CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Monsters - Post Release Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Monsters - Post Release Discussion

post #1 of 68
9/26/10 at 9:07am
Thread Starter 
This movie interested me on two levels. First it's a giant monster movie and second the whole "he only spent 15,000 making the movie" hubbub. Sometimes these super cheap movies really show their cheapness, yeah...talking to you Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity, and don't have a lot to say other than "I made a movie for almost nothing". Most of these movies are never really good beyond the hype put behind them for how small the budget was. Then there are the few real good ones, like say Clerks, that work as a movie first and not a sales pitch for do it yourselfers. Monsters fits into the latter category.

Let's get this part out of the way first since the internet seems to be filled with commenter's with the opinion that this is Cloverfield 2 or District 10, it isn't. Both of these movies were billed as made on the cheap, but they were both done for around 30 Million dollars so that is only considered cheap in the Hollywood circles where a 150 million dollar tent pole picture is a low budget film. Also Monsters is a totally different animal than the other two.

It's a love story. That's all it is. A simple love story that just happens to be set it a world filled with the ever present dread of being killed by a giant monster.

And it was awesome.

Yes, it moves along slowly, but this is a movie about two people forced together by circumstance that get to know each other and fall in love during their trip. It's the old cliché road movie/love story, but done with a really great premise and awesome execution. I loved the film and will probably visit it again in a few months when the Blu-ray hits.

What did you think?
Reply
post #2 of 68
9/27/10 at 6:09am
A great film. Downloaded it, legally, from the x-box marketplace a couple of days back, just saw it tonight.

The scenery as they traversed back home is stunning in HD. Not quite crystal clear like The Host, but still amazing to look at. Loved the performances of the two leads, as well as the temporary secondary characters. Scoot McNairy at times seems to be channeling David Duchovny - that's a good thing. Blond privilaged princess thankfully wasn't a Paris Hilton stereotype or remotely approach that area.

$15000, seriously? There looks like so much more was put on screen. Having reviewed some of the Artisan/Lionsgate turds for chud wayyy back when, it's great to see someone pull off a great looking flick with so little.

The tension in some of the scenes had some great payoffs, and unexpected divergences (without spoiling anything). Reminded me of some of Spielberg's stuff in terms of scope, presentation, and execution.

The best thing I can say about the movie is I want more. This is a universe I'd like to see more of, or witness other stories. But then, it's not a movie with the Monsters as the showcase is it? You had two real characters dealing with extraordinary situations, and at no point do they betray the movie with over/underacting as it progressed.

Too bad it won't come to this small ass town any time soon, but if you can see it on a big screen go right on ahead.
Reply
post #3 of 68
9/27/10 at 8:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mongycore View Post
Scoot McNairy at times seems to be channeling David Duchovny - that's a good thing.
Thinking back, you might be right. He also looks alarmingly like character actor Silas Weir Mitchell. He's really solid, as is the uber cute Whitney Able. Good chemistry between them two.

Great, great movie. I am amazed at what the director managed to pull off here, with NOTHING. A real, completely immersive world. Love the story, the way the movie looks, love the final shot, love pretty much everything about it.

and SPOILER... the bit where the creature creeps silently in darkness towards the gas station as Kaulder takes a nap is one of the most bone chilling scenes in recent memory. And I actively look out for such scenes.
Reply
post #4 of 68
9/27/10 at 9:07pm
Gonna watch this friday. just got the tickets...hope is that good
Reply
post #5 of 68
9/28/10 at 5:38pm
So I guess there's this theory going around that SPOILER the soldiers vs monster scene at the start is actually the "real" end of the movie, after Kaulder and Sam get picked up. Not sure what to make of it, and I can't go back to watch the scene again, but I do remember an injured or possibly dead blonde woman on the ground in that scene. Any thoughts on this?
Reply
post #6 of 68
9/28/10 at 5:54pm
There's definitely something going on there. For one thing, not only do you see a wounded/dead girl in that opening scene, but a man crawling towards her and cradling her and screaming for help. Then at the end when there is the shot of the army truck driving to the gas station, you can hear a soldier humming Ride of the Valkyries as it passes by the camera, like in the opening. Not quite sure what to make of it though.
Reply
post #7 of 68
9/28/10 at 6:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post
at the end when there is the shot of the army truck driving to the gas station, you can hear a soldier humming Ride of the Valkyries as it passes by the camera, like in the opening.
Good catch. That basically seals it then.
Reply
post #8 of 68
9/28/10 at 11:46pm
What a great little flick. I love how it was scaled way back and essentially ended up being an intimate road trip movie. The backdrop is great; reminded me of the meticulous world building we saw in District 9. And wow - 15,000? The movie often looks phenomenal. Loved the shot from atop the temple, looking out at the wall. Great, great stuff.
Reply
post #9 of 68
9/28/10 at 11:54pm
So then what does the beginning being the ending mean? It's basically a love story and a road movie, and there's some pretty blatant subtext about immigration and war/occupation, but where does the weird recursion thing fit into all that? I mean the fact that they play out differently. I'm honestly not sure. I guess I need to watch it again. What really hit me was how good it looked, how detailed and real the world felt, and how invested I was in the characters, their journey, and most of all their relationship. I guess I didn't process the possible underlying meaning(s) as much as I should have. Probably would have been better if I'd watched it with someone else, so we could have discussed it afterward. But that's where you guys come in!

