Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Monsters

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Monsters Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Monsters - 6/12/2010 7:40:13 PM   
clownfoot


Posts: 7919
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: The ickle town of Fuck, Austria
Well, Dan's write-up has certainly got me interested...

_____________________________

Evil Mod 2 - Hail he who has fallen from the sky to deliver us from the terror of the Deadites!

http://www.thepixelempire.net/index.html
http://clownfootsinversemidas.blogspot.com/

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 31
RE: Monsters - 6/12/2010 7:47:56 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: LeonardShelby


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gretzky

^^ Thanks for saying that. I wondered that too when I heard the soldier humming Ride of the Valkyrie and thought we'd be going full circle. If it's true, it's well done.


Yep definitely the case. Edwards confirmed it at FrightFest. Not that its actually open to question, its glaringly obvious (although you wouldn't know that from the IMDB boards).


I wouldn't say it's glaringly obvious, but it makes sense of a lot of things when you realise.


Of course it is! How is there any question about what happens? Its as clear as day, a final kick in the teeth, and ties in to the overwhelming feeling of inevitability that lingers through the whole film. The audience is supposed to feel everything when the realisation dawns upon them what is happening (said realisation ought to fall when one hears The Ride Of The Valkyrees).

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but as disjointed narrative structures go, this is about as basic as it gets.


It ties in with one of the subtexts of the film - what does the title Monsters refer to.


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 32
RE: Point. - 6/12/2010 9:52:38 PM   
markteacher

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 28/6/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofZyryab

quote:

ORIGINAL: markteacher


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

If you're moaning about the lack of Monsters then you really missed the point.


Nope, didn't miss the point, just the monsters. Perhaps they were hiding behind the foliage........



No, you did miss the point.

Another thing about cinema-going in general; why do people want to see what they expect all the time ? That's just fucking boring.



Gee, thanks for clearing that up, I see now that you are right and I am clearly wrong.
I think it's the way you felt the need to make your point with profanity which has made me see the error of my cinema-going ways, is there a special dispensation you get which allows you to swear at people when you hit 5000 posts?

I bow to your clearly superior opinion, and sneak off back into my uneducated hole.

Though I would just point out, wanting to see what you expect all the time isn't always that boring (I will avoid the swearies, I don't have the 5000 post dispensation!), what is boring is.......

Monsters!

Sorry if I expected a little more, but sledge hammering me with an allegory just isn't enough, it also needs to be a little entertaining, and I'm afraid a sweaty travelog about the Mexican jungle ending at a massive wall separating Mexico from the U.S (duck or the 'message' is gonna take your head off) just wasn't entertaining.

We know American foreign policy sucks, but I haven't felt that battered by the directors political views since 'Green Zone' - a cracking actioner but yes Paul, we get it, there WERE no WMD's.

As for Monsters, no suspense, little threat to the main protagonists and to be honest, poorly rendered FX, well, if that floats your boat (or your fighter jet), and gets a share of your hard earned money then knock yourself out, but for me, as I previously said, a solid 2 star disappointment.

(in reply to KnightofZyryab)
Post #: 33
RE: Point. - 7/12/2010 12:33:19 AM   
thepluginbaby


Posts: 997
Joined: 16/10/2005
From: deep space... erm y'know DEEP space
I didn't realise the opening scene was supposed to tail the movie. I guess it would make sense but I thought that opening footage was used in the TV footage that was being played in the hotel? Makes me want to see the movie again...

I really liked the film overall, I mean I knew when I was going in that the title didn't really refer to the aliens but it was good to see a different take on the genre. Lot of similarities made to District 9 but only in so much as the sci-fi element being used to emphasise the social commentary.


_____________________________

"I have come to the conclusion that my gut, has shit for brains."

"Must go faster..."

