IMDb > Monsters (2010) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Monsters More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 9 of 47: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]
Index 462 reviews in total 


Author: Echt_Mal_Jetzt from Berlin-Spandau, Germany
11 September 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I don't watch movies critically - I nearly always find a scene, dialogue or gesture, that gave me the feeling not having wasted my time. The impression left by "Monsters" is pure boredom.

We bought the movie on DVD for a nice SciFi-evening in front of the TV. But we were misled by the title and the stated genre "SciFi". Two persons traveling from A to B - wouldn't it be better called "roadmovie"? But where is the change in the life of the protagonists? Where is the "drama" of two young persons traveling together? No growth, no development ...

Heading north from Mexcio - from the jungle to the city. The question is simple: Who are the monsters? That's the metaphor? Poor!

And the aliens? Okay, I don't understand why they need aliens for the plot. An uproar would have done the same for the story ...

When the movie ended I was the only one who didn't sleep. But I was wondering if I could be an actor: It can't be so difficult seeing Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able stumbling through jungles and reciting platitudes.

Was the above review useful to you?

Not good even for low budget films

Author: kuarinofu from Ukraine
28 August 2016

I've seen this in 2010 and now I've given this title a re-watch. You know, sometimes films get better after time, you grow up, build some experience, re-watch some of the old ones and you see something new in them. Some movies require 2-3 viewings to understand what you've been shown, like Donny Darko, 2001 Space Odessy, others use purely visual storytelling like Tarkovsky's Mirror, so it's fine when a movie does not follow the basic formula. I love low budget flicks since they are often free of studio interference and you can catch some really good ones sometimes. This was extremely low budget by today's terms and yet I still didn't enjoy it the first time and now. And don't get me wrong, I can enjoy slow movies and I've seen lots of those as well as small movies like this. It just didn't work. The characters were unconvincing, the story was almost non-existent, some of the nature shots were good (but not as impressive if you've seen Sicario, Revenant and Hateful Eight). The CGI did stand out but it's really OK with the budget they've had. I did understand the multiple messages the movie tried to deliver. The whole alienation thing, the political side of things, the nature's way, everything. It didn't catch me. It just didn't. This movie could've used a better script. And this sure can be done, just check out Stake Land (2010), almost the same budget, but much better characters and a realistic story based on an unrealistic premise.

Was the above review useful to you?

An artsy, low budget monster movie that beats Blomkamp at his own game

Author: Peter Welch from California
27 August 2016

Monsters is a slow but rewarding take on the monster movie genre. Filmed at an insanely low budget and kept alive by the will of director Gareth Edwards

The film is set years after semi-intelligent aliens of great size have landed on earth. Northern Mexico was their landing point, and it has become an "infected zone." Our two leads, a photojournalist named Andrew (Scoot McNairy) and his companion Sam (Whitney Able), need to escape the infected zone.

These characters are unimportant in the grand scheme of the world. They don't find a great solution to the alien invasion, they're just trying to save themselves in any way they can. In this way, it may inspire "Cloverfield" comparisons. This very grounded look at the problem is refreshing, and it makes the viewer feel like the leads are constantly in real danger.

The leads have remarkable chemistry (likely because they are married in real life), and Edwards captures genuine moments between them and puts it in the movie. We really feel as though the characters have grown together and we get attached to them.

At times, the action can be a little difficult to follow from a directing perspective. The low budget makes it understandable, but it is strange seeing things shaking and not quite having any idea what's happening.

The film's climax and ending is, without any doubt, it's biggest virtue. While a young viewer hoping for "Transformers" style action may get bored and want to turn this one off halfway through, they should stick around for the climax. It is more than worth the wait.

Was the above review useful to you?

Yawn ..... another romantic sci-fi pic misses the mark.

Author: Alfred Smith from Australia
14 August 2016

I'm always on the lookout for a sci-fi movie so I thought this might be worth a try. It's basically a poor love story set in an alien infected part of North America. The aliens, which look very similar to a large octopus or squid, were totally laughable because something like that could never move around on land on its arms. This was really annoying as they were not scary at all, yet the film is called "Monsters"?. The "romance" sub-plot was poor and was at times difficult to follow. I think this was because the film seemed to jump wildly ahead in parts, slow to a crawl then jump forward again. This went on throughout the whole film.

Given the budget and equipment, it's a reasonable effort but the actual story telling missed its mark. "Woman falls for a bit of a jerk" is just too clichéd.

