MONSTERS (Gareth Edwards, 2010)

[megladon8]

So, I'm like, really excited for this.

IGN released a neat trailer for it. (http://www.cinematical.com/2010/07/23/monsters-teaser-unleashed/).

Has a sort of District 9-meets-Cloverfield vibe.

A NASA probe crashes in Mexico, bringing with it alien lifeforms that terrorize the citizens.

From what I can tell with the very District 9-ish website (http://monstersthemovie.com/), the aliens are giant squid thingies.

Pretty much everything I've read about this film from festivals is that it's fantastic. I really dig these sci-fi/horror mashups that we've had over the last few years, and of course I'm a sucker for a monster movie.

Can't wait.

[Morris Schæffer]

Looks very promising!

[Dukefrukem]

http://a.imageshack.us/img805/2628/monstersposter081010.jpg

[megladon8]

I very want to see this.

Giant squid aliens on land FTW.

[Dukefrukem]

here ya go Meg :) (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/monsters/)

[megladon8]

Sweeeet. Thanks dude!

[Dead & Messed Up]

Squid aliens are boring. We need more furry aliens.

[megladon8]

Squid aliens are boring. We need more furry aliens.


When have we seen squid aliens in the recent past? And in high enough frequency that they have become boring :confused:

[jenniferofthejungle]

I like the little they showed there. :)

[Mara]

I'm annoyed by the oft-repeated Hollywood scenario where the men are being manfully quiet in a crisis situation, but the woman can't help sobbing softly.

Other than that, it looks interesting.

[megladon8]

I'm annoyed by the oft-repeated Hollywood scenario where the men are being manfully quiet in a crisis situation, but the woman can't help sobbing softly.

Other than that, it looks interesting.


Men are strong and in control of their emotions.

Women are weak-minded and cry at the drop of a hat.

Shouldn't you know this stuff?

[Mara]

Men are strong and in control of their emotions.

Women are weak-minded and cry at the drop of a hat.

Shouldn't you know this stuff?

Huh. Interesting. Is that why we get paid less?

[megladon8]

Huh. Interesting. Is that why we get paid less?


Yes.

Emotions cannot come into play in large-scale business environments.

If you have breasts, you're at a high risk of an emotional breakdown under the stress of the business world.

You may wish to seek a kitchen or vacuum cleaner store to calm yourself.

[BuffaloWilder]

Squid aliens are boring. We need more furry movies.

:pritch:

[number8]

Hey Sven:

http://splashpage.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/monsters.jpg

[megladon8]

I cannot farking wait to see this movie.

[EyesWideOpen]

For anyone who has the HDNET Movies channel, it's the end of October film. Oct 27th 8 pm eastern.

[Kurosawa Fan]

For anyone who has the HDNET Movies channel, it's the end of October film. Oct 27th 8 pm eastern.

Awesome. Now if only I can remember to set my DVR.

[number8]

I forgot to mention that I went to the NYCC panel for this and the director had a DVD copy of the movie and instead of playing pre-set publicity clips (which they brought with them but decided not to play), he just played the movie and skipped around to show scenes he thought were cool. Kind of funny.

Movie looks really good. He was showing mainly conversation (which are all improvised) and moody scenes (which have gorgeous photography), but then he thought he couldn't get away with showing clips without monsters at Comic-Con, so he played the scene where the couple and some mercenaries are attacked by big Cthulhu-looking things. It's pretty baller.

[Dukefrukem]

Is 8 likes what he saw...that's a good sign.

[Raiders]

Apparently this did run more than the reported $15,000 budget, but this interview snippet is rather interesting, though how he obtained post-apocalyptic images seems a little morally dubious:

http://www.mint.com/blog/how-to/budgeting-tips-from-gareth-edwards-10082010/

[number8]

He talked about that on the panel. Because they didn't use a screenplay and improvised most of the film, he basically didn't pre-spend on anything. When they needed a car, they literally flagged down a car driving down the street and asked if they want to be in a movie. The actors would randomly strike a conversation with someone passing by. Most of the people in the movie didn't audition or anything. They just snatched them off the streets, shot a scene real quick, and then added stuff like quarantine maps, etc, in post. He got away with shooting a lot of scenes for free.

