MONSTERS

Cantona's Collars

This new movie looks interesting-MONSTERS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7o7YMvKZtw

Is that New Orleans being used to film some scenes?

Richard Dower

$400,000 budget....pennies!

L31mr0d

Different trailer

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

The small budget actually intrigues me. Hopefully it will mean that a lot more attention goes into building tension and suspense.

Like the original Alien or Predator, what made those films is that we didn't get to see the monster, until it was absolutely necessary. High budget monster flicks seem to think that the audience wants to see the monster, in broad daylight, right from the start. We don't. We want flickering lights, shadows, noises from the darkness and the tension to just keep building to an almost unbearable level so that by the time we actually see the monster we have developed a genuine fear of it.

Like the great man himself said:

"There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it." - Alfred Hitchcock

Cantona's Collars

Saw at the end of the 2nd Trailer that it will be released on ppv first then theatres so I don't hold out much hope for a widespread release unless a word of mouth campaign succeeds.

Richard Dower

Combination of The Mist and Cloverfield from that promo....not a bad thing really.

Richard Dower

zerks wrote: »

Saw at the end of the 2nd Trailer that it will be released on ppv first then theatres so I don't hold out much hope for a widespread release unless a word of mouth campaign succeeds.

If it's gonna be PPV then you can guarantee it'll be up on the internet very quickly.

Galvasean

Richard Dower wrote: »

Combination of The Mist and Cloverfield from that promo....not a bad thing really.

Was thinking that myself. Hope it's good.

pixelburp

As said, it looks like a mix of Cloverfield and The Mist; I read about it a few months back on a separate site, so it's interesting that some buzz and hype is beginning to build up around it. You can't beat a low budget for enforcing some proper tension and bangs in the night. I would be interested to know how well they can keep the mystery going for 2 hours.

Cantona's Collars

This movie has been released On-Demand in the States,gona check it out as soon as I get the chance.Theatre release is 29 October.

liah

Seeing "The Mist" and "Cloverfield" used in the same sentence hurts.

Sir Gallagher

liah wrote: »

Seeing "The Mist" and "Cloverfield" used in the same sentence hurts.

Why's that?

darkestlord

I actually liked cloverfeild. Thought the ending was poor though. Just finished watching "Monsters" and I gotta say it aint good. The monsters are unimaginitive and the story is weaker than my tea. The characters are'nt bad but just nothing new. Its a mixture of cloverfeild and some romantic b movie. I wathed Centurion earlier. Not bad flick.

Galvasean

liah wrote: »

Seeing "The Mist" and "Cloverfield" used in the same sentence hurts.

It is a shame that Cloverfield did so well at the box office while the Mist did so poorly. Cloverfield had a rubbish storyline and terrible chracters, while the Mist had well drawn characters and a gripping plot. THe only thing Cloverfield had going for it was a 'better' gimmick.

johnny_ultimate

Watched this there, enjoyable little film. It is hardly going to set the world alight, but a 'monster' film with a smaller scale is a welcome change of pace. Cloverfield via The Mist is a fair comparison, although definitely some romance and road tripping in there too. The refusal to throw in countless action sequences really works to the films benefit - the lack of dramatic running away from things is once again a nice change. Two leads are decent (only recognise Scoot McNairy from In Search of a Midnight Kiss), and some nice direction on a small budget, especially in some sequences like the

sunset on the riverboat or the train ride

. While the effects aren't too bad when they kick in, this once again proves that the most arresting imagery when it comes to this sort of thing is often the subtle hints, with the more OTT and 'unbelievable' action in the background.

At the end of the day, it doesn't have much original to say, and it's all fairly light when all is said and done. But it's the polar opposite to, say, Cloverfield or a Roland Emmerich film, happy to focus on two people not always at the frontline. The fact that everyone is so settled into this new world is an interesting take on an invasion movie too. A solid enough way to spend an hour and a half, and while it is far from great (Empire's hyperbolic five star review is a joke - they must be getting paid to write that crap) it is a hell of a lot more effective than Cloverfield.

L31mr0d

I'd agree with the comparisons between "Cloverfield" and the "The Mist". The cloverfield elements diluting the otherwise fine "The Mist" elements.

The "Monsters" angle could really of been anything tbh, it could of been a disease, or a war, or just 2 people on holiday and it wouldn't of changed for the majority.

Like the mist, the majority of the film is people watching, and how different individuals react in different circumstances. The actual "monsters" are a footnote

I was also reminded of "Reign of fire" in regards to how the monsters where handled. You see very little of them (could of been a good thing actually if they'd built on the suspense more, which I felt was lacking). Limits of the low budget I guess.

Overall it's worth a watch. The dialog is pretty good (I've read it was mostly improvised, which shows as it seems very natural in places, like I was watching a documentary, which is a good thing) But I doubt anyone would feel like watching it again.

