If there is one thing that critics can agree on it is that Monsters isa brilliant film and that it marks a turning point where specialeffects are possible on a low-budget, thus ending Hollywood's rule –forever. So, it was quite the nice surprise to find that this film,having only just come out in the UK, was one of those featured on arecent flight I was on. I know that a tiny screen on a plane is not theplace the makers wanted me to watch it but I did so anyway, so perhapssome may wish to take my opinion in that context? I don't know.

Anyway, I tried to ignore the hype and just come to the film as freshas I could, wary of anything that is overly praised just because I havebeen burnt before. What I found with Monsters though was a film thatwas worthy of the praise, but just not for the reasons that everyonewas saying. Made on a comparatively tiny budget with a tiny crew andwith special effects done on a laptop, this film is worthy of praisefor how it was made and the fact that it is reasonably good despitebeing made rather on the fly. This is why I think that so many criticshave been quick to praise it – because it does show that "big" effectsmovies can be done for less than the disgusting budget of films likeTransformers 2 and so on. You already know where i'm going, so let mejust get there – to me, the praise has been spread beyond this aspectin a way that the film doesn't totally deserve.

Watching it for myself I could see lots going on but the word thatflooded my mind was "nearly". In terms of the overall sweep of thefilm, while some have talked about immigration for me the film is anallegory for Afghanistan. We have the "monsters" in a set area that isheavily attacked by the military – attacks which do more harm to theinnocents in the area than the monsters themselves do. At this level itis quite clever but the film never makes more of this, leaving it as itis and not making comment beyond showing the news footage of themonsters as being background noise in the way war coverage (sadly) hasbecome for many of us – the norm. Below this we have what isessentially a road-movie where the two characters fall for each otherand also make their own journeys in regards the monsters. Again this is"OK" but never really comes off in the way it should. The improviseddialogue works against the film in my opinion. It should have beenwell-honed dialogue – writers get paid for a reason, it is becausegenerally written material is better than that made up on the spot. Soit is here and the film misses the chance to let the dialogue be thedriver for the allegory and the relationship and the characterdevelopment. As it is the film is "nearly" there on this aspect.

The characters did bug me a but because they were not as strong assuggested. Able and McNairy deserve credit for their efforts and theirreasonably natural performances but they deserved a better script (orany script). Chatting naturally they do not help the overall film andit is a shame that again their performances are a case of "nearly" or"if only....". I can't stand in the way of praise for Edwards though ashis drive and skill made this film. His effects are used sparingly butthey are impressive (small screen or not). His use of them is cleverbecause it frees the film up to do much more than just be an effectsmovie – it is just a shame then that his material doesn't actuallydelivery in the space left for it.

Overall Monsters is a reasonably good film but it is one that could andshould have been better in key regards. The nature of the making shouldbe praised to the rooftop but the film itself falls short. It is neveras smart as it thinks it is, never as engaging as it should be andnever has the commentary that it surely needed. Worth a look and wellworth supporting but in my opinion the gushing noise from the criticsis more to do with the fact it is a low budget success rather than abrilliant film generally.

People who want to see a monster movie where monsters rampage etc,watch cloverfield, skyline or any other awefull movie. This is a filmdedicated to showing us we may be the dominant species today, but whatwould happen if that slowly changes. I liked the layers of economicdifferences portrayed in the movie. Mexican side is electric fences andthey learning to coexist. The Americans bombing stuff and losing.

The only part I'd like less is the jungle trained men that bring themto "the wall". They have lived long with the creatures and upon thefirst encounter they start shooting like morons -> die horribly.

In real, they'd probably fled away.

Giving it a solid 9. The nice thing is that I didn't knew the lowbudget up front and had not once thought that this movie was lowbudget.

Very well done.

After aliens invade Earth, a photo journalist agrees to escort atourist back to America. After paying for safe passage around aninfected zone of Mexico, the tourist finds her passport stolen and isnot allowed passage. Together her and the journalist must make theirway to the border through the infected zone. This movie is much like"District 9". Aliens have landed and are now living among us. While"District 9" was original at the time I did not like it at all. Thisone I thought was worse. Its hard for me to find anything good to sayabout it, so I'll make this review short. The effects were good, and itwas another good idea for a movie. But the main problem with the moviefor me is that it's sooooooo drawn out. If you took all the action outof "Cloverfield" you would have this movie. I had to struggle to getthrough it. Very boring. I didn't enjoy it at all. I give it a D-.

