Opiniones de usuarios

Monsters is a really good debut for writer, director & cinematographer Gareth Edwards, proving he understands the sci-fi genre as well as extremely efficient low budget filmmaking. It's an indie romance set against the backdrop of a world inhabited by giant monsters with a clear love of Steven Spielberg's filmography.

Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able are pretty much the only characters in the film, the mundane conversations and their palpable growing affection for each other is equally as investing as any of the tension filled monster set pieces. Scoot in particular gets to show a level of dramatic heft too rarely seen in his bigger projects.

Gareth Edwards direction is very ambitious and all the better for it, on such a small budget he's able to create a world that feels so big and lived in. Thematically, it's very bold and messy work but with a clear passion from Edwards and an understanding of how this genre can be used as a metaphor for current world issues.

I just sat through this rental. Barely stayed awake.

This seemed like the type of sleeper hit that is missed by the masses, but I really enjoy in rental. Boy was I wrong. This movie was just plain boring.

I knew from a previous review that this movie was not filled with aliens and not filled with special effect. "Cool," I thought, "a movie with a story about people." But nope. There's just not enough story here to keep a viewer awake. The two main characters do enjoy a wee bit of development. But that happens almost immediately - or at least we can see what it is. So the "story" goes nowhere.

Also, these characters didn't talk enough to each other. The movie too suddenly, too often, and for too long falls back on montages of supposed dialogue, overshadowed by mood music. So their story together just isn't believable.

Almost an okay movie. But just plain sleepy.

While there have been plenty of valid comparisons made between this film and last year's sci-fi hit District - 9 (due solely to the fact that the two films share an admittedly similar global concept; that of aliens landing and being contained within a restricted zone as a forced but entertaining allegory for racial disharmony. There the zone was in central South Africa and here it is the northernmost section of Mexico, the borderlands.) I think the media have missed the much more obvious filmic connections. To my mind this film is in fact less like a geographical reboot of D-9 and more like an art-house Cloverfield or perhaps a blockbuster Stalker (Andrei Tarkovsky's epically sparse sci-fi classic). While the concept and metaphor certainly match that of District – 9 the closest the execution sways it further towards a combination of the latter two examples.

Instead of attempting to tell the story of a fictional universe using a number of cipher characters like D-9, this film instead tells the story of its two leads by way of its alien infestation. The titular monsters certainly are an integral force in crafting and driving the films narrative but they are not its real focus, this is where the two films differ. Instead we are made to follow American investigate journalist Colbert who is tasked by his employer to find and then accompany his daughter through the infected zone and into the United States before the beginning of the creature's active season.

It's a sparse plot and one that leads to a lot less action than you would expect, but it does work as the spinal centre of the film. Instead of confronting the creatures at every turn, discovering their origin, their weakness, their queen and then eventually using their knowledge to develop a dues ex machina and save the day like the big damn heroes of every similar film, these two simply exist in the universe like we do ours; as everyday citizens living their everyday lives. That's not to say though that the film is in any way banal; in fact their journey through the zone allows for a lot of stunning shots, shocking stories and silent terror, it's just that these occur in a different tense then we are used to. We are, like the protagonist Colbert, journalists in this world; we follow in the wake of the story, catching occasional glimpses of it from afar but mainly focusing on who and what it leaves behind.

The monsters, their destruction and the alternate world that they destroy are all filtered through the protagonists before they reach us upon the screen. It is their reactions to the events that elicit responses in us and their responses that in turn become our emotions. It is essential that the two leads be well crafted in order for this method to work. Thankfully then, they are; Hitting that perfect ratio of realism, stereotype, flaw and likability. They are the kind of characters that you would happily follow within the comparatively banal confines of a drama and so here, in this realm of heightened stakes, they become doubly interesting. The real surprise of the film for me was just how enjoyable, and oftentimes moving, it was to take this trip with the leads; to the point that by the time the ending rolled around I almost echoed their calls of 'I don't want to go home'. That dreaded disillusionment, the return to drudgery after a distinctly powerful event is something I can really understand but it is something uncommon to see in cinemas. Edwards isn't the only person to be thanked for this though; while his writing is great it's the two lead performances that are really essential and I think these two will be ones too watch in the future.

