Monsters

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.

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.

"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.

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.

Not exactly what I expected, but a movie well worth watching nonetheless. It's a story about a journey through zone infected by alien organisms. Where it lacks action, it makes up by amazing scenery. As you follow the two main characters, you see the fight between humans and the aliens from their point of view – on the TV, in the radio, in the scenery all around them. Most of the destruction happened before the main protagonist get on the scene, which really draws you in and it gives you this eerie feeling it just might be real. While you don't see much of the monsters, you can always feel their presence. At the end you can only feel awe, respect and humility towards the huge octopus-like aliens.

The actors are good and you can relate to them. Whitney Able is stunning girl in a very natural way and she deserves to be cast in lead roles more often.

For such a low-budget movie it's amazing how well it came out. I give it solid 8/10 and hope we will see more movies like this.