EDIT: Actually, I'm just an idiot. Thinking about it for like 10 seconds, I realize that it's just the way it's edited that made me think it's different. I thought the opening scene was in a different place but I guess you can't really tell, and the whole shootout is supposed to be what happened right after the very last moment of the last scene. For some reason it struck me as some sort of abstract art thing but it's just filling in what happened before that first scene and giving it meaning and emotional resonance.

Anyway, great movie.
Reply
post #10 of 68
9/29/10 at 2:39pm
SPOILER

I think it's about the reassessment. The opening of the movie goes from a cool monster scene, to more of a gutpunch thing when you realize who that is. Kind of a sadder "protagonist/narrator was dead all along" twist, if you care about the characters (personally they won me over right about the time Kaulder chose to give that person some dignity in death instead of making the easy $50k)
Reply
post #11 of 68
9/29/10 at 3:10pm
Yeah, rethinking the beginning in terms of the ending is painful. I'd originally thought the beginning was where Kaulder rescued Sam, prior to them having any relationship. The minute that the "theme song" moment is replayed just after Sam and Kaulder watch the two monsters at the gas station was a great shock.

Excellent film. For me this is in the top 3 of the year, my kind of movie. I think the comparison to District 9 is certainly apt even if the two movies are vastly different, as both are effective science fiction indies made on the cheap (and yes, you can say District 9 was "cheap" even though it cost significantly more to make than Monsters) that do what science fiction is supposed to do-- namely take something bogus, like an invasion of giant aliens, and hang an examination of contemporary social issues on it. It's beautiful to look at, beautifully acted, and it's got an incredible heart propelling its plot forward.

Short version? Small impact, but completely stunning. I love this movie.
Reply
post #12 of 68
9/30/10 at 2:13am
The fact that this was made with $15,000 is really inspiring.
Reply
post #13 of 68
9/30/10 at 6:28pm
Anyone else get the sense that the creatures are not only intelligent but potentially nonthreatening if only they weren't being mercilessly targeted?

They are definitely not dumb baby Cthulus.
Reply
post #14 of 68
10/1/10 at 6:34am
I absolutely got that impression, Xion, and the movie also tells us as much with a couple of throwaway lines delivered by the armed escort. The rough idea is that the monsters don't bother you if you don't bother them.
Reply
post #15 of 68
10/1/10 at 4:27pm
I just finished this one, and I hate to be the lone dissenting voice, but I was less than impressed. I give the director all the credit in the world for getting this thing made for less than $15,000, but that's about all the leeway I can give it. The premise is great, but the execution falls sort of flat.

This is the kind of movie that rests solely on the charisma of its lead actors, and unfortunately, neither of the leads possessed any. Scoot McNairy is totally unappealing, and the female lead is bland in every possible way. Neither of them are all that great as performers, either, which really hurts the film.