While I've made it quite clear that personally I preferred the human side of the story - that I could take or leave the monsters in comparison – i know there are many others around here who will not feel the same, others that are in it for the monsters (Spaulds certainly comes to mind). While I wouldn't advise taking that particular approach with this particular film, I don't think any of you creature features that do will be disappointed with what you see – and yes, you do see. The creatures are as well designed and animated as the characters. They feel totally alien to this world yet retain a certain sense of plausibility, as if they could feasibly belong to some other. Their power is also very well handled, being threatening enough in every situation but invincible in none. There is then a consistency to them that doesn't exist in a lot of other creatures, which sometimes feel like they are acting in accordance with the plot rather than their own rules or reality. While this may get some of you salivating I have to say again that well designed or no these creatures are little more than an external force, they exist off screen much more than on.

It is then, an ironically titled film I guess because the Monsters of the title are anything but central. I think the real test should be whether or not you would go and see this film were it called 'Humans'. Those that do, more specifically those that make their way all the way through to the final act, will be in for a treat as the film has a handful of utterly sublime moments. The ending itself was a little abrupt but I think it's pretty clever, probably warranting a second watch. Definitely warranting a first watch.

A week after seeing it, I still feel that Monsters was the most maddening film I saw at this year's Toronto International Film Festival. It had quite a bit of hype surrounding it, specifically around young first-time director Gareth Edwards and what he managed to pull off with a $15,000 budget, and ideas similar to last year's breakout smash, District 9. I stayed away from trailers to remain unspoiled by the potential genius at work, and went in with some fairly high expectations.

These expectations appear to be integral to how maddening an experience watching the film continues to be.

Monsters takes place six years in the future, after a NASA probe containing alien DNA crash lands in Mexico. Alien life begins to appear, and much of the area gets cordoned off as an "Infected Zone". Enter photographer Andrew Kaulder (Scoot McNairy), who is tasked with the assignment of getting his boss' daughter Samantha (Whitney Able) from Mexico back to her home in the States safely. Regular boat or air travel offer no help, so Andrew is forced to trek through the Infected Zone to bring Samantha home.

Besides dumping any expectations you may have for Monsters, I immediately also suggest disregarding any comparisons to District 9 or Cloverfield. Outside of the inventive, overused hand-held camera-style filmmaking, the idea of alien segregation and the (significantly) cheap production budget, Monsters shares nothing with either of these two films. This is a movie all its own, that may owe a bit of imagination and drive to those films, but should not be compared to them. Both of those films offered a visceral, blazingly unique experience that few films have replicated since. Their ingenious marketing campaigns only helped strengthen the ideas in the films, and the Academy even felt District 9 worthy of a historic Best Picture nomination.

But Monsters will likely not have any of that. It is a very slow moving, very emotionally driven film. There are some action scenes (including a rather amazingly well done opening scene, shot entirely through night vision), but the majority of the film is spent focused on the relationship between Andrew and Samantha, and is frequently very quiet. A comparison to a film like Before Sunrise/Before Sunset is not totally out of the question here – you just need to add aliens. Hopefully this more apt comparison does not turn off intrigued viewers, although it may attract more. But it likely will drop anyone's expectations significantly. I know I was not prepared to watch an indie drama, but that is much closer a description to what it actually is.

This is where the problem I had with the film lies. Because it spends so much time on the two characters, it frequently feels very dragged out and boring. I was interested in the plight of Andrew and Samantha from the beginning, but by the end of the film, I really felt like I could care less. There is an emotional drive at work throughout the film that really feels punctuated in some heartwrenching scenes. But the film never seems able to engage the viewer for more than a few instants, before reverting to drawn out, lingering shots and emphasized silence. It makes for an uncomfortable viewing experience in some spots as you wait for the science fiction/horror elements to take over, but also because you just cannot decide whether you should continue watching or just move onto something else.

The actors themselves are both rather great, bringing emotional and authentic notions to their characters. We never really learn much about either character outside of a few minute details, but we do get to see them grow as people desperate to find their way in the world. Despite their undeniable chemistry (the pair were dating at the time of filming and are now expecting a child at the time of the festival screening), I found McNairy's performance to be the stronger of the two. He gets the most dialogue, and bares the majority of the emotional brunt throughout the film, and the toll it takes on him shows right through in the last half of the film. This is not to say Able does not perform excellently – her long, silent stares just do not have the emotional depth of the major moments for McNairy.