He had this analogy where he said most films are made by painting a bullseye and then trying to shoot an arrow in it. They shot arrows randomly and then painted bullseyes around wherever the arrows landed.

[Sven]

He had this analogy where he said most films are made by painting a bullseye and then trying to shoot an arrow in it. They shot arrows randomly and then painted bullseyes around wherever the arrows landed.

Sounds like a good mantra.

[Henry Gale]

I thought this was pretty good, but not much more. The problems seem to stem from the size of its production and how that lends to its approach of the story, having the majority of it spent on just living with the characters on the journey, who sadly just aren't overly interesting. A lot of it plays very much the opposite of what a movie called MONSTERS hypothetically should. In terms of how it spends its runtime, there's probably (mild spoiler) an hour and twenty minutes of the characters talking, walking or driving, and then the remaining ten of actual encounters with the creatures. But Edwards as a director (as well as the screenwriter, the cinematographer, and as the credit of merely "visual effects") really allows the film to be thorough with its (often gorgeous) images in a way that you can really assess and invest in every location and mood the story wants to take you. It's not a horror film or a monster movie by any means, just a road movie set in an inconvenient reality where aliens now live in a small space between the US and Mexico.

It's a beautiful film to look at, and even though it may not have been for $15,000, it still looks so much better and more realistic than so many big budget, post-apocalyptic (looking at you, Terminator Salvation) or other types of expensive, futuristic tentpole releases that I pretty much want everyone in Hollywood watch this movie, have the final title card be the budget it was made for to make them reassess exactly what they pour their money into these days. At the same time, I'm afraid that they're trying to market this like it's the next Paranormal Activity or District 9 and waiting for similar business, because the average joe multiplex movie-goer is going to hate this. The problem is that it looks expensive, but then plays like if Iñárritu made any film of his, just with the occasional run-in with aliens and intense action.

Halloween is probably the time of year for more empty and frequent (or lovably cheaper) thrills that spook you long after something is done instead what is offered here. So if there's a time of year for more small and contemplative entertainment with a hint of the genre that's found here, then that would be a good setting for Monsters. Either way, I'd say it's still worth checking out.

[number8]

Another funny moment I just remembered. Edwards was responding to criticism that there aren't much monsters in Monsters, so he said he watched Jaws again and timed it, and found out that an hour into the movie, the shark only appears on screen for 3 seconds. So then he made the claim that, "There's more monsters in Monsters than there's shark in Jaws."

[Henry Gale]

Another funny moment I just remembered. Edwards was responding to criticism that there aren't much monsters in Monsters, so he said he watched Jaws again and timed it, and found out that an hour into the movie, the shark only appears on screen for 3 seconds. So then he made the claim that, "There's more monsters in Monsters than there's shark in Jaws."

Haha I'll give him that, but at the same time, the shark in Jaws dictates a lot of its plot. The monsters in this film don't have too much of a presence aside from making it a bit harder for the characters to get back to America. A conflict just as big is that the main character drunkenly loses their passports. Like, it woulda been a little more badass if the creatures jumped out of nowhere and ripped their hotel apart causing everything to get lost. Trailer moment!

[DavidSeven]

I don't know. It kind of seems like one of those indie productions that is content to just look as professional as possible with everything else being secondary to that goal. Granted, it seems they've succeeded in making something that looks like it had a multi-million dollar budget, but the trailer just isn't all that interesting otherwise.

[MadMan]

After seeing a trailer for this, I'm interested in seeing it. Looks fairly well done, which is cool considering how the movie was apparently made.

[D_Davis]

I've hard lots of brilliant things about this. Apparently, it's like 90% road trip/romance, and 10% alien stuff; looks like it is being mis-marketed as a District 9 wannabe. I've heard more than a couple people describe the ending as incredibly powerful.

[number8]

Another good quote by Edwards from the NYCC panel: "They bash you when they think your movie is similar to some other movie, and then when it comes out, they bash you because it's not like those movies. We're not trying to be Cloverfield 2 or District 10."

[Henry Gale]

I guess my problem is that I didn't think the road trip / romance was interesting at all. For me, it's "saved" by the locations and general atmosphere of it, as well as what little influence the alien stuff has on it as a fairly normal story.