My personal blog, ToBePhair, full of frantic movie/music/video game scribblings: http://tobephair.blogspot.com/

Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ToBePhair

(in reply to markteacher)
Post #: 34
RE: Point. - 7/12/2010 1:32:06 AM   
KnightofZyryab


Posts: 5840
Joined: 26/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: markteacher


quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofZyryab

quote:

ORIGINAL: markteacher


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

If you're moaning about the lack of Monsters then you really missed the point.


Nope, didn't miss the point, just the monsters. Perhaps they were hiding behind the foliage........



No, you did miss the point.

Another thing about cinema-going in general; why do people want to see what they expect all the time ? That's just fucking boring.



Gee, thanks for clearing that up, I see now that you are right and I am clearly wrong.
I think it's the way you felt the need to make your point with profanity which has made me see the error of my cinema-going ways, is there a special dispensation you get which allows you to swear at people when you hit 5000 posts?

I bow to your clearly superior opinion, and sneak off back into my uneducated hole.

Though I would just point out, wanting to see what you expect all the time isn't always that boring (I will avoid the swearies, I don't have the 5000 post dispensation!), what is boring is.......



Smooth riposte. It's pretty clear that the second part is not directed at you hence 'in general', and there was no object to my brief use of the invective.

Nah, at 5000 you don't get nothing from the mods, they're fucking tight on perks. Didn't offend you again did I ?

_____________________________

Imminent viewings : The Place Beyond the Pines

Read my blog at: http://alcentrodelaberinto.blogspot.com/

(in reply to markteacher)
Post #: 35
RE: Point. - 7/12/2010 10:25:43 AM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: thepluginbaby

I didn't realise the opening scene was supposed to tail the movie. I guess it would make sense but I thought that opening footage was used in the TV footage that was being played in the hotel? Makes me want to see the movie again...



Yep, the use of similar footage on the television was little more than a ruse to disguise the end/opening. Clever stuff.

(in reply to thepluginbaby)
Post #: 36
RE: Point. - 7/12/2010 6:19:57 PM   
markteacher

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 28/6/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofZyryab


quote:

ORIGINAL: markteacher


quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofZyryab

quote:

ORIGINAL: markteacher


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

If you're moaning about the lack of Monsters then you really missed the point.


Nope, didn't miss the point, just the monsters. Perhaps they were hiding behind the foliage........



No, you did miss the point.

Another thing about cinema-going in general; why do people want to see what they expect all the time ? That's just fucking boring.



Gee, thanks for clearing that up, I see now that you are right and I am clearly wrong.
I think it's the way you felt the need to make your point with profanity which has made me see the error of my cinema-going ways, is there a special dispensation you get which allows you to swear at people when you hit 5000 posts?

I bow to your clearly superior opinion, and sneak off back into my uneducated hole.

Though I would just point out, wanting to see what you expect all the time isn't always that boring (I will avoid the swearies, I don't have the 5000 post dispensation!), what is boring is.......



Smooth riposte. It's pretty clear that the second part is not directed at you hence 'in general', and there was no object to my brief use of the invective.

Nah, at 5000 you don't get nothing from the mods, they're fucking tight on perks. Didn't offend you again did I ?


No offence taken at all mate, just a bit of fun

(in reply to KnightofZyryab)
Post #: 37
RE: Did I miss something - 7/12/2010 8:25:12 PM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3585
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh
quote:

ORIGINAL: ..Stealth

5 star my ass..... I really don't know what makes a 5 star movie but in my opinion this is definately not it. BORING... nothing to do with the lack of "monsters" but more air time may have added something to the film. Virtually no alien contact and a dull storyline.... tell me then what is good about this film? The twist at the end. How much did this movie cost? The amount of money pumped into the film business surely there are more gripping and interesting stories out there from talented writers. Woohoo she didn't want to go home and they fell in love... how original. Children at play school would probably come up with a better storyline. Empire... how much are you getting paid to promote shite movies these days? Jeez c'mon people sort it out!


