Monsters
- 2010
- Tous publics
- 1h 34m
Six years after Earth has suffered an alien invasion, a cynical journalist agrees to escort a shaken American tourist through an infected zone in Mexico to the safety of the U.S. border.Six years after Earth has suffered an alien invasion, a cynical journalist agrees to escort a shaken American tourist through an infected zone in Mexico to the safety of the U.S. border.Six years after Earth has suffered an alien invasion, a cynical journalist agrees to escort a shaken American tourist through an infected zone in Mexico to the safety of the U.S. border.
- Nominated for 1 BAFTA Award
- 14 wins & 15 nominations total
Kerry Valderrama
- Marine
- (as Kerry Valderrema)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
If you can handle real sci fi -- movies without the excesses of Transformers or 2012 -- this sci fi will satisfy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just saw this last night, and have to say, loved it. I can understand teen boys being offended by the lack of action. And I think a lot of people seeing this film might start with preconceptions about what a 'monster' movie should be, which won't do this film any favours. It's a road movie, a slow building drama, a mystery. I actually liked that the two leads were attractive and likable company, without acting in predictable Hollywood ways (you know, where they are unsure about each other, then have a huge fight and yell that they hate each other, then immediately jump into great sex – I am pretty sure in real life only couples who've been together for a while have good angry sex, surely?, I could be wrong, anyway
). But it was the mystery of the intriguing monsters that got me, and the absolutely perfect resolution. Unlike the current 3D CGI megafilms, where everything is boringly and loudly in your face, this film required the audience to join in and use some of it's own imagination, a bit like Alien you could say (without the blood & guts). And, that last scene was so great – easily one of the most perfectly orchestrated scenes I've seen in any film in the last year or two, and to a large degree because it had the sense to not knock the message over your head. And despite it's lack of gigantic special effects, I really think this is a film to see in a cinema, not on TV – to get in the mood, to wonder what's over the next hill, to peer into the darkness to see, wait, is that a tentacle? Like the main characters, the audience needs to be paying attention. Okay, so not a perfect masterpiece from beginning to end, but right now I can't think of many monster movie monsters I've loved in the last decade as much as these octo-spidey-monster thingies. Beautiful! (and I'm pretty p*ssed that a piece of shoddy Hollywood crap like Skyline is showing in 160+ cinemas here in Australia, while this little beauty is only on at a few)
Did you know
- TriviaThe film was improvised, with little to no outline of scenes and their direction. The two main actors were given a general outline of scenes and simply interacted with one another and the other cast members, many of whom were not actors. All the shots were improvised as well.
- GoofsSam can't get on the ferry because Andrew lost her passport, but when he bought the ticket the previous day, the sign said "no passport required."
- Quotes
Samantha Wynden: Doesn't that kind of bother you, that you need something bad to happen to profit from it?
Andrew Kaulder: You mean, like a doctor?
- ConnectionsFeatured in Behind the Scenes of 'Monsters' (2011)
- SoundtracksEl Cascabel
Written by Lorenzo Barcelata
Performed by Conjuntos Tlalixcoyan Y Medellin
Published by Peer International Corp. USA
Courtesy of Warner Music UK Limited
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Languages
- Also known as
- Monstruos - zona infectada
- Filming locations
- Yaxha, Maya ruins, Guatemala(Exterior)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $500,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $237,301
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $20,508
- Oct 31, 2010
- Gross worldwide
- $5,060,438
- Runtime
- 1h 34m(94 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content