The monster design was great, and I loved that they were used so sparingly, but still, I would have loved it if something interesting had happened in the times between their appearances. Overall, it's not terrible, but it's not really compelling enough to recommend, either.
Reply
post #16 of 68
10/1/10 at 5:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion View Post
Anyone else get the sense that the creatures are not only intelligent but potentially nonthreatening if only they weren't being mercilessly targeted?
Yes. The movie definitely wants us to think that. I really dig the whole gas station sequence because of this. You could argue that it was budgetary restraints that guided the filmmakers' hand here, but I think a lesser movie would have climaxed with a big tentacle-fueled destruction set-piece (after that Cloverfield-esque opening, I was worried). But instead, the movie builds up to our two main characters, who have just come to grips with their feelings for one another, witnessing what I'm assuming was two lumbering Lovecraftian beasts mating. Maybe its a little on-the-nose, but I thought it was a very powerful final moment.
Reply
post #17 of 68
10/1/10 at 6:15pm
It was a moment that elevated the entire film to rival the sense of awe that Spielberg so effortlessly captures in his work. I don't know if the beasties are mating or simply sharing info but I liked the idea that they were mating or showing affection when I watched it due to it mirroring the desires of the humans who watch.

I re-watched the beginning to see if it is the "real" ending and I must sadly conclude that it is. This drives the sociopolitical criticism home, suggesting that America (now with extra Squid) is as doomed as whatever fresh start Kaulder and Sam could have had.

Chris Olson, gotta disagree with you about the leads. They felt like real people, not like mugging Hollywood characters. There's a time and a place for Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning but this wasn't it. And how you could be unfazed by the way Kaulder breaks down when talking to his son is surprising to me. Sam may be a bit more reactive and placid on the surface, but Kaulder is a very interesting guy. As someone else mentioned, the way he covers that girl rather thank taking the $50k shot is telling.

I was amazed at how the actors in this felt like real people.
Reply
post #18 of 68
10/1/10 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion View Post
I don't know if the beasties are mating or simply sharing info
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop View Post
witnessing what I'm assuming was two lumbering Lovecraftian beasts mating.
They were sexing. It was clearly an impromptu, late-night booty call (of Cthulhu)
Reply
post #19 of 68
10/1/10 at 6:23pm
I found myself warming to Sam much faster than Kaulder. Kaulder keeps himself hidden behind his camera for a good chunk of the film before we learn about his son and the, shall we say, delicate nature of their relationship; Sam, on the other hand, feels distant only because she refuses to talk about her engagement, but she shows herself to be personable and compassionate in a way that Kaulder just isn't. She connects to people. More than that she wants to connect to people. And she's just so energetic and, hell, brave that it's hard not to grow to like her.

Kaulder's great, too, but we have to get through his layers first.

Olson, I'm with Xion here. Their acting felt really natural to me. And that final moment between the two of them is just note-perfect; I'm glad that that's how the film ended. Felt like the exact right time to end the movie, which has been building up to that particular point.

EDIT:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disciple_72 View Post
late-night booty call (of Cthulhu)
Thumbs up to you sir.
Reply
post #20 of 68
10/1/10 at 6:53pm
They didn't feel like real people to me at all, and they just came off as novice actors who were trying a bit too hard to emote. I wasn't looking for Cruise and Fanning, but I would have liked performers who could make me believe in their performances. Like I said, the actors just had zero charisma, and the performances felt flat and unconvincing. I don't know...maybe my expectations were just too high, but the movie just didn't work for me, and a big part of that was because I just couldn't buy into the leads.
Reply
post #21 of 68
10/1/10 at 7:03pm
I'd be curious what you'd consider to be a strong naturalistic performance then.
Reply
post #22 of 68
10/1/10 at 7:11pm
Since the two movies do get compared a lot, I'd say that Sharlto Copley in District 9 gave a pretty naturalistic, believable performance. I bought into him immediately in that movie, but I can't say the same for either of the leads in Monsters.

Sorry, guys. I really don't mean to rain on the parade, and I really am glad you all loved it so much. For me, though, I just couldn't get past the artificiality of the leads. To me, there was nothing naturalistic about either performance. It never once felt like they weren't "acting," and I was never convinced of the performances, nor did I find them to be likable or interesting enough to get me involved in the story.

The only moment in the film that really stood out to me was the bit with the monsters at the gas station, and even that was a bit too on the nose for me. It was visually stunning, and again, I give the director all the credit in the world for pulling this off on a shoestring budget, but overall, it just didn't work for me.