As has been mentioned before in the thread, there are plenty of monsters in the film Stealth - but not necessarily ones of the tentacle-based kind (hence why they're referred to as "creatures" ).

And the answer to your question...Ł150,000 to put together, shoot and edit....and buy the way, nobody in the industry gave Gareth Edwards and co money to make it - they did it all themselves (aside from the relatively modest distribution costs the UK Film Council amongst others covered - which is still nothing compared to the cost of distributing monster guff from this year like Clash of the Titans & the Wolfman).


_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph
Post #: 38
RE: Did I miss something - 8/12/2010 12:04:44 AM   
..Stealth

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 18/6/2007
I understand that the humans were the monsters what with there being octopussy loving at the end to confirm this implication, which in actual fact was alot more interesting than the human relationship in the film.  Dull uninteresting and completely over-hyped.  With the subtle intention to imply that the humans were the monsters throughout the film there was even more scope for an interesting storyline.  I see where they were coming from but it didn't do it for me i'm afraid, if your going to go down that route you need to make the storyline captivating and not something predictable and tedious.  

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 39
RE: Did I miss something - 8/12/2010 1:54:04 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: ..Stealth

Empire... how much are you getting paid to promote shite movies these days? Jeez c'mon people sort it out!


I hear they get paid three goats for every 5 star review.



< Message edited by Deviation -- 8/12/2010 3:18:15 AM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates
Post #: 40
RE: Did I miss something - 8/12/2010 2:43:15 AM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3585
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh
Like the best Science Fiction, the science element is very much the backdrop rather than the driving-force of the story and in the context of the film – the title suggests more than just the brilliantly crafted extra-terrestrial beings. It's difficult to refrain from mentioning but the results Gareth Edwards gets from a shoe-string budget is nothing short of remarkable - both in the world that he has created and even in the performances of his leading duo who are excellent, heartfelt and believable. It's a film about how being in a strange, chaotic and dangerous environment (a war zone, if you like) can change your outlook on life and is an inspiration to film-makers small on budget but big in ideas - a fantastic debuting achievement with one of the most strangely beautiful scenes of the year. 

4/5


_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 41
RE: Did I miss something - 8/12/2010 1:44:06 PM   
Wild about Wilder


Posts: 1657
Joined: 9/4/2010
From: Hertfordshire
It's good but no way is it worthy of 5stars I think people go overboard that because it was done on such a small budget that it's this great thing like Cloverfield average & Blair Witch SHITE!
Still I give it 7/10. 

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 42
RE: Monsters - 8/12/2010 10:38:28 PM   
R W

 

Posts: 343
Joined: 23/6/2006
Director/Screenwriter: Gareth Edwards
Starring: Scoot McNairy, Whitney Able

Synopsis
Six years after Earth has suffered an alien invasion, cynical journalist Andrew Kaulder (McNairy) agrees to escort his boss’ daughter (Able) through an infected zone in Mexico to the safety of the US border.

Review
A couple of weeks ago, I went to see the Brothers Strause’s Skyline, which this critic described it as “a rather dull piece of Hollywood trash”. However, it did show that you can make a big studio movie with impressive CGI on a small budget without the backing of any major studio. I’ve now seen another movie that has done this same approach, but it is infinitely better compare to Skyline. It is simply entitled Monsters.

Like the Brothers Strause, the Brit Gareth Edwards started as a visual effects artist who has gone off and made something on a shoestring budget, but unlike the brothers, this has become a triumph in a number of festivals and hopefully will be a hit at your local cinema.

To how it is being advertised, the TV commercials don’t reveal much but has a terrific tagline to give an idea of what the film, while the posters are depicted as warning/quarantine signs, similar to how District 9 was advertised. This is not that film nor indeed is it Cloverfield, as Monsters is its own thing which is a road movie that has a love story at the centre of it.