Phony Scott

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

(Empire's hyperbolic five star review is a joke - they must be getting paid to write that crap)

That was a real head scratcher. Chalk it up as another ridiculous review from a dying magazine.

Skerries

yeah Metacritic has it somewhere in the 50's

NunianVonFuch

Phony Scott wrote: »

That was a real head scratcher. Chalk it up as another ridiculous review from a dying magazine.

You'd be hard pushed to find any number of people who would agree with their review! It's not that the film is bad, just that the pacing is very off. It's extremely slow in parts and the dialogue between the two leads is barely adequate. It's a nice kind of interesting film with some lovely scenery but ultimately very forgettable and only receiving hype due to its low budget.

faceman

I saw this in the Horrothon. Enjoyable film but as Johnny Ultimate said, its not going to set the world alight.

Its nicely put together but its not adding anything to the genre, although what genre its in is up for debate. The connection between the two lead characters is fine but flawed. I found the male lead lacking depth which left me feeling uncertain about his intentions and motives.

Also the ending which i wont go into, left me a little going "meh". Not on a visual level (it was fine and it offered a level of tension) but more from a story perspective. Maybe i missed the point tho.

Phony Scott

With his review of Paranormal Activity 2, Kim Newman stated on Facebook he'd prefer if there wasn't a star rating in the magazine at all. His review, if I remember correctly, read more positively than the two stars awarded to the film by the editors. I once (voluntarily) worked for a website were the editor overruled the star rating of the review, so I completely empathize with Kim Newman.

Getting back to the film itself, it's fine, but certainly not a perfect 5/5 film.

blodvyn

People knocking this movie when the director was given 250k to work with, wrote it, directed it, produced it AND did the visual effects.

Would like to see what he'd do with cloverfields budget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

johnny_ultimate

blodvyn wrote: »

People knocking this movie when the director was given 250k to work with, wrote it, directed it, produced it AND did the visual effects.

Would like to see what he'd do with cloverfields budget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

Yes, and within the restrictions he did a good job.

It just isn't amazing or even great. Good, but unspectacular. Budget should have no impact on how we criticise or discuss the film. This has been hyped up to no end, and while a low budget film like this is indeed a welcome change, it is hardly without flaws.

Sugarlumps

I watched this yesterday tucked up in bed. New nothing about it and I really enjoyed it. Also the blonde chick was super hot.

stevenmu

It definitely deserves huge respect for what it managed with such a small budget (I saw reports of $15k link). But outside of that, it's an enjoyable film with no real impact in any particular area. It might be brave to avoid the standard monster movie mechanics of lots of action, being chased, or suspense; but ultimately they're in films for a reason. There's a little social commentary, but in the end no real impact to the film, which is unfortunate. Everything is set up very well for something really interesting or exciting to happen, but it never really does.

vibe666

according to the trailer, IGN calls it "utterly unique & original".

something crashes from space and soon afterwards creatures begin to evolve and then take over mexico?

sounds a lot like the bastard child of District 9 & Evolution to me?

not that i'm not gonna watch it, just getting it now.

EDIT: just watched it and it's feck all like D9 or Evolution on-screen, but i think the ideas are very similar.

i think they did a great job for the money, but you could definitely see they didn't have a lot to spend on sfx (or anything else). the sfx were very much what i would consider to be "video game" quality effects, but all the same i think they did really well.

people have gotten far too snobby about movies and the bar that they set.

everyone needs to watch a few Steven Segal movies made in the last few years (or any year come to think of it) and then they'll know what a bad movie is all about.

expectationlost

much like open water good for its budget

jaykhunter

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Budget should have no impact on how we criticise or discuss the film. This has been hyped up to no end, and while a low budget film like this is indeed a welcome change, it is hardly without flaws.

Yep. With a smaller budget you'd tend to overlook certain flaws but not with writing, plot or dialogue. Anyway, it's not like it costs us less to see the movie.

Kashkai

Well is it worthwhile taking the afternoon off work to go see this movie (the best time to see a movie imo as all the popcorn munching, texting, yapping gob****es aren't there )? I went to see Skyliners recently and thought it was a good "B" movie for the 21st century (I'm a sucker for the 50's B movies with the giant Tarantulas/Ants/Invaders from mars etc). While it won't end up on my list of all time greats, it was a decent enough effort and better than some of the bigger budget 'serious' movies such as "The Road" (boring sh1te), or Cloverfield (shaky camera gets annoying after a while - and who has time to film when you're getting chased by a 100ft tall monster or its parasitical offspring?)

constitutionus

kinda disappointed to read the posts here.

not that theres anything wrong with a cloverfiel meets the mist film and i wouldnt not go to see a film on other peoples word , but you sort of have to be in the right mood for that kinda film and right now im not there ( i mean hell i LOVED the mist but its not exactly something i'd slap on regularly)

pity as im bored to tears and want to go to the cinema but theres sod all there to interest me this week and this was something i was veering towards.

feel like something trashy TBH so might check out that ninja/wild west film instead.

