Monsters: Dark Continent

OMG! I just saw this and...don't! It was soooo boring. It was NOTHING like the first movie. I know the director said it wasn't a sequel, but still, it was not good. A big problem was the title. It's called Monster: The Dark Continent. The dark continent is what Africa's known as. However, this movie seemed more like a film about the Iraq war with the monsters as a very distant backdrop. Granted, they didn't say they were in Iraq. I don't actually recall them saying where the film took place.

Some said the acting was bad. I didn't have a problem with the acting. The cinematography was good. I just expected something VERY different.

Some of the monsters were like galloping antelope. Others were like birds. Some seemed like walking trees. The point is, they didn't come across as any sort of a threat. As I said, boring.

I gave this a 4-star rating. I do not recommend. Watch the first one, and look at that as a one-story movie. This one didn't do anything but bore me to tears. Now I'm really tired. When I feel like going to sleep after watching a movie -- in the early evening -- that's how I can tell a movie sucked.

What a load of pretentious, art w*nk nonsense this film really is.

It's bad enough that the story is paper thin and the characters are as unlikeable as an upset stomach (one minute gangsta tough, the next screaming like babies) but the direction is shocking.

It's like a frustrated art student trying out every possible style of image capture. Long shots, close shots, lens flare, angled, shaky cam, slow mo and none of them working.

One pointless scene of a helicopter taking off showed it's ascent from at least 10 different angles - outside looking up, inside looking out, inside looking inside, outside different angle etc etc.

Every character must have had at least two shots of them silent screaming from the Dummies Guide to filming internal angst.

Things aren't explained, geography is not established and you can almost feel the makers telegraphing their contempt to the audience that 'if you don't get this, you're too stupid'.

It's not engaging, thought provoking or entertaining. And when it's finished all you can contemplate is the utter pointlessness of the whole film.

I know many complain of studio execs interfering with a film but you really have to question who greenlit this laughable project or signed off the finished product for general release.

Whoever it was can't tell the difference between a movie and a flickerbook of cool filtered Instagram pics.

"This was our home. It was our last day, so for those last few hours we needed to forget about what was coming." Ten years after the monsters landed on Earth things have gotten worse. They have begun to fully take over the entire planet and now with the US military using all of its resources to fight them off they now have to contend with a new type of insurgency. I will start by saying that I remember seeing the first one, thinking it was a little slow, but it's been so long all I remember about it is the cheesy ending. I had the same expectations for this one. I was wrong. While I though this one was a little better it was still pretty slow moving and was really missing something the first one had...monsters. In terms of war movies this one is pretty decent, the problem with it is that every so often a monster would pop up out of nowhere, presumably to remind you the movie is called monsters. Some movies are deceiving because of the trailers released, they seem funny and are really dramas, etc...this is the first movie I have seen where the title is misleading. This is really just another US vs Taliban movie, with an occasional (out of place) monster thrown in. Overall, a movie much like Battle LA, if there were no aliens in that movie. I give this a C.

Wow! Not a good wow, but just wow. I was really psyched to hear about a sequel to "Monsters" because that was such a great sci-fi movie but man, was I disappointed in this one. This was really just an anti-war movie and I think there was a message in there about the middle-east conflict but I couldn't be sure because there were so many confusing themes happening at the same time. The one thing this wasn't was a sci- fi movie about.....monsters. They could have edited out every monster scene and it would not have changed the movie one bit, I'm not kidding. If I had seen a pre-release copy that didn't have the special effects added in, I wouldn't have been confused about what was going on, at least no more than I am now. I'm sorry Tom Green but a swing and a miss.

In 2010, a British visual effects designer named Gareth Edwards released the feature film "Monsters", which he wrote, directed and edited. The movie that he (personally) shot in five countries over a three week period with a cast, crew and equipment that fit in one van, a film which he put together for under $500,000 made over $4 million worldwide. Edwards was rewarded with the opportunity to direct 2014's "Godzilla" reboot. Critics and audiences, who gave "Monsters" generally positive reviews, were rewarded with a sequel, "Monsters: Dark Continent" (R, 1:59). But before we talk about whether the sequel really qualifies as a reward, let's set the stage for the second film by taking a quick look back at the first.

The story of the original "Monsters" has NASA bringing samples of possible living organisms back from one of Jupiter's moons, only to inadvertently introduce Earth to a new species that is larger and deadlier than anything currently on the planet. The Monsters end up spreading throughout northern Mexico and a quarantine of that half of the country is planned. The focus of the film is the efforts of a photojournalist to get his employer's daughter safely out of Mexico and back to the U.S. without getting killed by the monsters or trapped in the quarantine zone. The sequel picks up about ten years after the first film ends and has all new characters in a completely different setting and with a very different plot.

The production schedule for "Godzilla" prevented Edwards from directing "Monsters: Dark Continent" (although he did serve as Executive Producer) and the sequel's writers, Jay Basu and Tom Green (the latter making his directorial debut with this film), made the sequel about the soldiers who are fighting the monsters. These creatures are about 300 feet tall and look like a spider, an octopus and a cockroach somehow all made a baby together and it was shot up with more steroids than every professional baseball and football player on the planet could use in a lifetime. No longer confined to Mexico, these creatures have become a world-wide problem. The U.S. military is trying to bomb the monsters into oblivion, but, at least in the Middle East, the collateral damage from those bombing campaigns has created a dangerous new insurgency that troops on the ground are needed to quell. As in the original film, the follow-up is mostly a story of human survival, with the monsters practically fading into the background (a point that some praise, but many criticize). The main focus is on a squad of Soldiers from Detroit who end up fighting the local insurgency under the battle-hardened Staff Sergeant Noah Frater (Johnny Harris). The member of the squad with which Frater ends up spending the most time is Private Michael Parkes (Sam Keely). Parkes is as scared as Frater is determined. Although we see the squad on patrol, and even killing one of the monsters with the small arms that they carry, most of the action takes place on a mission to rescue four fellow soldiers who are believed to be trapped by the insurgents. As is always the case in combat, these young soldiers have to depend on each other and on the wisdom of their leaders if they are to survive. And, as is often the case in war movies, inexperience clashes with experience, idealism clashes with reality and each soldier has to defeat his fear before he can ever hope to defeat the enemy. This film is a combination of "The Hurt Locker", "Saving Private Ryan", "Platoon" and "Starship Troopers", but with much more intensity.

"Monsters: Dark Continent" delivers in terms of the emotions experienced by soldiers in high-stress situations, but that's all it does. For one thing, everything about the marketing of the film – the title, the movie poster, the trailers – is misleading. Based on the title, I expected combat in the deepest, darkest jungles of Africa (maybe like a modern version of "Predator"), not a story set in the villages of the part of northern Africa that is better described as part of the Middle East. Based on what I saw and heard before seeing this movie, I also expected lots of battles against, you know – monsters. The monsters really are gigantic, frightening, bad-tempered destruction machines, but they are mainly relegated to the role of background scenery. We see the insurgents take more lives than the creatures of the film's title. In the few scenes where we observe the monsters up close, we mainly just see them destroying a few buildings, when we can tell that they're capable of so much more. (Oh, the tragedy of wasted monster potential.) Even though I don't feel like I got what I paid for, I was impressed with the performances of the actors playing soldiers, but that wasn't enough for me… or maybe it was too much. The action showing each man beneath the warrior was so incredibly intense that I'm hard-pressed to call this movie "entertaining" and the over-grown creepy-crawlies which could have added a lot to the story were largely MIA. "C+"