Monstros

I first heard about this movie in a radio interview, so I was aware that it was very low budget. But lately "sci fi" movies have been all about escalating action to the point of absurdity. Classic sci fi is about people reacting to new/mysterious/dangerous situations. This movie has that, with interesting protagonists. It has echos of Sin Nobre and El Norte, and yes, the context of "alien substitution" echoes District 9. But it's not a re-make, and it's consistently entertaining, with a straight-ahead narrative. There are only a few moments where a shock reaction is telegraphed. A big studio would have made this story into an effects extravaganza. But in my opinion it's more effective showing limited interaction with the aliens.

If you can handle real sci fi -- movies without the excesses of Transformers or 2012 -- this sci fi will satisfy.

I understand this is a very low budget movie. If so, it is another example of the marvels which can be worked with a small budget by original and creative people.

Despite the sci-fi trimmings - ostensibly similar to the recent, but vastly inferior, tentacled alien invasion movie Skyline - this is essentially a two-hander road movie with a touch of growing romance thrown in. The hand-held camera adds verite but doesn't jitter so constantly as to stimulate nausea. There are some gorgeous visuals - both spectacular natural shots and also effects shots such as The Wall. And the two unknowns who we accompany on their journey - the gorgeous Whitney Able and the not so gorgeous Scoot McNairy - are both very good.

But most credit must go to Gareth Edwards, the creative force behind this film.

Just saw this last night, and have to say, loved it. I can understand teen boys being offended by the lack of action. And I think a lot of people seeing this film might start with preconceptions about what a 'monster' movie should be, which won't do this film any favours. It's a road movie, a slow building drama, a mystery. I actually liked that the two leads were attractive and likable company, without acting in predictable Hollywood ways (you know, where they are unsure about each other, then have a huge fight and yell that they hate each other, then immediately jump into great sex – I am pretty sure in real life only couples who've been together for a while have good angry sex, surely?, I could be wrong, anyway…). But it was the mystery of the intriguing monsters that got me, and the absolutely perfect resolution. Unlike the current 3D CGI megafilms, where everything is boringly and loudly in your face, this film required the audience to join in and use some of it's own imagination, a bit like Alien you could say (without the blood & guts). And, that last scene was so great – easily one of the most perfectly orchestrated scenes I've seen in any film in the last year or two, and to a large degree because it had the sense to not knock the message over your head. And despite it's lack of gigantic special effects, I really think this is a film to see in a cinema, not on TV – to get in the mood, to wonder what's over the next hill, to peer into the darkness to see, wait, is that a tentacle? Like the main characters, the audience needs to be paying attention. Okay, so not a perfect masterpiece from beginning to end, but right now I can't think of many monster movie monsters I've loved in the last decade as much as these octo-spidey-monster thingies. Beautiful! (and I'm pretty p*ssed that a piece of shoddy Hollywood crap like Skyline is showing in 160+ cinemas here in Australia, while this little beauty is only on at a few)

Monsters' concept was fairly simple, which is both a good and bad thing.

The good thing is that it allows the viewer to concentrate on the plot without alot of convulsion. Ironically, the bad thing is the plot is too linear and inept to be effective.

Although the male and female leads were allowed to ad lib most of the movie, and they are married in real life, there just didn't seem to be any chemistry between them. This is because their characters were not given sufficient time or events, to bond. There is nothing in Monsters that justifies their relationship, and since the movie is concentrated on their relationship, and these huge monsters we know very little about, then the end result is the viewer feeling empty. I have to blame this on poor scriptwriting, and maybe poor producing, as this 1 1/2 hour movie needed at least 30 - 40 more minutes to make things work.

Decent special effects, a nice concept, and excellent locale shooting could not save this movie. I enjoyed Monsters, but was very unsatisfied at the end.

6/10- great mood and cinematography ruined by poor actor chemistry.

If there is one thing that critics can agree on it is that Monsters is a brilliant film and that it marks a turning point where special effects are possible on a low-budget, thus ending Hollywood's rule – forever. So, it was quite the nice surprise to find that this film, having only just come out in the UK, was one of those featured on a recent flight I was on. I know that a tiny screen on a plane is not the place the makers wanted me to watch it but I did so anyway, so perhaps some may wish to take my opinion in that context? I don't know.

Anyway, I tried to ignore the hype and just come to the film as fresh as I could, wary of anything that is overly praised just because I have been burnt before. What I found with Monsters though was a film that was worthy of the praise, but just not for the reasons that everyone was saying. Made on a comparatively tiny budget with a tiny crew and with special effects done on a laptop, this film is worthy of praise for how it was made and the fact that it is reasonably good despite being made rather on the fly. This is why I think that so many critics have been quick to praise it – because it does show that "big" effects movies can be done for less than the disgusting budget of films like Transformers 2 and so on. You already know where i'm going, so let me just get there – to me, the praise has been spread beyond this aspect in a way that the film doesn't totally deserve.

Watching it for myself I could see lots going on but the word that flooded my mind was "nearly". In terms of the overall sweep of the film, while some have talked about immigration for me the film is an allegory for Afghanistan. We have the "monsters" in a set area that is heavily attacked by the military – attacks which do more harm to the innocents in the area than the monsters themselves do. At this level it is quite clever but the film never makes more of this, leaving it as it is and not making comment beyond showing the news footage of the monsters as being background noise in the way war coverage (sadly) has become for many of us – the norm. Below this we have what is essentially a road-movie where the two characters fall for each other and also make their own journeys in regards the monsters. Again this is "OK" but never really comes off in the way it should. The improvised dialogue works against the film in my opinion. It should have been well-honed dialogue – writers get paid for a reason, it is because generally written material is better than that made up on the spot. So it is here and the film misses the chance to let the dialogue be the driver for the allegory and the relationship and the character development. As it is the film is "nearly" there on this aspect.

The characters did bug me a but because they were not as strong as suggested. Able and McNairy deserve credit for their efforts and their reasonably natural performances but they deserved a better script (or any script). Chatting naturally they do not help the overall film and it is a shame that again their performances are a case of "nearly" or "if only....". I can't stand in the way of praise for Edwards though as his drive and skill made this film. His effects are used sparingly but they are impressive (small screen or not). His use of them is clever because it frees the film up to do much more than just be an effects movie – it is just a shame then that his material doesn't actually delivery in the space left for it.

Overall Monsters is a reasonably good film but it is one that could and should have been better in key regards. The nature of the making should be praised to the rooftop but the film itself falls short. It is never as smart as it thinks it is, never as engaging as it should be and never has the commentary that it surely needed. Worth a look and well worth supporting but in my opinion the gushing noise from the critics is more to do with the fact it is a low budget success rather than a brilliant film generally.