If you read any articles or watched any interviews about the film, you will probably have heard that Edwards did not establish this story in the form of a script but on a series of notebooks, while the dialogue is entirely based on improvisation. This is similar to how Mike Leigh approaches his work and like the auteur, Edwards makes a character-piece with 100% emotional involvement.

With a film crew that is less than ten people, Edwards (who shot the film himself) has probably made the most-realistic monster movie ever made in terms of the western world is now a post-alien invaded environment in which humans are living their lives as if nothing has happened while alien attacks are seen now as typical catastrophic events. Not at any moment, does a character sit down and discusses about what these creatures are or indeed their purpose of being in our planet.

Usually in monster movies, the creatures are introduced as almost invisible figures as they create a path of destruction, so you don’t get an idea of what it fully looks like until the very end and the result is somewhat disappointing. In the case of Monsters however, you see what the creatures look like in their entirety during the first few minutes and they are well-designed and cleverly establishes on how they function, thanks to the visual effects solely done by Gareth Edwards.

On the technical aspect, it’s not just the director who should get all the credit as the music is definitely a listen by Electronic musician Jon Hopkins. Without Hopkins’ first solo feature score, I think the film would not have been emotionally engaging as the atmospheric music supports the central love story.

As for the only actors in the film, Scoot McNairy (who people might remember from In Search of a Midnight Kiss) and Whitney ‘Mrs McNairy’ Able have to build a chemistry based entirely on improv. Their dialogue is not the typical monster dialogue where they go “Look, monster, run!” as the conversations between the two of them are simple casual chats with moments of wit.

Verdict
What Gareth Edwards has made is a film that blends the following: the sci-fi blockbuster, the indie road movie and the dramatic love story. These genres are merged with utter grace and hopefully this will find an audience and a further career for the first-time filmmaker.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 43
RE: Impressive but lacking - 13/12/2010 9:19:47 PM   
MI Cruise


Posts: 3104
Joined: 12/12/2008
From: Shutter Island
from the looks of it everyone thought that this was rubbish, well Im off in a couple of days to watch this and hopefully this wont be as bad as everyone is making it out to be.

_____________________________

www.letterboxd.com/micruise1/films/
Post #: 44
RE: I took the wife to this garbage?! - 13/12/2010 10:39:06 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: pecman2000
i guarentee that if this film had been directed by Michael Bay and with a $100,000,000 budget you'd have given it 1 star.


Yeah, this is exactly the type of Bay would do with a 100 million dollars and Empire are always so harsh on Micheal Bay.



< Message edited by Deviation -- 13/12/2010 10:41:47 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates
Post #: 45
Not 5 stars - 14/12/2010 7:17:45 PM   
sephiroth7

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 14/10/2009
Okay it was good but 5 stars O_O Jesus lads, reel it the fuck in. People will think it's a cast iron classic, which it simply isn't. That sex scene cracked me up too...

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 46
Go see something else - 15/12/2010 2:32:51 PM   
andybud

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 30/7/2009
Very over-rated, i feel let down by the reviews by empire for the past couple of years. This film is shot on a low budget and yes its good with what they do with the money, but as a stand-alone film, it really isn't worth watching. The characters are quite annoying and make the kind of mistakes in their decisions you see in trashy horror movies. I see what the director is trying to do, but in the end he tries too much. Is it a love story? Is there a moral to something in this? It's very hazy and a 5 star rating, given as "classic" is just an odd decision. Sack the person who wrote the review, they clearly have little appreciation for the art of film.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 47
RE: Go see something else - 16/12/2010 4:30:43 PM   
MI Cruise


Posts: 3104
Joined: 12/12/2008
From: Shutter Island
Monsters was a decent movie, I was fortunate not watch trailers for this movie and therefore was not 'wrongly' led to believe this movie was going to be something else. It for short standing at 1hr 34mins however it managed to pack in quite a lot. Edwards is hopefully going to get more work due to this film and his special effects deserve a mention too. Seeing as this movie was filmed with off the shelf cameras and just using two professional actors I think that it is amazing, it doesnt feel cheap and takes it time to tell the story.