BopNiblets

I liked it, it reminded me of Moon in a way, in that low budget indie sort of way, more about characters than the monsters and CGI.

bnt

Saw Monsters earlier this evening, and generally liked it as a "small monster film". The plot is about as simple as a plot can be. Some of the social commentary was a little heavy handed e.g.

the soldier singing "The Ride of the Valkyries", and that huge wall keeping the "monsters" out of the USA

. But it was refreshing to see a "monster movie" that focuses more on the people than the monsters.

dave13

Went to see this in cineworld just now and was told they can't show it until tomorrow as there was a delay on the cert. Pain as its listed on the site. Any other cinemas showing it or not?

nyarlothothep

Definately adds a new take to the alien/monster movie genre in the respect that the aliens aren't really there to shock or scare the audiences, instead they're used to establish a backdrop in which people adapt to a radically altered state of affairs and the interactions between the two principal characters in this context. I liked the slow burning quality of the narrative, you had the aliens yes but it was how the characters reacted to their situation which was the main focus. The photographer dude was a great character.

Fysh

For its budget it was very well done, but the concept wasn't explored much and the central characters didn't have much of anything interesting going on to hook me in as a viewer. All in all, it felt a bit too much like a Guidebook To An Imaginary Alien Invasion presented as a film. There were a couple of interesting ideas in there, but they weren't explored in any depth.

I'll be interested to see what he does next, though.

bnt

zerks wrote: »

Is that New Orleans being used to film some scenes?

I know some parts were shot in Texas - and the last scenes look like photos I saw of Galveston, which was hit hard by Hurricane Ike in 2008.

tunguska

Saw it on friday and I thought it was muck. I had watched film 2010 with Claudia wilkelman earlier in the week and both she and the lad she presents the show with thought it was great. So off I went with high expectations. To be fair, it looks great, the special effects are top and the acting by the non actors is very believeable(as you would expect). But it was a pointless, useless film. I found myself really bored for long stretches and when something did happen it was fairly tame stuff. I think the fact that the director was a first timer showed. Some of the dialogue between the two leads was shocking. Dont beleive the hype, Monsters is a turkey.

Galvasean

I must say I was very underwhelmed by this film.
While from a technical standpoint it is an excellent piece of work. The cinematography is great while it is proof that huge budgets are not needed to make beautiful sci-fi films.
That is, sadly, pretty all the film has going for it.
For what is essentially a 'Road Movie' chronicling the journey of two characters. Unfortunately said characters are not interesting enough to enthrall for the duration of a full film. Everything we learn about them comes about early in the film, leaving no room for surprise or revelation, the very things that make the characters' journey interesting. This is through no fault of either actor. In fact on the contrary they do exceptionally well on what they are given in terms of scripting. It is not their fault that their characters are bland and fairly one-dimmensional.

There was one plot point about one third into the film that was so clearly signposted and awkwardly segwayed into the film

getting drunk and losing the passport as a result

that it left me feeling incredibly frustrated. Not on behalf of the character's mind you, as was most likely the intention, but on behalf of the film itself. It is such a juvenille plot device that it almost single handedly cripples the film in terms of storytelling.

The creatures themselves, to say the least, lack imagination from a design stand point. They are essentially

scaled up octopuses that can walk on land

. They are neither original or visually interesting, making their big reveal very underwhelming.

The ending was also a big let down.

They fall in love, who knew?!

There is also a ham-fisted eco-friendly messaged jammed in there. Apparently,

the aliens only want to be left alone so they can mate. The finalé's 'money shot' is two giant beasties making sweet bio-luminescent love. This inspires our protagonists to kiss passionately for the fist time. Quite the aphrodisiac... All that was missing was a rendition of the Elton John song can You Feel The Love Tonight of The Lion King fame.

Don't believe the hype. This film is average at best.

Sir Gallagher

Galvasean wrote: »

What he said! Watched this and Daybreakers the other night and enjoyed Daybreakers so much more, Daybreakers is pretty shit but at least it knows it's shit.

If i watch a film called Monsters i want to see some monsters god damn it. Oh but wait who are the real monsters?? Them or us.... Films like this piss me off.

Richard Dower

Why has NO ONE mentioned the biginning and end scenes????????

the movie starts with our new loved up couple riding in the humvee, then the monsters strike, yer wan is killed and then yer man gets killed also!.....fast forward to end of movie, alien beasties make out, couple kiss, the army arrives in humvess and drive off...the end

Didn't you guys GET that it had a tragic ending?