Having said that, I'll shut up now, because I know I'm being something of a party pooper, and I would like to apologize for that. I'll just be on my merry way.
Reply
post #23 of 68
10/3/10 at 10:55am
Thread Starter 
I really loved the two leads. At first the girl was the “daughter of a rich daddy”, but you quickly learned that there was much more to her. There was a sadness in the way that her life was not hers and she was looking for a way out of the life that had been forced on her. When she met Kaulder she fell for him quickly but then had a shocking reveal that he was just another guy. That was a horrible scene in that he screwed up big-time with a drunken mistake.

Kaulder on the other hand started as a total asshole yet sealed the deal for me with one line. When they were together and he confessed that he wasn’t like that normally and he didn’t want her memory of him to be tainted by one bad action. There was more to it, like when they came across the aftermath in the jungle and instead of taking the 50,000 dollar picture he chose to cover the child and not take the picture.

There were a lot of small moments that sealed the deal with these two as they fell in love over there trip. By the end I was so happy that they fell in love with each other.

<SPOILERS DISCUSSED ABOVE>
And then completely crushed when she died in his arms at the end of the movie, which was the beginning. It’s not a maybe, it was them. The very first line of the movie was (something like) “Get in the truck! (Radio) We have them, a caucasian male and female, returning to base” and that was the exact last line of the movie. When the movie ended and I was sitting there in shock I quickly restarted the movie and watched the opening again right away. The beginning scene was the end of the movie and she was lying on the ground presumably dead with Kaulder screaming for help. The last shot of them was Kaulder in a total panic running toward the camera holding her and screaming “Help us!”
It was that scene and how bad I felt that sealed the deal on this movie. That opening was so cool when you watch it the first time, then a complete downer when you realize what it was that you saw. If I didn’t buy them…that would have just been a neat twist. Since I did…it was a total gut punch.
Reply
post #24 of 68
10/7/10 at 12:40pm
I really don't agree at all that the performances weren't natural, but I don't think we can really get anywhere by just going back and forth so yeah. Agree to disagree. But you're wrong, you big parade-ruining jerk. With all your rain and shit.
Reply
post #25 of 68
10/9/10 at 12:47am
I too must bring the rain...

I liked it. Great world building and very solid filmmaking from the ground up, but the script was weak and the leads were awful. Ok, not "awful", but just didn't sell it at all. Because the script was sparse and the tropes cliche, the film rested on their shoulders and they simply weren't up to task. It doesn't sink the film, but it does, imo, keep it from being great.
Reply
post #26 of 68
10/9/10 at 1:26am
It was interesting, especially at that price. In fact, I seriously doubt that price. Just going to Mexico costs something.

I didn't really like it. I wanted more monsters and better scenes involving them. You could counter that it's not that kind of movie, but I say it is, because it's called Monsters. But that wouldn't have really mattered if I liked the non-monster scenes. The first half hour I thought was pretty good, but once they hit the road, it mostly began feeling like writng around spending money. Which is fine, but the love story just didn't really click for me either. I think my favorite moment in the whole movie was the crazy shopping cart bag lady laughing at them.

And yeah, they're dead at the end.
Reply
post #27 of 68
10/9/10 at 2:59am
Did I mention there was no chemistry between the leads? None.
Reply
post #28 of 68
10/9/10 at 11:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post
You could counter that it's not that kind of movie, but I say it is, because it's called Monsters.
Yeah, Party Monster and Monsters aren't actually about monsters so fuck those movies.
Reply
post #29 of 68
10/10/10 at 10:37am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post
Did I mention there was no chemistry between the leads? None.
A lot of people say that which I find funny since they are married. Doesn't say much for that now does it.
Reply
post #30 of 68
10/10/10 at 12:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boomer View Post
A lot of people say that which I find funny since they are married. Doesn't say much for that now does it.
All I have to add is Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck.
Reply
post #31 of 68
10/10/10 at 12:48pm
Yeah, just because a couple is married in real life, there is no guarantee that the chemistry will translate to the big screen. Cinema history is littered with examples of that.

ETA: I think my favorite moment in the film would have to be the bit in which the boat stops to fuel up, and they hear all those strange noises out in the jungle and the guy says, "What is that?" Um...do you think it could maybe be the giant fucking monsters that you've seen on the news?

