What an ill-advised mish-mash this is: a movie called 'Monsters' that decides to focus on a rather dreary approach to a potentially exciting tale. Here's the promising initial concept: a NASA probe falls to earth carrying microbes from another planet. It crashes in Mexico and the microbial life gets a foothold and thrives, becoming such a problem that the authorities have to wall the creatures into a designated 'infected zone' while simultaneously trying to vaporise their alien asses with missiles fired from F16s. Sounds good so far, right? Wrong: that's just the back-story
Here's the actual pitch: a photographer has to escort his boss's beautiful daughter through said infected zone to take her home
Cue: lots of action, explosions, monster encounters and pulse- pounding action, right? Wrong, yet again
This is where the movie takes a disastrous wrong turn. And then some. It becomes a 'journey of discovery' as the boss's daughter begins to fall more and more in love with the no-nonsense, grizzled photographer. Nothing much happens. They gaze meaningfully at each other and talk about nothing particularly important and that's about it. Most of the dialog for the film was improvised and it shows, painfully at times. In fact by the time the lead actor is babbling on about 'biologists', the viewer will be asking themselves 'what's the relevance of all this and where is it going?' Things don't get any better story-wise. The characters wander around aimlessly, filling the vacuum with meaningless banter and talking about the meaning of life. If it sounds really pretentious, that's because it is.
Basically what you have here is a classic of example of a brilliant concept gone wrong; a story not being given the sort of justice it deserves. In fact you could say that not only is it done zero justice, the real attraction – the monsters of the title - are more or less shoved into the background and used only as set decoration. When we do eventually see them in all their – admittedly, spectacular - glory, it's ahem to watch them procreate. If it's a low budget independent production, so what; calling it 'Monsters' and then going off on an arty, rambling 'journey of discovery' does not necessarily get you a free pass. And that's precisely the problem: the title is extremely misleading. It's an example of false information being given in order to sell a very dull and conceited movie.
If James Cameron had made a movie called 'Aliens' that focused on the characters of Ripley and Hicks going cross-country and 'discovering each other' in the process, would we have accepted it? Not a chance. But apparently arty indie flicks are excused from that sort of thing. The fact is, if Cameron would not have gotten a free pass if he did it, then director Gareth Edwards shouldn't get one either. If he wants to shoot a slow burning romantic road movie then fine, but please call it by another title – one more suited to the 'story' - so that we are at least forewarned and have a better idea of what we're getting ourselves into.
It's not all minuses, though; there are a few pluses. For a movie shot on Hi Def video, never once does it have a 'video look' like Public Enemies for example; it always appears to be shot on film and is very cinematically executed. Also the two actors playing the leads - Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able - his now wife – are very good. They're completely convincing and the love story that develops between them is both understated and believable. To director Gareth Edward's credit, the alien world is established beautifully with foreboding signposts, remnants of military hardware and CGI smoke plumes. The large fences and walls – erected to keep the alien life forms at bay – are realistically rendered. We get a real sense of what this world is like. It looks like it really could happen. He also utilizes various real-life disaster zones to very good effect and paints a credible portrait of the aftermath of a NASA probe triggering a new life form on the planet. So where does it all go wrong? The problem is all this is much more fascinating than the weak story he actually settled with.
Yes, you could argue that this was a legacy of the shoestring budget; after all how much action can you shoot for a few grand, right? But a small budget shouldn't be a 'get out of jail for free' card; a movie should be able to stand on its own feet and be judged not on its finances, but on the final story and on that principle, this movie fails. Big time. The heartiest recommendation that can be given for it is to watch it if you're having sleeping difficulties – you'll be out like a light within fifteen minutes. Story-wise, it's a disappointment on every level. It's certainly not the masterpiece some would have you believe. It's also being compared favorably to District 9, but the difference is District 9 is an energetic powerhouse of a film; this is just a mild asthmatic wheeze of a movie that chugs along with the velocity of an old age pensioner.