It's not sitting as well in my mind since seeing it last week.

[Raiders]

So very disappointing. I guess if what I wanted was an advertisement for the cheapness of great imagery, this would have been a glorious film. I guess it certainly looks more professional than many cheapies, and it has its fair share of "visual effects," but I'm not that blown away by the end result in proportion to its means. 90% of the film is a travelogue for both the beauty and the ugliness of the Mexican vistas. The monsters are a non-event. They drive the film inasmuch as their very presence causes the events to unfold, but for the most part it is simply one scene after another of two characters trying to get back to the US. The film is too lazy for any parallels to the current illegal immigration dilemma even though the scenario seems ripe for it. Edwards also clearly doesn't hide his own (lack of) filmmaking techniques--there is no direction, no real sense of pacing or narrative flow. Great science fiction never relies on the actual science but on the humanity and the emotion behind it. Such it is here that Edwards very clearly wants to essentially tell a love story, but it is woefully underdeveloped. There is no chemistry (a rogue film crew, no script and seemingly very little time or direction isn't ideal working conditions), most of the dialogue is generic and vague enough to be natural and forgetful at the same time, and most scenes resolve with nothing more than silly stares and glances.

All this isn't to say the film is not worth seeing. It's impressively mounted for sure, and Edwards knows how to capture an image. Most impressively may be that the most striking image in the film (that of the alien behemoths seemingly caressing and comforting each other) is actually, as far as I can tell anyway, digitally generated. But, all that can't disguise that there is almost nothing here. And even after all the work we have to do to try and stay interested in these two bland characters, Edwards fumbles the ending by giving us the realization we have already seen the fate of the characters and the vanilla film becomes somewhat bitter.

[Dukefrukem]

This is now on Amazon VOD now. So if you have an AVOD device, check it out (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0044BY98K?pf_rd_p=475659411&pf_rd_s=center-8&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=16261631&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1RAACYC41ESYP4CDCA5X).

[soitgoes...]

Blech. Subtle, this is not. Edwards should leave the writing to someone else, and just worry about directing. Instead he gave up a thinly veiled allegory on US-Mexican (Latin American) relations. There isn't much else here, besides some of the worst film geography ever. Note to all: the Mayan ruins are not located just over the Mexican border, but all is forgiven because it made for a pretty scene. :rolleyes:

[Rowland]

Yeah, the writing in its broad allegorical strokes and forced relationship dynamics was clunky enough to almost make me nay this, but the smaller moments when the protagonists communicate with various Mexican characters are more keenly observed, and the film has an overriding texture to it that I found highly engrossing and quite lovely in parts. Nick Davis (http://www.nicksflickpicks.com/movarchs.html) even went so far as to make the amusing but fairly astute observation that the film is almost as much Lost in Translation as it is District 9.

[Dukefrukem]

Where did you guys view this? It's not on AVOD anymore. I waited too long but dying to see this.

[soitgoes...]

Yeah, the writing in its broad allegorical strokes and forced relationship dynamics was clunky enough to almost make me nay this, but the smaller moments when the protagonists communicate with various Mexican characters are more keenly observed, and the film has an overriding texture to it that I found highly engrossing and quite lovely in parts. Nick Davis (http://www.nicksflickpicks.com/movarchs.html) even went so far as to make the amusing but fairly astute observation that the film is almost as much Lost in Translation as it is District 9.I like where he questions Edwards use of two white leads. It would have probably made more sense for what he was striving for if he used Mexicans, but obviously that would be box office death.


Where did you guys view this? It's not on AVOD anymore. I waited too long but dying to see this.Eugene, Oregon. If you can make it, it's playing at the local arthouse.

[Dukefrukem]

Watch it last night. I don't know what people were expecting out this but it was a nice short little tale. No the characters were not very interesting but there wasn't much time to develop them either. I like this for what it was, a budget of $500,000, shot entirely on location (even any extras in the movie were just people there at the time of the shooting as 8 said on the page before) with an abrupt, satisfying ending.