Was the above review useful to you?

Ambiguous Human Relationship in a Future World

Author: CelluloidDog from United States
26 July 2016

The strangest part is that it seems that more than a few people liked it. But I am struggling to really find what's truly likable about the film. The science fiction setting of monsters or rather let's say alien life forms propagating in the world almost has a non-role in this boy-girl drama.

Some fans comment on the fact that the "monsters" are revealed at the end. Well, that could be an interpretation but no, not really. It's takes the trite route that what we don't know, is what we fear. Rather, it's never quite clear.

And that's the fundamental problem with this film. At times, it's fairly well acted and has some intelligent lines. But for the most part, the film is rather aimless. It's more like going out on the city at night, hoping some action might happen, but nothing. Another boring night with maybe a coupe interesting moments.

It's definitely off-beat but there's isn't an outstanding moment except the acting is a above average and the script is quite uneven, although intelligent at times. The most interesting part was trying to get the ferry to the US and running into the character who wrangles a wad of money. The special effects or CGI are below average, the low-budget shows quite transparently throughout the film. Cinematography is weak. However, weak the plot/theme of the film, the directing efforts were above average as director Gareth Edwards does a fair job with a $500K budget.

One could say the film was about the relationship of the two leads, Kaulder and Sam. But the relationship never quite forms. In fact, it's thrown off from the start as Kaulder is supposed to help his boss's daughter Sam escape the infected zone. When Sam goes out on the night with Kaulder, she gets to like him but then, well, a girl gets between and his irresponsibility gets the situation more complex.

They are forced to take an unlikely journey back to the US from Mexico. Along their dangerous path, we see plenty of abandoned urban areas and destruction by unknown forces. Do we really know what has happened? Unfortunately, the movie never answers those questions. It rather teases you. There is a chance we think the bioluminescent aliens are wondrous perhaps like whales. Or maybe sharks, which have been greatly feared for centuries but recently, we have a mixed appreciation for the apex predators. But it's never quite clear in this film whether they are "monsters". Again, what we don't know, we can't judge. But that's the problem with the film, to spend 94 minutes trying to define the relationship between Sam and Kaulder or the behavior of the alien beings. But neither is that interesting of a story. Therefore, it's tough to compare or judge this film against good science fiction.

The best science fiction films are often social commentaries. The ambiguous relationship between the leads and the ambiguous dangers doesn't provide answer or any social commentary. At times, it seems the best commentary is the US-Mexican border problems. It could be used as a commentary on US predisposition to war (e.g, Middle East), undocumented workers, fear of illegal aliens, and the age-old class struggle between rich and poor. But it never takes those directions which most definitely would make it a superior film. It tries to be thoughtful but never quite makes it, although it is atmospheric. But that's empty space. Hence, its pretentiousness leads to a dead end, like exploring a dark alley, thinking you might be scared but in the end, it's just a walled up alley without anything truly interesting.

Was the above review useful to you?

Even the monsters were bored by these dull lead characters

Author: MartianOctocretr5 from Redondo Beach, CA
22 July 2016

The creatures in this movie remind me of Bigfoot and Nessie. Somebody's always talking about seeing them, and showing grainy picture of a shadow to prove the encounter. But, for some reason, these giants are shy and like to wander around in the dark where nobody ever sees them clearly.

With a title like Monsters, and an elaborate backstory about these things revealed through narration, you would expect to eventually see what these things are. It's common practice in this type of movie to conceal what they look like for a while, and let them be scary as an unknown threat, but the audience expects to see them at some point. This movie just teases you by hiding their appearance way too long for its own good.

After a while, the movie forgets all about the creatures, and bores you to death with a goofy couple who are not interesting or sympathetic. They're just annoying and tiresome to look at. Neither one has positive attributes, and you wish the creatures would show up just to squish them. They talk and talk about essentially nothing, and you never learn anything about them, nor do you ever care.

So we see the two bozos get themselves into stupid contrived situations that bring them into danger, but they must have bored the monsters too, because you still don't get to see them. Scene after scene of this dysfunctional couple, but little else ever happens. To make it worse, Every single pointless thing they do is dragged out.

The ending is a dud, too, although from the way it's shot, it's obvious the writer and director thought they had revealed something groundbreaking to you. They don't. Unless you like "so bad they're good" type movies to poke fun at, avoid this one.

Was the above review useful to you?

