Monsters

The pros: The cinematography is excellent. The editing is paced fairly well and makes good use of jump cuts. The lead actress is very good, considering she's acting in a vacuum. The CGI is seamless.

The cons: There is no story. There are no character arcs worth caring about. There is minimal suspense. The "alien" allegory is too simple. The lead male actor is inexperienced and uses slacker technique to mask it.

But, at the heart of this film is the relationship - and it seems to have been written by a 17 year old boy. I had to rent another film afterwards because this melted away faster than cotton candy in a sweaty hand (and yet, no brain candy and nominal CGI eye candy).

This was the film I was most looking forward to during my one day excursion to Frightfest and it was everything I hoped for. Monsters takes place several years after a NASA space probe that has collected alien micro-organisms has crashed in Mexico, turning much of the country into a walled in no-go zone. New life forms have developed there, among them gigantic, tentacled creatures who have devastated much of the country. A photo journalist who reports on the crisis takes on the job to get the newspaper publishers daughter back to the US. After their tickets for the last ferry out get stolen, they have to make their way across the "infected" zone. Many people will be expecting a Distric 9 or Cloverfield style sci-fi action film from the trailer, but this is more like Before Sunrise meets Godzilla, with the emphasis on the love story. The British director gave a Q&A after the screening and he said he was aiming to make an offbeat romantic indie film like Lost in Translation against an unusual backdrop. It's certainly an interesting genre-hybrid and I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it. This was shot on a tiny budget by its director, who then did all the effects by himself at on a computer, and it looks like a gazillion bucks Hollywood movie. With effects technology having become so accessible, this maybe where the future of genre films lies as Hollywood blockbusters become ever more interchangeable. Monsters is a powerfully atmospheric, beautiful looking film with great locations and the effects are excellent, but this is primarily a road move and a love story. There isn't an awful lot of monster action in the film and only a couple of scenes that actively involve the creatures, though they feel ever present via the devastation visible everywhere. I could sense some of the more hardcore horror fans who were cheering during the gory I Spit On Your Grave remake that went before, getting restless. The writing is pretty good, if not quite in the same league as top indie film romances it aims for. The films only failing is that for an indie romance, the characters are never quite as well explored as they would be in a Lost in Translation or Before Sunrise. The two main characters could have been a little more memorable, though the two lead actors are likable enough and have the chemistry required that made me want them to get together (the director revealed he cast two actors who are a couple for real). In the end the thing that makes the film stand out is the fact that it takes such an unusual approach to the giant monster movie genre. By treating its genre trappings in an low key, almost subordinate way, it feels very real. The giant squid like monsters are very impressive in the few scenes where they do make an appearance and the characters and story were involving enough to draw me in. In the way it foregrounds the characters it's a genuinely unusual special effects film the, type Hollywood used to make in the 70s, when Close Encounters was as a much a film about a wrenching marriage break down as it was about UFOs. It has stayed with me unlike few films I've seen this year and I can't wait to see it again.

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.

I warn you, this is not really a science fiction film, or if you wish a romance science fiction movie. I admit though the mix-up between the two elements is rather unusual. Well, this is not a genuine bad film. I regularly confound this movie with another science fiction film from this same year 2010: SKYLINE, which some elements are the same as here. Very strange actually. Of course CLOVERFIELD inspired this movie, useless to be a die hard movie buff to undertsand it. I prefered the 2008 film however. But if you don't know MONSTERS yet, try it. I repeat, it is unusual. And for a first film, it's a good one.

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.