Skip to main content

Monsters Review - These Aren't the Monsters You're Looking For


Monsters, director Gareth Edwards’ feature film debut, is one of those movies I'm glad I never saw the trailer for until after I'd actually watched it. The trailer, at least to me, gets the film very wrong. It sells it as this tense, action packed Hollywood thriller, filled with scary aliens and noble humans trying to save the planet. It’s clearly trying to pander to mainstream audiences by making the film seem like this, but in reality it's the complete opposite.

Monsters isn't a consistently fast paced, shiny thriller. It's a very slow moving, gritty, but beautiful film. It has its tense moments, but those aren't what you'll spend the majority of time in. Most of the time you'll be revelling in the amazing atmosphere of the film. It’s sometimes exciting, sometimes sombre, sometimes disturbing, but always alive. Every part of Monsters feels totally real and there's a good reason for that. It's because most of it is. Almost all of the dialogue is improvised by the two stunning leads, Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able and the rest of the cast is made up entirely of random people the crew literally pulled of the street. The performances given by the extras don't just feel genuine, they are genuine and it immerses you into the world in a way that very few other films have managed to achieve.

Monsters also looks gorgeous. Gareth Edwards not only directs, but shoots the entire film too and his beautiful handheld cinematography adds to the sense of realism. It's right there in the action, with the leads, with all the extras and helps to immerse the audience even more. All of the breathtaking locations are shot perfectly, capturing all of the visual awesomeness as well as the wonderful atmosphere they provide. According to Edwards, the number one rule was ‘if it looks good, shoot it’ and, even though it meant two hours of raw footage for the editors to sit through every day, it was totally worth it for the fantastic end product. Edwards also provided the visual effects and, considering the $500,000 budget, they're astonishing. The so-called ‘monsters’ have amazing, attention grabbing screen presence and they're designed in such a way that they can come off as both scary and beautiful.

The monsters are arguably the most fascinating part of this film. The chemistry and relationship between the main characters is captivating, mainly thanks to the fact that McNairy and Able are a real couple, but it's the aliens, the extraterrestrials, that deliver the film’s message, which, despite the fact that Monsters is 6 years old, is still very relevant. You assume that the monsters in this film are the aliens at the beginning and that's what it wants you to believe, but as it goes on, you discover that they aren't the real monsters. We are. The humans are the ones responsible for stirring up the aliens and for driving them to violence, by attacking the aliens and by bombing them. Sound familiar? It draws instant parallels to a lot of things in the real world, like immigration and especially the war on terror. It explores the idea that the real terrorists, the real monsters, are the one’s trying to fight fire with fire, because all they're achieving is encouraging the violence. It's all allegorical, never directly referencing terrorism or any specific real life issues, instead doing something that is more creative and impressive artistically, as well as something that provides an unbiased picture that doesn't take any real life sides. There’s also a wall in between Mexico and the USA.

The best thing about Monsters is how well it handles this message. The filmmakers never feel the need to force it down your throat. It's never said in a line of dialogue, or spelled out for you through a forced monologue, but is instead implied by the different tones and events that take place throughout the film. The aesthetic of each side gradually changes during the film, with the humans coming off as friendly at first and the aliens coming off as terrifying, until the humans begin to appear much rougher and unwelcoming and the aliens appear more beautiful and compelling. Monsters respects its audience's intelligence by delivering an important, thought provoking message without it getting in the way of the film. Instead, the message is the film.

I feel like a lot of the reviews got Monsters very wrong. They said things like it's “action packed” and “absolutely thrilling”, when it really isn't. I know that sounds a bit snobbish for some random teenager to claim a professional film critic doesn't understand a film, but those quotes were from the Daily Mirror and my 6 year old cousin has more journalistic integrity than they do. Monsters is not any of the things the reviews or the trailers make it out to be; it's much better than that. It's beautiful, it's raw, it's intelligent, it's impressive, it's thought provoking, it's original. It's genius.

9.1/10

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom Review

Jurassic Park never needed to be a franchise. As a thriller, Jurassic Park inherently works better the more compact it is, so stretching it into multiple sequels seems rather counterproductive. Of course, I wouldn't mind if these sequels were good. Unfortunately, they are not. The Lost World , the first follow-up, does nothing new for virtually the entire film - only hinting at a distinctive identity in the final act. Jurassic Park 3 was even worse. The characters are so unengaging and the action so toothless you end it feeling like you've stared at an empty void for ninety minutes. Colin Trevorrow's 2015 sequel/reboot Jurassic World slightly reinvigorated the franchise with flashy new visuals, but it also suffered from bland characters and a muddled script. However, against all the odds, I still foolishly had my hopes up for that film’s follow-up Fallen Kingdom . I did have my reasons, to be fair. J.A. Bayona was taking over directorial duties and he's an exce...

Hail, Caesar! Review - Genius Behind the Madness

On an entirely surface level, Hail, Caesar! is a really silly film. The sets are bright and colourful, the characters are bombastic and larger than life and the plot is completely insane and all over the place. If you take a closer look, however, it's much more intelligent than it initially comes off as. Yes, the sets are bright, but their attention to detail is so fantastically minute, you're totally convinced that this is the 50's. The fake film sets are also just as convincing and the films themselves could easily pass off as authentic, if it wasn't for the 21st Century actors populating them. They are obviously slightly exaggerated, for the sake of satire, which probably resonates more with those familiar with retro cinema than regular filmgoers. It's also shot brilliantly by cinematographer Roger Deakins (who was recently Oscar nominated for his work on Sicario ), who manages to make the film feel like something that's not only set in the 50's, bu...

Is Avengers: Age of Ultron Any Good?

Avengers Assemble! Again! Avengers: Age of Ultron - Film Review by Nathan Brooks And they say English Weather's bad. Back in the summer of 2012, a little film came out called Avengers Assemble. It wasn't much. It's only the biggest superhero film of all time and it only made $1.518 billion. Everybody loved it, I loved it and clearly moviegoers did as well.  Due to its massive success, obviously a sequel was going to be made. In this case, that sequel is Avengers: Age of Ultron, but with all the hype it's received, is it actually any good? Story The story in this film is definitely not for first time Marvel viewers, you really need to see most, if not all, of the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe films. It is packed full of references to earlier films and understanding a lot of elements of the story will require you to have seen the others. But is the story any good? I thinks so. The main story centres around the fact that Tony Stark, or Iron Man, has ...