3/5

_____________________________

www.letterboxd.com/micruise1/films/

(in reply to andybud)
Post #: 48
- 17/12/2010 4:12:27 PM   
reminn

 

Posts: 142
Joined: 22/10/2010
Fair.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 49
RE: - 19/12/2010 12:13:41 AM   
BigKovacs


Posts: 3203
Joined: 6/4/2006
From: Textile Street.
**spoilers**


It was 'good'. Impressive on the budget certainly but it was as shallow as hell. The main characters weren't very likeable and thier romance unlikely given thier backgrounds and thier dialogue for most of the film. I saw in an interview the director came up with the film while watching some fishermen pulling a net out of the sea and imagined a large tentacle entwined in it and thought it was neat. It is neat but not enough to base a film on and it really shows.

I had a big problem with the Monsters, both the creatures and the title. It's been mentioned before but the amount of time we hear some spooky noises and some rustling in the bushes and absolutely nothing happens drags badly, it saps thier journey of danger and actually makes it boring. My problem with the title insinuates, probably, that the humans are monsters? Really? Who, the government, the human race? The male lead gets robbed after drunken sex with a stranger and they get ripped off my a crooked official, that's as bad as it gets. The military are fighting a losing battle against an incredibly dangerous species that is over populating and threating a continent. I think they're actually doing thier job.

For me Monsters is a great looking labour of love, it's beautiful infact but everything bar the visuals (great music, actually) wasn't thought through and came across confused. So yeah, a good film but not District 9, not even remotely close.

< Message edited by BigKovacs -- 19/12/2010 12:17:26 AM >


_____________________________

Gamertag: Cambo1979.

(in reply to reminn)
Post #: 50
Wow - 21/12/2010 12:33:29 PM   
AliceF

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 17/11/2005
Beautiful, believable and very, very well made. Would love to see it again... and would love a "director's cut" twice as long!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 51
RE: Go see something else - 27/12/2010 1:01:08 AM   
homersimpson_esq


Posts: 20118
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield
quote:

ORIGINAL: andybud

Very over-rated, i feel let down by the reviews by empire for the past couple of years. This film is shot on a low budget and yes its good with what they do with the money, but as a stand-alone film, it really isn't worth watching. The characters are quite annoying and make the kind of mistakes in their decisions you see in trashy horror movies. I see what the director is trying to do, but in the end he tries too much. Is it a love story? Is there a moral to something in this? It's very hazy and a 5 star rating, given as "classic" is just an odd decision. Sack the person who wrote the review, they clearly have little appreciation for the art of film.


Irony.


_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.


Bristol Bad Film Club
A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

(in reply to andybud)
Post #: 52
Just a bit overated. - 3/1/2011 11:55:45 AM   
AntGC

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 2/1/2011
From: Gloucestershire
This film was surrounded by hype and excitment because apparently some guy made this film with 3 people and a laptop for the effects so i thought "maybe ill go see it"

For the budget etc it was an ok film but i got bored after 20minutes when we saw a pointless romance between 2 characters i didnt have any care for. My attention was then finally caught when they found out they would have to travel through the "infected" zone.
For the first 30mins of entering the wilderness i thought "wheres the contamination"? as every tree was spotless and nothing appeared different and "dangerous". The only thing dangerous was these monsters which i must admit for a laptop program....they were pretty impressive and the creature designs were very good. On the other hand they did seem a bit camera shy until the last 2minutes when we see probably the best porn movie ever.

Overall im giving this film a 3 star as it pretty much consisted of shots of crumbling buildings,planes and boats. It did give a powerful punch in making you believe what was going on but theres only so many computer generated crumbling houses you can take. The acting was good yes but overall it didnt really....whats the word? Get going?