As previously mentioned the concept is brilliant; there's some really good stuff in here. There's actually more than enough material to warrant a really good prequel; a prospective science fiction masterpiece that could be a hybrid of Jurassic Park meets Starship Troopers. Under the auspices of an Emmerich, a Cameron or even a Snyder, it could be tremendous. Only please PLEASE on the basis of this, it probably wouldn't be a good idea if Gareth Edwards directed it – one long, rambling, yawn inducing 'journey of discovery' is more than enough. This should carry a health warning - 'for insomniacs only'.
This is where the movie takes a disastrous wrong turn. And then some. It becomes a 'journey of discovery' as the boss's daughter begins to fall more and more in love with the no-nonsense, grizzled photographer. Nothing much happens. They gaze meaningfully at each other and talk about nothing particularly important and that's about it. Most of the dialog for the film was improvised and it shows, painfully at times. In fact by the time the lead actor is babbling on about 'biologists', the viewer will be asking themselves 'what's the relevance of all this and where is it going?' Things don't get any better story-wise. The characters wander around aimlessly, filling the vacuum with meaningless banter and talking about the meaning of life. If it sounds really pretentious, that's because it is.
Basically what you have here is a classic of example of a brilliant concept gone wrong; a story not being given the sort of justice it deserves. In fact you could say that not only is it done zero justice, the real attraction – the monsters of the title - are more or less shoved into the background and used only as set decoration. When we do eventually see them in all their – admittedly, spectacular - glory, it's ahem to watch them procreate. If it's a low budget independent production, so what; calling it 'Monsters' and then going off on an arty, rambling 'journey of discovery' does not necessarily get you a free pass. And that's precisely the problem: the title is extremely misleading. It's an example of false information being given in order to sell a very dull and conceited movie.
If James Cameron had made a movie called 'Aliens' that focused on the characters of Ripley and Hicks going cross-country and 'discovering each other' in the process, would we have accepted it? Not a chance. But apparently arty indie flicks are excused from that sort of thing. The fact is, if Cameron would not have gotten a free pass if he did it, then director Gareth Edwards shouldn't get one either. If he wants to shoot a slow burning romantic road movie then fine, but please call it by another title – one more suited to the 'story' - so that we are at least forewarned and have a better idea of what we're getting ourselves into.
It's not all minuses, though; there are a few pluses. For a movie shot on Hi Def video, never once does it have a 'video look' like Public Enemies for example; it always appears to be shot on film and is very cinematically executed. Also the two actors playing the leads - Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able - his now wife – are very good. They're completely convincing and the love story that develops between them is both understated and believable. To director Gareth Edward's credit, the alien world is established beautifully with foreboding signposts, remnants of military hardware and CGI smoke plumes. The large fences and walls – erected to keep the alien life forms at bay – are realistically rendered. We get a real sense of what this world is like. It looks like it really could happen. He also utilizes various real-life disaster zones to very good effect and paints a credible portrait of the aftermath of a NASA probe triggering a new life form on the planet. So where does it all go wrong? The problem is all this is much more fascinating than the weak story he actually settled with.
Yes, you could argue that this was a legacy of the shoestring budget; after all how much action can you shoot for a few grand, right? But a small budget shouldn't be a 'get out of jail for free' card; a movie should be able to stand on its own feet and be judged not on its finances, but on the final story and on that principle, this movie fails. Big time. The heartiest recommendation that can be given for it is to watch it if you're having sleeping difficulties – you'll be out like a light within fifteen minutes. Story-wise, it's a disappointment on every level. It's certainly not the masterpiece some would have you believe. It's also being compared favorably to District 9, but the difference is District 9 is an energetic powerhouse of a film; this is just a mild asthmatic wheeze of a movie that chugs along with the velocity of an old age pensioner.
As previously mentioned the concept is brilliant; there's some really good stuff in here. There's actually more than enough material to warrant a really good prequel; a prospective science fiction masterpiece that could be a hybrid of Jurassic Park meets Starship Troopers. Under the auspices of an Emmerich, a Cameron or even a Snyder, it could be tremendous. Only please PLEASE on the basis of this, it probably wouldn't be a good idea if Gareth Edwards directed it – one long, rambling, yawn inducing 'journey of discovery' is more than enough. This should carry a health warning - 'for insomniacs only'.