Maybe you guys thought this was gonna be District 9? :confused:

[Dead & Messed Up]

I thought this was terrific. Careful, quiet, its extraterrestrial MacGuffin an excuse to showcase (as someone above mentioned) the beauty and ugliness of its vistas, towns, and inhabitants. I appreciated the way the film was political without ever being too obvious (although the big wall was a bit much), and I thought the climax and ending were perfect.

[Raiders]

I really think we're giving this film credit for being "political" where it simply isn't. I also don't see how the ending is anything but a tasteless bit of cynicism.

Ah, whatever. I can't even remember much of the details. Just seems in my head like a string of meandering, charmless scenes shot with a modicum of talent.

[megladon8]

I really need to see this one.

Everyone I know who has seen it has commented on how surprisingly beautiful it is.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I really think we're giving this film credit for being "political" where it simply isn't. I also don't see how the ending is anything but a tasteless bit of cynicism.

Maybe this is me extrapolating too far, but

the film portrays an America that erects a real big wall as a means of keeping a problem outside its borders, and the big wall fails.

I feel like its very premise makes it kinda political, but I also felt that subtext was mercifully subdued. Regarding the ending, I though it was interesting how

the monsters were capable of both awe and horror (kinda like nature). I didn't think it was some sort of tawdry O. Henry "gotcha." In retrospect, it feels very logical and (purposefully) humbling.

[Raiders]

Maybe this is me extrapolating too far, but

the film portrays an America that erects a real big wall as a means of keeping a problem outside its borders, and the big wall fails.

In that case, the monsters = Mexican immigrants?
I don't know, it just seems a troubled parallel/allegory to make no matter how you swing it, and I just don't think the evidence is there to suggest Edwards had anything very political on his mind.


Regarding the ending, I though it was interesting how

the monsters were capable of both awe and horror (kinda like nature). I didn't think it was some sort of tawdry O. Henry "gotcha." In retrospect, it feels very logical and (purposefully) humbling.

Well, we already know the horror they can cause and I agree, the moment of beauty and awe is great (best moment of the film by far). But, the way Edwards so easily tosses off the fate of the characters just sort of tastelessly cemented how little interest there really was for them to begin with.

[soitgoes...]

Gareth Edwards talks about film. (http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/42298/exclusive-gareth-edwards-talks-godzilla-and-sequel-monsters)


“What I thought was very interesting was that a lot of people in America picked up on the immigration theme in Monsters, which was another subtext within the story, but it was never something I wanted to feel really obvious in the movie to anyone watching.

“For me, a lot of Monsters was about the war on terrorism. Obviously, terrorism is terrible and must be stopped, but we always have to stop and realize what the price of that war is. In this movie there are these aliens, and yes, they’ve killed innocent people, but you have to consider how many innocent people must die in order to eradicate these creatures from the area so you have to look at what you’re willing to do in order to deal with these kinds of problems. But the reality is that monster movies throughout the ages have always been allegories for something more - whether it’s the Cold War, nuclear war, or terrorism - these monsters usually represent something bigger going on in the real world,”

[Raiders]

Yeah, sounds like after-the-fact rationalizing. Whatever though, it's not really what I had issues with anyway.

[D_Davis]

Watched this a few weeks ago (I think I made some brief comments somewhere here). Really liked it. It's small, quiet, and very beautiful. It was the exact opposite of District 9, which I found loud, brash, and obnoxious. Not that the two films should even be compared, but I've noticed people doing so.

What I liked most about Monsters is the complete lack of infodump. The movie treats the audience like it treats its fictional world; the world in the film has gotten used to the presence of the aliens. They are practically a non-issue, and so the film doesn't need to treat them like some major event. That is until we see them at the end of the film in one of the most beautiful moments I've seen in a movie.

I like these kinds of small, personal SF films. I didn't get a political vibe at all.

[Sxottlan]

Fantastic-looking movie, but a bit of a wasted premise. This is sort of what I wanted to see a Jurassic Park sequel do some day.

However the naturalistic shots, while nice, kind of spoke to the lack of a substantial script beyond the central idea. Not a whole lot of ideas or different positions to debate with this great idea, so might as well as have the leads look at the locals with a strange mix of admiration and pity.

I thought the squids and the destruction they wrought might have made for a decent allegory for the drug war going on in Mexico's northern areas, but that doesn't really fly either.