< Message edited by AntGC -- 3/1/2011 11:56:54 AM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 53
RE: Just a bit overated. - 7/1/2011 10:09:18 PM   
white mage

 

Posts: 181
Joined: 29/11/2007
From: Hollow Bastion
From reading the previews, 'guy escorts boss's daughter across a Mexico after an alien invastion' I went to see this movie thinking it would be some like Fallout 3 or The Road, with no civilisation left. But what I got was basically a road trip where the poor unfortunates are robbed, conned out of their money by greedy officals and the girl falls for the guy escorting her even though she has a fianciee at home. I mean, could the writers have put it any plainer Sam didn't what the marry her fianicee by that phone call to him? Scoot McNairy did a decant job but Whitney Able didn't do quite as much to make me care. I think this movie was over hyped and suffers becouse of it. I do not think it is as good as District 9 or Cloverfield.     

_____________________________

We do not write the songs, we live them

(in reply to AntGC)
Post #: 54
RE: Just a bit overated. - 31/3/2011 11:28:45 AM   
leethefilmbuff

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 31/3/2011
I was pleasantly surprised by this film - especially as it was rated low on IMDB, although I hadn't see the 5 stars Empire gave it.

It was very immersive and subtle in creating an entirely believable world where aliens exist on Earth.

Not entirely sure I'd go out and get pissed and have a bit of a party the night before I had to catch the early LAST BOAT TO EVER LEAVE MEXICO and especially if I was in charge of getting the daughter of the guy who OWNS the business that employs me. That aside, it was very good.
Post #: 55
Overrated Rubbish. - 2/4/2011 9:57:43 AM   
joanna likes films

 

Posts: 987
Joined: 27/10/2007
From: Bexhill
Monsters has to be the most overrated rubbish I've seen for a long time. So slow, a short running time and a ending that screamed rushed. Sure it has some outstanding scenery, the colours are strong and has a interesting story. But I wouldn't place it as a masterpiece, far from it.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 56
Overrated Rubbish. - 2/4/2011 9:57:44 AM   
joanna likes films

 

Posts: 987
Joined: 27/10/2007
From: Bexhill
Monsters has to be the most overrated rubbish I've seen for a long time. So slow, a short running time and a ending that screamed rushed. Sure it has some outstanding scenery, the colours are strong and has a interesting story. But I wouldn't place it as a masterpiece, far from it.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 57
RE: Overrated Rubbish. - 2/4/2011 11:45:56 PM   
Gazme

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 1/1/2006
I love Monsters!

I watched it with my mates...they hated it. Seen the trailer and were expecting something completely different...seems to be the only complaint Ive really heard is that it wasnt Cloverfield. Good.

Anyone who loved it not fall in love with the blonde woman? :)

(in reply to joanna likes films)
Post #: 58
- 3/4/2011 4:14:43 AM   
blindlemonpie

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 17/3/2008
Nice work for a movie that cost just $800,000 but basically nothing happens for 90 minutes. The reviewer comments about "jawdropping" special effects is laughable. Worth a look but NOT a five star movie.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 59
RE: - 3/4/2011 9:39:26 AM   
NCC1701A


Posts: 3784
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Space Dock
Monsters

sadly this did nothing for me there were some great images in this film but with a lead male character that I found annyoning it just sinks the film as I did not care about him. The Blonde women really had not that much to do. And When the Monsters finally made it on to the screen it was two dark to see any thing that is a pet hate of mine where directors film in the dark so you can not see what is going on.

I have to say that I feel cheated by this film not only by its title but by the poster as well and I can't help but fear for the Godzilla film coming out in 2012 as Gareth Edwards is making that next.

That my opinion and I know it will not be the same for every one but sadly for me Mmonsters fails to deliver.

< Message edited by NCC1701A -- 3/4/2011 9:40:24 AM >


_____________________________

Trench: I'll be back.

Church: You've been back enough. I'll be back.

[leaves]

Trench: Yippee-ki-yay.


The Expendables 2 (2012)

(in reply to blindlemonpie)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Monsters Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172