Nov. 3, 2010, 11:23 p.m. CST
by Longtime Lurker
But then I didn't enter, so.....
Nov. 3, 2010, 11:48 p.m. CST
The movie is so fucking boring.
Nov. 4, 2010, 12:48 a.m. CST
I give props to what the director accomplished for the price. But the move is poorly acted and dreadfully dull.
Nov. 4, 2010, 1:22 a.m. CST
I really enjoyed it. It's not perfect, but it's very well done. Slow tho.
Nov. 4, 2010, 2:08 a.m. CST
Monsters is almost pitch perfect and evokes early Spielberg. It received a standing ovation when I saw it in August. It's a great film.
Nov. 4, 2010, 2:32 a.m. CST
by Bass Ackwards
I'll probably never rewatch it, and I agree, for it's budget it's wildly impressive and well put together film. But beyond that note lf technical achievement, it's not terribly involving or exciting, it maintains curiosity throughout, but thats about it, it never really satisfies that curiosity in any way, and the ending is not super impactful as it wants us to be suddenly invested in a romance that had very little builup throughout the film. But the director probably has some pretty good films in his future.
Nov. 4, 2010, 4:03 a.m. CST
but it's not a very good movie
Nov. 4, 2010, 6:15 a.m. CST
It's a very competently made (well, extraordinary for the actual budget) apocalyptic film which turns into a bit of a slacker romance. Most attention spans will find it pretty dreary, but it has a bit of emotional punch at the end. Hardly a GREAT film by any stretch of the imagination, but worthwhile if you have the patience.
Nov. 4, 2010, 6:17 a.m. CST
..returning to for another watch. By the time it does have some emotional pull, most people will have gone to sleep. There's big difference between 60's and 70's cinema quiet suspense and this.
Nov. 4, 2010, 6:22 a.m. CST
I really liked it. The end was a bit too sentimental, and the lead guy was pretty douchey (which made it hard to be invested in the relationship). But as pure moviemaking, it's very well done. Gotta agree that anyone who was bored by it has watched way too many Michael Bay movies.
Nov. 4, 2010, 7:49 a.m. CST
I saw this on HDNet Movies last week and truly enjoyed it. Yes, it is a bit slow, but it is involving as well. This movie is not about big explosions, but rather peoples' reactions to what has happened to their world and how they're trying to get safe.
Nov. 4, 2010, 11:09 a.m. CST
Just as I knew it was (I had a flame war with some douchebag who was trying to convince me it was done on $15k). The director Gareth Edwards was forced to admit it at a Q&A. The 15k was purely for the equipment. He didn't divulge the actual budget, but I'm sure its close to 100k. But that wouldn't be good publicity, would it? Also the film is a crock of shit. Edwards has no future as a director, he should go back to messing around on computers.
Nov. 4, 2010, 11:37 a.m. CST
It's a real shame there's not more going on storywise because everything else is there.<p>Also, the title is a bit misleading. Oh sure, there's monsters in it but not enough to warrant the uninspired title, and unfortunately nothing giving it an alternate meaning.
Nov. 4, 2010, 12:48 p.m. CST
the script, acting and story would have caused it to sag under it's own weight. but yes it didn't help that the movie was called Monsters( plural) and we only see one single monster design, glimpses of it that look uninspired cheap CGI.
Nov. 4, 2010, 6:28 p.m. CST
Getting oral surgery. "Slow Burn" films only work if the story is well written and well acted. Otherwise you get a chore of a film like "MONSTERS".
Nov. 4, 2010, 7:04 p.m. CST
by Hank Hawk
Even if I can give the filmmaker some credit for the effort of shooting this movie on a shoestring budget. Even if I can say, that it is well shot and the actors did a good job, I have to say that I really was disappointed. Calling this film MONSTERS is like calling JAWS "Beach Party". Sure, there is a Beach Party in JAWS, isn't it? But the biggest disappointment where the "Monsters" itself. IF, I say "IF", you get to see them, they looked like giant Octopuses, which are not scary AT ALL! But to make matters worse, this giant Octopuses came across like giant Elephants - sounding like whales. Don't get me wrong, Elephants can be vicious, but most of the time, they aren't. Same here. This brings me to the one real problem this movie has. To point that out, I get back to JAWS for a second. We all know an love this movie, right? How long does it take till we actually see the shark? Way back, in the second half of the movie (We need a bigger Boat - scene). And did we miss it? No, we don't, cause Spielberg found ways to tuck us to our seats anyway. In MONSTERS, there is not one scene, where there was tension or suspense, where I feared for the to main characters lives. Not one. And that has nothing to do with a shoestring budget. But it has anything to do with lame writing. You don't need CGI to make an exciting movie. But, hey, maybe MONSTERS isn't a MONSTER flick after all. Maybe it is a comment on immigrations policy? But even on this level MONSTERS falls flat. One last note: Comparing MONSTERS with CLOVERFIELD or even DISTRICT 9, is like comparing TRANSFORMERS with REMAINS OF THE DAY.