Would I watch again? - Not even if real aliens invaded and this was theonly way to avoid them!!

Monsters. Oh dear... It's boring with not just a capital B but allupper case and in 76 point font. I've seen grass grow and paint drymore interestingly.

I was watching it with a couple of friends, one an art movie buff, theother is into action and sci-fi. I'm somewhere in between thoseinterests. At the end of the film we all agreed that it was bad and Iwas almost lynched (some friends, hah?) for suggesting it.

I had been careful, though. I checked out the trailers beforehand and Iwas pleased that it didn't give much away from the plot. Of course, itwas because there was no plot, so there was nothing to give away.Because of the supposed theme, I thought it might bridge interests withmy friends. Not so.

The dialogs were bad and reading the background of Monsters, now Iunderstand why. There was not much prepared upfront and the actors wereimprovising. Now, with brilliant actors it might work but in this casethe result was not so much a disaster as excruciatingly boring.

Symbolism and any moral and philosophical messages stayed firmly atkindergarten level.

The only redeeming feature of the film was photography with a fewbeautiful shots. That's it.

Of course, it will appeal to some people, who are desperately trying tobe "art movie lovers". Not understanding this movie will appeal tothem. They will think that there is some hidden content or message theycan't unlock and this will create snobbish enjoyment. Sorry guys, ifyou don't understand it, it's because Monsters is devoid of any contentwhatsoever and there is nothing to understand.

I apologize for my vitriol but Monster is the worst movie I've seen fora looong time and I feel duped and angry and I've just blown a fairchunk of my hard earned on something that was the extreme opposite ofentertaining. Some movies can be bad in an entertaining sort of way.Not Monsters, though.

Reading reviews here on IMDb, it's clear to see the hate/love extremesrepresented in them. Another interesting thing about the reviews isthat the lower rated reviews are, on average, poorly written. That, Ithink, derives from the fact that the movie title and some of itsmarketing material seem to represent another "District 9"-type film,where aliens and humans have prolonged interactions. "Monsters" is abit more contemplative than that; it is not about an alien invasion, asmuch as it is about the vision of a biological infestation which doesnot attack us directly, but which acts as a biological hindrance to ourcontinued development as "kings" of the world. Something which has anaggressive development that we cannot stop or provisionally halt. Andthat is the theme of "Monsters", which many people seem to view as amotif, because the aliens are rarely and briefly seen and theirinteractions with humans are mostly coincidental, but in reality thispossibility is the main focus of the film, even if delivered throughthe eyes and expressions of the two main characters in their travelthrough the infested zone to get to the safety of their home in the US.

That this movie was made with so little money, with only a few people,and looks as good as it does is nothing if not extraordinary. That itmanages to achieve the core of what science fiction truly is about bypresenting us with a possibility, with a 'what-if', is nothing if notinspiring to each and every filmmaker out there looking to make theirmovies.

The parallel between the Mexico-us border wall and the one in the movieis really the only political reference; the rest lies strictly withingthe realm of science fiction, even if in a far less outrageous and lessspectacular thrill ride than any other science film in the last twodecades.

For filmaking guts and unflinching sci-fi vision, this movie isunbeaten by any other in the past decade.

Gareth Edwards is a talent to follow.

8/10

I believe their was to much hype for this film I saw the trailer andthought great another giant monster movie then I saw it at a privatescreening and thought it was terrible in my opinion the only good partwas at the end (SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT)when the tooctopus like monsters stated mating or something and all the amazingcolours when flashing around. In a quick sum up of it all the film wasdisappointing and I really hoped for more action like in Cloverfield.If you want to see be my guest but I wouldn't waist your money.

However their was a bit of suspense in the film with the (SPOILERALERT) car scene when the monsters are killing them all.

Out of its own genre and this movie does not deserve to be called byits own title. It is not what you are expecting about "monsters".

Maybe you must not interpret the title literally but the emphasis of"monsters" is very weak. You can't even tell also if what the makerswant to show is what you understand on each scenes.

You can count how many appearances of monsters are there. And if theydo, their movements are "questionable" and does not relate well to anyof the scenes. This is pure chatting that's why there are no "monsters"really.

The ones that comment good on this film are obviously the makersthemselves since they were the only ones who can understand their owncrap! This is a result of someone's brain that was eaten by monsters soit did not produce a logical imagination.