than going by boat. But the ticket seller said "If you have money you go by boat, or else you take a chance and go through the infected zone." I really hope I misunderstood something because that was kinda bugging me throughout the film.
 
Gareth Edwards just got pinned as the director for the New Godzilla remake.

Now that's success!
 
Good for him! Met him at the TIFF screening! Stand-up guy and very humble.

Kegan
 
I thought the concept and execution of this film was amazing and a total success for Gareth. He completed an entertaining film with available equipment, a skeleton cast, crew and budget using interesting locations and visual effects. Score for the indie film scene. There are tons of great lessons to be learned by what he did.

My only beef was with the writing and character development, but given the circumstances they were working with they might have been rewriting through the whole process depending on the circumstances that were presented to them on the day. Less budget means less control and you have to deal with the changes that your environment is dishing out to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top