The further away I get from this film, the less I like it.
Reply
post #32 of 68
10/11/10 at 4:38am
I really liked this film. As mentioned, really beautifully shot and the direction was great. There were so many moments where it could have gone off the rails and instead made the harder choice by trying it's hardest to make it more realistic.

As for the actors, I think both of them were great, even though the dialogue is very heavy handed sometimes (some of the remarks on the top of the temple were too on the nose for my tastes). The gas station scene from beginning to end is very well put together, and it's tonal shifts reminded me of The Host in a way, where we go from two really different emotional phone calls, to a truly eerie scene with the tentacles searching out the store, to the beautiful shot of the two creatures mating.

Oh and not only are the leads in fact the people in the beginning, but I got the impression the monster was also one of the two they saw before, which makes it even more sad.
Reply
post #33 of 68
10/11/10 at 5:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post
Yeah, Party Monster and Monsters aren't actually about monsters so fuck those movies.
Well, actually, yeah, fuck Party Monster. It's a horrible movie, and monsters could only have improved it. If you wanted to make this point, you could at least have used Monster's Ball or something.

The thing is there's nothing else in this movie the title could possibly be referring to other than the giant monsters that appear once or twice in it. But again, that wouldn't have mattered if I cared about the boring leads, and I didn't. No one thing, I didn't like the acting, writing, or dialogue equally.

It's annoying to not like a cool project like this, and on paper I love everything it tries to do, I just didn't form any connection to it at all. I think I cared more about the people in Cloverfield, and I did not care about the people in Cloverfield.
Reply
post #34 of 68
10/12/10 at 8:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post
Well, actually, yeah, fuck Party Monster. It's a horrible movie, and monsters could only have improved it. If you wanted to make this point, you could at least have used Monster's Ball or something.
Actually I'm not sure you understand what point I am making, which is that what you said-- "it's not that kind of movie but I say it is because of the title"-- is incredibly fucking silly.
Reply
post #35 of 68
10/17/10 at 2:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post
Actually I'm not sure you understand what point I am making, which is that what you said-- "it's not that kind of movie but I say it is because of the title"-- is incredibly fucking silly.
Nah, your point was obvious. But then, I thought it was obvious that I wasn't incredibly fucking serious when I said that. I totally get why they didn't call the movie "Hardly Any Monsters". And also, fuck Party Monster.

I'm not looking for a fight or anything. I just kind of wish this monster movie had more monsters in it, and I don't really think that's a totally ridiculous request.
Reply
post #36 of 68
10/28/10 at 10:59am
Yeah, I gotta side with the dissenters. Amazing look and expansiveness, even if they had a larger budget. I don't want to take anything away from the ingenuity, but I never really cared about the characters and the "tension" never caught on with me either.

The constant background and exposition from the TVs (especially the foreshadowing with the jellyfish making love) really annoyed the crap out of me too.
Reply
post #37 of 68
10/28/10 at 11:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post
I don't really think that's a totally ridiculous request.
While I understand where you're coming from, I'll bluntly disagree with this, because Monsters is never at any point that kind of movie, nor does it hint at becoming that kind of movie. I understand that you wanted a different experience but that's hardly a knock against what Edwards and co actually accomplished in Monsters, frankly. Monster attacks aren't the point. In fact I submit that if they were this would be a far, far less successful movie.

And yes, Party Monster can fuck right off.
Reply
post #38 of 68
10/28/10 at 11:45am
I kind of feel that it's too uneventful as well. However, I do appreciate that you are thrust into this world and the monsters are just fact with everyone trying to adjust. It's fairly astounding what the filmmakers accomplished on such a limited budget, but I think the story of how low it cost intrudes on the movie a bit. "Wow, that looks great for the money!" or "Ah, no wondering they aren't really showing a monster picking its teeth with a battleship." But that really won't be a problem for non-movie nerds, I guess.

I did like the performances, so I have to disagree with Micah up there. The woman was maybe a little too much of a blank slate. But I thought the dude managed to create an engaging character. And I thought his breakdown was well done. And believable.