Nov. 4, 2010, 7:12 p.m. CST
movie right now on demand in HD for 8 bucks!
Nov. 4, 2010, 8:01 p.m. CST
Oh awesome the sneak preview on HDNet this month is a low budget film called MONSTERS, I'm a sit back cough & have a good time, but like Borat said, "NOT". Shot well & doesn't look cheap, enjoyed the actors but NOTHING HAPPENS, they try and sneak you into caring with a minute of Cloverfield @ the start only to have no actions or monsters at all. I posted on a ton of sites my review of this because I loathed it so much, don't call this movie Monsters, its like calling Cannibal Holocaust the snowball ticklefest.
Nov. 4, 2010, 8:03 p.m. CST
Nov. 4, 2010, 10:57 p.m. CST
A flame war which you lost miserably by turning a perfectly civilised discussion over budgets into a series of the most embarrassingly arrogant and self aggrandizing 'public service announcements' this board has ever seen. Or have you forgotten trying to tell the world that anyone supporting the concept that small budget filmmaking like 'Monsters' might be possible was guilty of sending independent filmmakers to their deaths? How'd that internet crusade work out for you by the way? I hope you were able to post your message on ALL the websites that were busy discussing Monsters a few months back. Goodness knows what might have happened if you hadn't warned them! I hear the some peope actually picked up their camcorders and started making films in their very own neighbourhoods! The humanity! Oh, calling me out on my credit list was a nice touch too.<p>As to the budget - if it didn't cost $15,000 or roundabouts (do we even have anything other than a vaguest hint that cost much more?) I'll be quite happy eat crow for even conjecturing at the possibilty (not realising that there were rules about that sort of thing round here). Anyone got the final figures?<p>No?<p>So we still have a film that is clearly low budget, but that might have cost anywhere between $15k and the national deficit.
Nov. 4, 2010, 11:24 p.m. CST
This movie sucked donkey balls. I saw it a few weeks ago, and it was boring as all hell! Monsters? Please!! I know this movie was done on the cheap, but still, NOTHING happens in this movie! Nothing! Anyone who hasn't seen it yet, don't waste your time and go rent District 9.
Nov. 5, 2010, 3:29 p.m. CST
I cant see that amount of cash onscreen at all. Current interviews with Edwards point to a figure somewhere between the 'magic' figure and 100k (includig re-shoots) which he claims to have let the producers deal with. He maintains that it was still extremely cheap to shoot:<p>When (other filmmakers) ask that question I think what they’re really asking is, “Can I afford to do that? Is that within my price range that I have access to?” And my answer is that the way we made this film is we were in the back of a van. We essentially did what you’d do if you went on holiday through Central America. We just drove around, jumped out, filmed a scene, jumped back in and shot it all on a camera that cost us a few thousand Pounds and with some lenses that cost a few thousand (Pounds)."
Nov. 5, 2010, 10:33 p.m. CST
Get a wide or at least a limited release?
Nov. 10, 2010, 3:48 p.m. CST
First off, Capone, thanks for the freebie, I enjoyed the movie. It's not what I expected even after I had been warned that it wasn't really a typical Monster movie, but still I found it enjoyable. The Monsters are the backdrop, and really it's a love story that's told really well within the limitations of a small budget. The acting was not stellar, but I felt it was edited in a smart way, that you didn't really have time to dwell on lines that were delivered kind of flat. The story advanced pretty quickly and while I did get kind of antsy in the 3rd Act, overall I thought the pace was fair. My biggest crit would be for all the suspense that eventually develops never really delivers a big pay off. You could argue it was the ending, but to me it sort of felt tacked on. It forced me to try to remember how the movie started to figure out a satisfying conclusion for the whole damned thing. So I can see where this movie is going to leave a bad taste in the mouth with some people. It would be good as an IFC kind of release, but I don't see doing well in the the big theatres. Give it a new title, a better color grade, and at least one nasty kill scene/payoff and it would be far easier to digest.