Complaints and disappointments aside, the real reason for any hype whatsoever is the beauty and horror captured on camera. The film is very gritty and real, and for good reason. The sets are all taken from real places, and the extras are local people in these areas. When we see decimated buildings and towns which the film blames the aliens for, we are actually looking at real areas that look like this in various parts of the world. But when they are captured as merely a background for our characters to walk past or interact with, there is a still beauty that only a film this cheap could capture. It makes for rather horrific sights in most cases, but just the sheer magnitude of what Edwards captures on film is enough to make you reconsider any wavering thoughts you had on the film.

The special effects, used very sparingly and subtly, are absolutely magnificent for what the budget allows. They do not have the slick Hollywood shine, but they are rather incredible to see in action anyway. Edwards did most of, if not all, the work himself, and the labour that went into creating the effects is not lost in its transition to the big screen.

Monsters remains a maddening experience for me because while I will incur that I was incredibly disappointed by it, I have also come to appreciate what Edwards was able to do with such a small amount of money. Go in with small expectations, and you just may come out surprised by the experience.

7/10.

(An edited version of this review also appeared on http://www.geekspeakmagazine.com).

"Monsters" is a film I might not recommend if it weren't for the fact that the film is amazingly good considering its budget was a paltry $500,000! How did they make it so cheap? They used very small film crews and literally went across the Mexican countryside filming it on the fly. Many of the special effects were apparently added later using computers--and you sure can't tell that so many corners were cut except for one thing--like so many 'found footage films' (and this technically isn't one), the movie relies on a jerky hand-held camera. It's not terribly jerky but it is a bit distracting.

When the story begins, you learn that a probe accidentally brought back lethal life from off world. As a result 'things' have grown huge and out of control and have taken over the northern half of Mexico. The Americans have responded, apparently, by attacking these creatures and have tried to erect a barrier to keep them out of the country. Two Americans, a photo journalist and his boss' daughter meet up--and the boss insists the guy get her back to the States as soon as possible...but it won't be easy. Eventually, it means going through the contaminated zone--where these huge octopus- like creatures have run amok.

The story has it's slow parts--many in fact. But despite this, the story is compelling and the monsters look awfully good for such a paltry budget. Overall, a unique and worthwhile film that is very watchable provided you cut it a bit of slack due to the conditions and costs involved.

Where to even start? The 'characters' were so shallow that they would barely ripple of you dropped a rock into them. I hated them both so much that I feel driven to bullet point just how awful they were.

1) Little rich girl in alone in Mexico, seems utterly incapable of wiping her own nose let alone negotiating hundreds of miles of alien infested wilderness. She has the personality and presence of a damp sock.

2) Cynical journalist out to make a name for himself and willing to risk it all, including the life of the aforementioned girl. Luckily for him, his camera seems to have unlimited battery life and is impervious to just about anything. More of that later. He also seems to have an awful lot of money for a guy who doesn't get paid.(see ferry ticket) He is a whiny little cry-baby and a sleaze bag who, when he fails to seduce rich girl, gets hammered and takes what we assume is a hooker, who of course robs him for everything. Except his invulnerable camera.

3) Little rich girl is going to be married when she gets home and is obviously several classes above journo boy and several leagues out of his game. He drunkenly hits on her and she rejects his clumsy and badly scripted advances, yet she somehow feels betrayed when she finds him with the assumed hooker the very next morning, and runs away. Now, at this point she has asked him if he wants to go for a coffee before the ferry leaves and not for her passport. What an idiot! When they realise that the hooker has robbed him of passports but not her ferry ticket, (Which cost $5,000 by the way. Lucky he had that much cash on him eh?) does she call rich daddy or fiancé and say 'send me some money and a hit man to shoot this douche bag'? No, she just shrugs and decides to sell her fabulously valuable engagement ring and risk her life going through the killer alien infected zone with sleaze bag journo and a gang of unknown, untested and un-trusted mercenaries. How can we possibly believe this character? There is some hinting that all is not well at home and she is unhappy with her life, but enough that she would risk it like this? Yeah, right.

End of character assassination for now. So off they both go, encountering exactly one alien up close. It kills everybody but them in a way that's never explained, but it involves some blood. Or none. Depending. Before this, the mercenaries tell them that thealiens won't attack unless provoked, and then start shooting at one when it gets a bit close.

