Monsters

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. ;)

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).

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.

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.

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.