I also didn't really understand the need to show a downer of an ending at the beginning. Also, why were the cities overrun with vines if it's only been six years since they arrived? And could a squid lift that whole boat in to the trees when they were approximately the same size?

[KK2.0]

I'm a bit torn, i dig the mood, the concept and visuals, but the horror geek inside me could not help but be underwhelmed by the lack of monsters in 'Monsters'.


Edwards should leave the writing to someone else, and just worry about directing.

maybe because there was no writing at all? I've read that scenes were improvised by the cast and shot guerilla style with local people and all.

[megladon8]

Hmm...I thought this was decent, though missed out on a little more explanation of a few key concepts.

For example, I really thought they were going to "reveal" that the creatures were relatively harmless. It seemed that in every confrontation, we were the instigators. Perhaps I am remembering wrong (very possible) but I don't think there was ever any evidence of the creatures actually ATTACKING out of the blue.

I thought that would have made the "moral dilemma" of their arrival and attempt to live on Earth more interesting.

It's a gorgeous film and I loved the music, but it just was missing...something.

[Dukefrukem]

Monsters: Dark Continent.

http://cdn.bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/monsters-dark-continent-watermarked.jpg

[megladon8]

So the movie is called "Director of Monsters and Godzilla"?

[Dukefrukem]

No it's called monsters dark continent

[number8]

Quite a comeback movie for him. I had always wanted to see what he would have done after Freddy Got Fingered.

[MadMan]

Old Review from my old blog:

http://shootingthescript.files.wordpr ess.com/2011/08/monsters-2010-infected-zone-map.jpg

Trying to determine where monster movies fit in terms of genres is rather tricky. All of them have touches of science fiction, horror, and fantasy, which only results in difficultly when making best of genre type lists, although that doesn't matter in terms of quality. The best monster movies are well crafted, often intelligent, and very enjoyable: films such as Godzilla (1954), King Kong (1933), The Host (2006) and Cloverfield (2007). Monsters (2010) is rather aptly named, and should rightfully be added to that list as it is indeed well crafted, with smart direction and is tightly paced despite containing enough layers and depth that it could have been maybe even three hours long instead of its 96 minute run time. However the rule of leaving your audience wanting more is wisely observed, and the base simplicity of the film which everything else is centered around results in a great, engaging movie.

Clearly made on a lower budget than most monster movies (the camera style is pure found footage type realism, which only gives the movie an added human touch and edge) and the score is quite minimalistic, which I rather liked as it enhanced the movie instead of distracting from what was happening onscreen. Furthermore, the movie features only two main characters, Andrew and Samantha, who are forced to journey through the so called "Infected Zone" in order to reach not only safety, but to get Sam home. Due to the creatures existing there, what was supposed to be a quick trip turns into a dangerous odyssey that also results in some truly gorgeous cinematography. Considering that the film picks and chooses when to showcase the alien creatures, Monsters has a romantic subplot filled with drama that makes the viewer wonder if this isn't a love story with monsters on the side. Even as the political implications of the movie are only thinly examined and looked at, this tender romance forms the film's strong heart, and results in Monsters being something more than just a creature feature with two people randomly walking through Mexico.

Not to mention the fact that the movie at times felt as if it was borrowing from equally stronger or better movies, as there are two scenes in the film that feel very influenced by Jurassic Park (1993), which I don't really mind-if you are going to steal or borrow, take from the very best. Those scenes also happen to be rather creepy and tense, so if you are looking for the horror elements of the film you would find them in those quiet, unnatural moments. There are plenty of haunting images, and of course the movie presents a type of running commentary on the problems of immigration (something that the filmmakers deny as being intentional according to IMDB.com's trivia section) which in the end really is not properly covered, something that is not entirely a bad thing since it would have sacrificed too much of the fascinating relationship between two different people. Any good monster movie actually focuses on the people that are affected by these strange events in time, as they are people often brought together by forces they usually do not understand. Life works in that same odd sort of way, and we never know why. 95

[Dukefrukem]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1qxx432mAY

[Dukefrukem]

Trailer 2

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/11362647/monsters_dark_continent_2014_g oliath_trailer/