Plus, his name is Scoot in real life, so I'm rooting for him.
Reply
post #39 of 68
10/28/10 at 12:10pm
I like that it is so "uneventful". When monstrous shit does go down, it means more. And I like the suggestion of monsters, with some stuff left to the imagination- very The Mist. If you're a massive-kaiju-spectacle-or-bust kinda person then this probably isn't the movie for you.
Reply
post #40 of 68
10/28/10 at 12:38pm
Didn't care for this at all. After watching both this and Cloverfield in HD these low budget monster movies are starting to actively bother me.
Reply
post #41 of 68
10/28/10 at 3:44pm
I really wish this movie had a different title.
Reply
post #42 of 68
11/7/10 at 2:29am
Psst. The squid creatures aren't the "monsters" in this movie.
Reply
post #43 of 68
11/13/10 at 7:04pm
Shit, I posted in the wrong thread a few minutes ago.

Way too little going on in the film - emotionally, narratively, metaphorically. The last scene was kind of great, but it's when you hear the soldier humming "Ride of the Valkyries" and you realize you saw the characters' fates in the opening scene, it takes you right the fuck out of the film's final moments. Bad call.

This thread is the first I've heard about the budget. That's impressive but questionable. But doesn't factor into how good the movie is or isn't.

Kinda glad more Chewers haven't seen it. We'd be treated to a page and a half of posts about what a cockteasing little bitch Sam was.
Reply
post #44 of 68
11/13/10 at 10:43pm
Wow, Sam was such a cocktease!

I kid. Her character was pathetically acted though.

The negative points everyone's brought up with this are valid for the most point, but I liked the movie overall. It's slow. The characters are not terribly likable.

And, most importantly, the whole "wrap around" device Phil criticizes is annoying as hell and ill-thought.

Still, I found it entertaining enough in a small way. Plus, I have a hard time hating on anything with Chtulhoid creatures in it -- especially cute ones!
Reply
post #45 of 68
11/25/10 at 3:29am
Shit I missed the fact the film was wraparound! Well feeling pretty stupid now! I think I was still musing over the alien mating scene to pay much notice. Agee with many points people have made. However i will still agree with Kovacs on liking the movie in spite of it's flaws. It didn't hurt that I knew in advance how slow it is. Still don't know what to advise customers who want to see this film. Perhaps I should tell them to wait for "Rare Export:A Christmas Tale".
Reply
post #46 of 68
12/2/10 at 7:56am
This opens in the UK tomorrow. Five starsfrom Empire. Sounds like UK Chewers need to trudge through the snow and check it out.

An amazing achievement for a ‘first-time’ filmmaker, which measures up to the finest indies for performance and character-work, and the biggest blockbusters for jaw-dropping effects. And it has the year’s best sex scene, too.

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/...asp?FID=136887
Reply
post #47 of 68
12/2/10 at 10:09am
A photojournalist is in Mexico on possibly the biggest assignment of his career, that's of major historical importance... and he barely speaks a word of Spanish. Me? I found the monsters more believable. I mean, was that supposed to be some sort of satirical jab about Americans? Made no sense to me.

I liked the movie, with big reservations. Great effects, great suspense, great scares. The big (but quiet, no sudden noise) reveal towards the end made me shout out loud. Too many scenes of stupid gringos doing everything they could to mess up an easy trip home and putting themselves in great danger. Too few monsters scenes. Very atmospheric, save for the road signs in English along the way.

Until I read this thread, I had no idea they were going for some looped ending. I figured the director had another soldier humming 'Ride Of The Valkyries' to underline what a hard-on he has for Apocalypse Now (like the ship up in the tree as their boat drifts by). I don't dig it. Just seems an empty, cynical choice for no meaningful reason other than to have a shock ending.

Regardless, it's a pretty good monster movie (with a dull title). I'm hoping the director does something better next time.

Good one on the Booty Call joke.
Reply
post #48 of 68
12/2/10 at 11:16am
For me, the wraparound device cripples the film thematically. Monsters follows up a terrific subversion of monster gotcha moments with another gotcha moment, which cheapens everything.

More superficially, the night vision monster reveal in the opening scene drains so much tension from the first half of the movie. If Monsters had left all visualizations of the creatures to cartoon graffiti murals and campfire stories, the second act attack would have been that much more amazing.

I still really liked the movie, though. Great ambient score.
Reply
post #49 of 68
12/3/10 at 1:57pm
The director in a recent interview debunked the $15,000 budget and said it cost him closer to $100k to make.
Reply
post #50 of 68
12/3/10 at 3:11pm
Two questions then: Where did that figure come from, and does either amount include sound?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Monsters - Post Release Discussion