Monsters: A mixed bag
Monsters is a nice blip on the science fiction scene but unfortunately remains just that.
Primer (2005) was a good example of an independent sci-fi flick that managed to remain under the radar even though it had stellar special effects. Of course, Primer was cinematic gold and though I am not going say that Monsters is in the same league, I am most certainly going to laud the effort.
Made for the paltry sum of around $600,000 with most of the production done on the fly and the CGI done in the director’s bedroom, Monsters is a nice blip on the science fiction scene but unfortunately remains just that; it suffers dearly from its impoverished state.
The film starts with the premise that several years ago a Nasa probe returning from space with ‘exotic samples’ crashed somewhere in Mexico releasing its cargo over the area, infecting nearly half the country. Both Americas go into full quarantine mode, bombing colossal squid-like creatures that occasionally run the border into inhabited areas.
It is against this backdrop that photojournalist Andrew is ordered to escort Samantha, the boss’s daughter, to safety. A leads to B, slight chemistry is established, Andrew manages to get swindled out of the couple’s passports and money and the two are forced to take the most dangerous route out of the country, through the infected zone itself. Of course all this is followed by various encounters with the ‘creatures’, tender moments and a return to civilization with a lasting message. That is how the story goes and no more shall be said about it.
Before anything else, a word must be said about the very enchanting Whitney Able. With her pixie haircut, leggy slenderness and occasional pout, Able is quite the on-screen charmer. Her company was most appreciated but upon discovering her betrothal to co-star McNairy, one wondered how? Why?
But I digress. Is Monsters a poor man’s District 9/ Cloverfield mash-up? One has to say yes because ultimately what brings this film down is its economy — it is woefully hampered by an empty pocket. The storyline of Monsters in itself is pretty straightforward; the characters are trying to keep from being bit in half. Cloverfield was very much the same; intercut with regular appearances from the nasties. Monsters paves the way with subtlety after hint, goading through inference until the main event but there is too little to go on. It doesn’t help that the creatures in Monsters are pansies. The puny price of generating these creatures reduces their presence almost to a zero- in many places, spotty CGI can be spotted a mile away. I am not faulting the storytelling here, for it is actually good, the actors play off each other convincingly, establishing in a short while, an ill fated attachment. The movie’s guerrilla shooting is done commendably well, plus the girl is lovely to look at. But overall it leaves one wanting more. An independent success? Not really.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 5th, 2010.
Made for the paltry sum of around $600,000 with most of the production done on the fly and the CGI done in the director’s bedroom, Monsters is a nice blip on the science fiction scene but unfortunately remains just that; it suffers dearly from its impoverished state.
The film starts with the premise that several years ago a Nasa probe returning from space with ‘exotic samples’ crashed somewhere in Mexico releasing its cargo over the area, infecting nearly half the country. Both Americas go into full quarantine mode, bombing colossal squid-like creatures that occasionally run the border into inhabited areas.
It is against this backdrop that photojournalist Andrew is ordered to escort Samantha, the boss’s daughter, to safety. A leads to B, slight chemistry is established, Andrew manages to get swindled out of the couple’s passports and money and the two are forced to take the most dangerous route out of the country, through the infected zone itself. Of course all this is followed by various encounters with the ‘creatures’, tender moments and a return to civilization with a lasting message. That is how the story goes and no more shall be said about it.
Before anything else, a word must be said about the very enchanting Whitney Able. With her pixie haircut, leggy slenderness and occasional pout, Able is quite the on-screen charmer. Her company was most appreciated but upon discovering her betrothal to co-star McNairy, one wondered how? Why?
But I digress. Is Monsters a poor man’s District 9/ Cloverfield mash-up? One has to say yes because ultimately what brings this film down is its economy — it is woefully hampered by an empty pocket. The storyline of Monsters in itself is pretty straightforward; the characters are trying to keep from being bit in half. Cloverfield was very much the same; intercut with regular appearances from the nasties. Monsters paves the way with subtlety after hint, goading through inference until the main event but there is too little to go on. It doesn’t help that the creatures in Monsters are pansies. The puny price of generating these creatures reduces their presence almost to a zero- in many places, spotty CGI can be spotted a mile away. I am not faulting the storytelling here, for it is actually good, the actors play off each other convincingly, establishing in a short while, an ill fated attachment. The movie’s guerrilla shooting is done commendably well, plus the girl is lovely to look at. But overall it leaves one wanting more. An independent success? Not really.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 5th, 2010.