So now they're lost in the jungle, a hundred miles or so from the American border. No, wait. That's impossible, because the jungles in Mexico are in the south. If I were to go into all the geographical goofs in this film then it would take all day.

What we are told is Mexico is either Costa Rica or Guatemala, but they have conveniently decided to deal in dollars and made all road signs in English. Wasn't that nice? Luckily, the camera, which had been appropriated by one of the mercenaries, is undamaged. It's covered in blood and has been dropped from around 30ft while attached to said, and now dead, mercenary, but it is indestructible.

So, they carry on and, luckily again; meet no more monsters along the way. They talk a bit, they walk a bit. They walk some more and talk some more. Phew! Exciting stuff. The one part of the film where they could have encountered a threat or even advanced their burgeoning friendship/relationship is utterly wasted with a quick cut from night to morning and a brisk stroll to the border wall. Except that the wall has been breached and there are no guards or anything! The place must be crawling with aliens. Except no, it isn't. they wander about a bit then find a gas station with all the lights on and a working telephone and call the emergency services to come and save their worthless, dull, spoiled whiny useless asses and just sit there until they come. A monster has a sort of half hearted look for something to eat while they wait, but meets a buddy and they have a minute or two's touchy feely, accompanied by some honking, and off they go. See? If you don't bother them they won't bother you. In fact, you can just stand there and watch the whole thing. Inexplicably, journo-boy doesn't take a picture of this supposedly moving and touching scene. I think we are to take it that he is so overawed that it touches his soul and he lets this beautiful moment be private or something. He'll risk the life of a stranger, pay for a hooker and take pics of dead children for money, but two giant land squid getting freaky? No way, that's out of bounds man! There are just some things you don't do, OK?

A minute or two later the army arrive to take them away and they share a last minute kiss before being separated, hopefully for good. These two should never be allowed to mate. Their offspring would come out flat and made of composite clichés. I have never found myself caring less what happened to the two main players in a movie.

There is just so much wrong with this piece of garbage that it would be impossible to list all of its faults, but apart from the flat characterisations, horrible script, casual and lazy racial profiling, the monsters themselves are rubbish. They offer no real threat and fall in line with the accepted giant squid stencil that was adopted a thousand years ago. Here's the deal with squid: They suck at everything except being squid.

I hated this movie.

"If Cloverfield and Independence Day were 9/11, then this is Afghanistan"

With a budget of only a few hundred thousand pounds, 2 actors and a sound technician, Gareth Edwards set off to Central America to shoot his debut feature. 'Monsters' is a great film in its own right, but considering the limited resources Edwards had at his disposal it is also a huge achievement.

Monsters is set in Mexico, 6 years after a space probe sent to recover samples of life from a distant moon broke up during re-entry to our atmosphere. The Northern half of Mexico has become an 'infected zone' overrun by creatures which initially colonise trees before growing into what could only be described as giant, walking land octopus. But this isn't your typical monster film. The aliens aren't hellbent on destroying earth and all mankind, in fact they aren't even the main aspect of the story. Monsters is more road-movie than alien blockbuster. Andrew Kaulder, (Scot Mcnairy) a photographer working in Mexico for an American publication, is contacted by the publications owner and told to find his daughter Samantha (Whitney Able) and make sure she gets home. With all other options exhausted, the pair realise they need to travel overland through the dangerous infected zone in order to reach the US border, where a wall has been built to keep out the Mexic…. I mean aliens.

At the heart of Monsters is the relationship between Kaulder and Samantha, which has an almost lost in translation-y feel to it. Two people meeting at a point in time, in an alien (intended) landscape and finding comfort in each other's company. The performances are thoroughly engaging, the dialogue realistic and their interactions with local people feel totally authentic. This is a film about travelling as much as aliens, and Edwards is spot on in his portrayal of life on the road. The frustrating interactions with local travel agents, conversations about nothing in particular and long bus and boat trips spent watching the world go by, are all taken straight from the real world. Several minutes of the film are simply scenes of the stunning landscape rolling past, none of the locals in the film are actors and the script was largely improvised on the road as the cast and crew made their way through Central America. The film was very much shot in the style of a documentary, and it shows.

The great strength of Monsters is the way in which this authentic on- the-road atmosphere is seamlessly superimposed onto a beautifully created backdrop of aliens, destruction and war… and they are just a backdrop. The fighter jets overhead, discarded tanks littering the countryside, smoking ruins, stunning sunsets, "extra-terrestriales" warning signs and powerful calls of 'the creatures' sporadically ringing out through the air all combine to create a wonderful atmosphere and visually stunning results.