Richard Dower

Richard Dower wrote: »

Why has NO ONE mentioned the biginning and end scenes????????

the movie starts with our new loved up couple riding in the humvee, then the monsters strike, yer wan is killed and then yer man gets killed also!.....fast forward to end of movie, alien beasties make out, couple kiss, the army arrives in humvess and drive off...the end

Didn't you guys GET that it had a tragic ending?

Are you sure about this Richard? Just re-watched the beginning and you're right. That's .. messed up.

Just watched it there and it's a pretty excellent movie. Some things that people seem to forget is that a lot of the dialogue wasn't scripted, from listening to previous interviews with Gareth Edwards, a lot of it was actually made up by those two on the day of filming. A bit like Curb Your Enthusiasm, but nowhere near as well done or professional. The graphics were incredible and the scene

at the gas station, where Scoot (can't remember his character's name) is outside and there's a lightning flash, illuminating the monster

.

Given that the movie had a budget of $500,000, most of the actors were volunteers, the dialogue was made up on the day, and that Gareth Edwards not only directed it, he wrote it, produced it, edited it and did the graphics himself, then this movie is superb in my eyes.

@Sir Gallagher - there were monsters in it. It's good that somebody decided to go against the grain and make a movie that isn't about blood and guts and gore and swearing.

Galvasean

Richard Dower wrote: »

Didn't you guys GET that it had a tragic ending?

I don't mean to sound like a dick but, so?
Doesn't exactly save the movie for me. The chracters

were so poorly drawn that it means nothing to me whether they lived or died

. That's my main problem with the film.

boneyarsebogman wrote:

Some things that people seem to forget is that a lot of the dialogue wasn't scripted, from listening to previous interviews with Gareth Edwards, a lot of it was actually made up by those two on the day of filming.

That actually explains quite a bit.

Richard Dower

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't mean to sound like a dick but, so?
Doesn't exactly save the movie for me. The chracters

were so poorly drawn that it means nothing to me whether they lived or died

. That's my main problem with the film.



That actually explains quite a bit.

^ i was noting something that hadn't been raised or discussed before, i thought people had missed it.

Galvasean

Richard Dower wrote: »

^ i was noting something that hadn't been raised or discussed before, i thought people had missed it.

Ah I getcha.

It's also quite interesting because they couldn't find an actress to play the female lead, so Scoot suggested his good friend, who eventually got the part. During her auditions, Edwards was unsure about casting her because she was so pretty and he was worried it would make it seem too like a Hollywood blockbuster, where the leads are all models. Eventually Snooty convinced him and she was hired. Also most of the Mexicans that were filmed were volunteers.

bogmanfan

Before Sunrise + Cloverfield = Monsters

I liked it.

MiloYossarian

Phony Scott wrote: »

That was a real head scratcher. Chalk it up as another ridiculous review from a dying magazine.

couldn't agree more about Empire, too self important, and it's hard to hear what they're saying when they are so far up their own arses.

As for Monsters, I was hugely impressed. Really liked the characters so enjoyed being on their journey. For me, the fact that Gareth Edwards made this for the money he did and did so much of the production did influence my opinion though.

saintsaltynuts

It starts off well enough but i found myself falling asleep half way through enough said.

Hank_Jones

I thought it was good considering the budget.

It's never going to be the greatest science fiction film ever made, but when you compare the money made on this even something like Moon (€5 million), it's quite an achievement.

My girlfriend said he was using other people's misery for his own gain.
Maybe she's right.

I can't really fault it, if it had a €50 million budget I might think differently, but on that money I can't.

somuj

Absolute muck. Rented this and The human centipede and as bad as the mad German was I would gladly watch that again rather than this

Fysh

Hank_Jones wrote: »

I thought it was good considering the budget.

It's never going to be the greatest science fiction film ever made, but when you compare the money made on this even something like Moon (€5 million), it's quite an achievement.

Visually, it was impressive considering the budget. Narratively, it was mundane bordering on tedious the entire time - we don't learn anything significant about the creatures during most of the film, there's not even much thematic development, and there were several scenes that were just cringe-inducing (

the passport robbery scene, for example

- could that have been telegraphed any more blatantly?)

Moon is a telling comparison - I saw it at the cinema and have rewatched it on DVD at least twice since, and it works just as well on the small screen as large, because it has characters and a solid narrative propelling you through the film. Monsters does not have these things, and suffers very obviously for it. I have no interest in re-watching the film, regardless of available screen size, and while I think Edwards has demonstrated ingenuity in getting the film made I think he needs to seriously raise the bar for his scripting and dialogue for his next feature.

jaykhunter

Extremely disappointed with this film. Kermode talked it up so was feeling good about it. It was shot fine and the effects were v impressive for the budget. I'm willing to forgive effects for low-budget films, but I won't forgive the boring characters and stilted teenage dialogue of inconsequence. Boring tripe and not work the time IMO.