The Boredom and the Tequila

Author: wolfen244 from United States
5 March 2016

No wonder it made it to Netflix. It was boring, cheaply made - except no

expense was spared to make a bunch of signs all over the entire film

telling you what was going on. I liked the bubble music as it gave it a

bit of an interesting quality. After 38 minutes of being thoroughly bored

to tears I decided to write this review. I'm going to bed. Oh, and right

after the very beginning with the firefight with the monsters I actually

thought it might get fun and even interesting. No such luck. Good night.

Well I am back and decided to finish watching the movie and writing this review. Well it actually started to get a tiny bit interesting until the part about the wall that separated the United States from Mexxxxxico. That was when I found out the real reason for this stinker. It was to portray illegals as not being monsters.

It was also a rip-off of 7 Days and 6 Nights or something with Harrison Ford and what's her name.

The encounter with the monsters in the gas station also irritated me as our two love birds got to watch monsters in love and they got starry- eyed. Really?

Also the photojournalist was a complete loser - first leaving his most precious items - passports, cash and so forth in the hands of a hooker as she swiped 'em. Didn't he realize where he was? It's Mexxxxico you moron. If it's not nailed down you get to lose it. Big surprise. He subsequently almost lost his camera to thieves as well as he slept. And the female reporter/love interest was no brighter as she left her passport with loser boy as he lost 'em both. Really?

Find another un-irritating stinker to watch folks.

Was the above review useful to you?

A beautifully understated film that will stay with you.

Author: Himble-Humble
27 January 2016

This film is incredible, it's so lovely and understated.

It doesn't pretend to be a blockbuster film, nor does it try to impress with witty dialogue, sex scenes and endless action sequences.

Instead, you are swept through daily life in a world with monsters in it, experiencing the richness of Mexican culture/people and scenery. It combines a documentary about poverty and human nature to create a vivid post-apocalyptic world of people isolated from the safety inside the borders of neighboring America.

I've probably watched this 10 times at least, and I compare that to Godzilla with a $160 million budget that caused me to fall asleep 20 minutes in.

Money well spent, gentlemen.

Was the above review useful to you?

Shot Really Nicely, But Lacked Pace & Excitement

Author: David Arnold from United States
13 January 2016

I took a while in deciding if I wanted to see Monsters or not even after watching the trailers for it, but I decided to bite the bullet and just give it a shot. I mean you never know what a movie is really like until you watch it right? Well, after viewing it I can safely say that it's not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's definitely not one of the better ones either.

Actually, when I say it's not one of the better films I've seen I don't mean that it's a badly shot film because the direction, acting, visuals, and cinematography were all decent enough. It was the lack of pace, action, and suspense that kind of killed it for me. I don't mind slower paced movies, but only if there's enough going on story-wise to keep my interest. Monsters didn't do that for me and I found it too stop/start.

The film is actually a wee bit deceptive in a way because the main story is more like a journey of bonding between the two main characters, Andrew and Sam, which is not really what I was expecting when a movie is named Monsters and the trailers portrayed it to be a Sci-Fi Thriller. In fact, it was getting pretty close to being a sort of love story in the end and I think that is what heightened the snore factor for me. Don't get me wrong - there are moments of suspense dotted throughout, along with a few bits of action, but it was just starting to get too lovey dovey for my liking.

Like I said earlier, though, it's not all bad as there was some really nice cinematography in amongst some amazing scenery, and the direction was done well enough also, especially when you find out that the film was shot with no - or very little - outline for the different scenes. The whole film was shot opportunistically, meaning the director shot what he could, when he could at the various locations with the actors.

Now, if there was only a bit more pace, action, and suspense to the film and a little less love, then it may have delivered a much better overall experience.

Was the above review useful to you?

A Surprisingly Good FIlm

Author: Cameron Day from Australia
21 December 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There is something about this movie that immerses you with the characters. You feel as though you are running/driving alongside the characters as you see stunning imagery and settings. Although the action levels were a bit low, the visuals were very engaging and beautiful.

I was surprised to see the quality of this film considering its $500,000 budget. It turned out to be a very impressive work of art that, if got better funding, could've been the monsters movie of the decade. With Cloverfield (2008) most likely taking that spot. The producers-when it was time to finally see the creatures, made the moment special to the audience with an engaging soundtrack and not bad CGI.

I was surprised at the quality of the film. The setting and visuals, the acting and the camera-work make this film as good as it is. It really is a movie worth watching and doesn't have many flaws. This film could rival many other monster movies of this decade.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 9 of 47: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history