There's another reason that this isn't your typical big-screen alien invasion. I enjoyed the fact that it was set in a poor, rural and beautiful landscape (not New York or whatever…) and that the aliens were portrayed as being a part of nature with their annual migration, showing no interest in harming humans unless they get in the way or provoke them.

Having said all that, the film isn't without its problems. As was the case with District 9, Monsters attempts to use the creatures plight to voice a political message, this time on US immigration and foreign intervention policies. The aliens in Mexico being kept out of the US by a wall, the American military fighting a war abroad that they can't possibly win….. getting anything? Unfortunately, as with District 9, it fails to deliver any punch. The messages are too obvious and somewhat heavy handed, particularly when alluded to in the script. This doesn't necessarily detract from the film, it just fails to add anything to it. As much as I enjoyed the authenticity of much of the dialogue, the script was also a little light on meaningful interaction between the two characters.

Despite being generally well received by critics Monsters (judging by comments and ratings on IMDb) doesn't seem to be sitting so well with the general public and that points to another problem, Marketing. The deceptive trailer and poster would suggest that this is a CGI fuelled alien blockbuster, full of scares and action. The reality is that it is an independent road movie, more mumblecore romance than Hollywood action and that actually you see very little of the monsters. The marketing simply isn't reaching out to the right audience, and is leaving many viewers feeling quite understandably a little cheated by the lack of monster activity. When they do appear though they're not a disappointment and the final scene is nothing short of spectacular.

Gareth Edwards wrote, directed, and shot the entire film. The special effects and CGI scenes, all of which are outstanding, were rendered by Edwards himself, on his laptop, using standard Adobe software. For this reason Monsters is not only a hugely impressive film in its own right, but also a great achievement. Hollywood studios should sit up and take notice of what it's now possible to create with £500,000, 2 actors, a sound technician and an off the shelf laptop.

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.

Hmm, monsters crash landing in Mexico, and we try to keep them contained so they don't enter the US. Sounds familiar.

We also shot missiles at them when we can't even see the,. Again, sounds like the way we are waging war in Pakistan.

This isn't your typical monster film. They aren't really monsters, but aliens. We don't see them, but we know they are there.

The film doesn't rely on special effects, it is the story of Andrew (Scoot McNairy) and Samantha (Whitney Able) and their escape from Mexico.

Despite the misleading title, this is essentially a romance, with sci-fi added. It's an adventure in exotic jungle locations. If you enjoy a good jungle adventure, then you'll probably like this movie.

The first 3 reviews said it all. Amazing movie for a $15k budget. Amazing shots and scenery, good plot line, great acting from leads. Decent monsters and action, when it occurs. I'm starting to think it's the soundtrack that makes a movie seem "big". This movie's eerie sounds, and tension building strings draw you in, like a blockbuster. Can't believe this guy wrote, directed, edited and did the efx. A++++

And ignore the whiny babies crying about this and that. They'd rather watch blood pour out of a corpse than a decent piece of acting. As long as you don't expect another Cloverfield, you should be surprised by a unique cinematic experience. ;)

Recently, I watched Gareth Edwards' The Creator. While that film had a lot of really great ideas that weren't juggled very well, Monsters, Edward's first film, takes a very simple story and elevates it.

Monsters very much inspired how The Creator was short with guerrilla film making techniques, in real locations with a small cast and crew.

Monsters has a simple premise of two people trying to get to the US by going through a quarantined area of Mexico filled with large aliens. The film has an incredibly small budget, which is used to bring the world to life. Damaged towns and rusted tanks are complimented by just a few short sequences of monster mayhem. If you're watching the film for the title, you are being misled.

But, all of the flashier parts of the film are ultimately useless if the story is weak. Thankfully, though it may be simple, Monsters has two strong characters with great rapport. The two leads bounce off of each other nicely, which is probably why they are married in real life. Their organic chemistry is very prominent in the film, anchoring it with a solid base built on this relationship.

Overall, Monsters isn't trying to be a big and bombastic sci-fi galore but it does have a very human story showcasing a relationship growing through a need for survival.

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 thought it was pretty good scary thriller type of movie. Wasn't my favorite but it was still a pretty good story in an apocalyptic time.