Monsters: Dark Continent (2014) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
166 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
This is NOT a Sci-Fi / Horror movie
Reaper-of-Souls15 March 2015
I was excited when I first heard about a sequel to MONSTERS. Then, as I often do when trying to keep up with all the films I eagerly await, I lost track of it and all-of-a-sudden it became available. Being a big fan of the original, I couldn't wait to see it. Now that I've watched it, I can't stress how much of a disappointment it was.

MONSTERS: DARK CONTINENT is NOT a Sci-Fi / Horror movie. It is a war movie disguised as a Sci-Fi. And it's not even a very good war movie at that. It's somewhere in the middle. Very average. The biggest, of very few, somewhat redeeming qualities was the special effects. The monsters looked great! To bad they were overwhelmingly used as backdrop props, looking like a herd of buffalo at times.

I'll never understand why this wasn't just strictly a war movie. It could have been an above average war movie if the money spent on the monster effects had been used for a bigger war setting or better actors. There was just no need for monsters to be roaming in the background of a war movie, never really posing any threat to the characters. I don't know what else to say. Very disappointing.
133 out of 167 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The real monster is inside
siderite16 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I remember only vaguely the first Monsters movie and my review from back then said that I liked it a lot. As in that one, the alien monsters are just a backdrop - although in this film I would say that they are superfluous. The story is about a group of kids from Detroit who join the army, go in some Arabic desert and fight both monsters and insurgents.

The big big problem with this film is the length. It two hours long. From those, a quarter is just presenting the characters in a pompous way that doesn't really say anything about them, another is about hooting manly and being manly shouted at by their instructors, then the rest is about how they didn't absorb any of the training at all and how their manliness doesn't really do anything for them. I am being a bit mean.

I guess the message was that monsters are everywhere, from the people setting a dog on a little alien forcing it to defend itself and kill the dog, to the American forces mindlessly killing civilians, from the Arab insurgents who kill soldiers, to the maddened soldier who needs to kill everybody that even looks like an enemy. As usual, the alien monsters are just minding their own peaceful business.

Bottom line: the movie failed in a number of ways: bad character exposition, pointless length, stupid soldiering, a plot that has no need of the aliens. The (valid) point that it wanted to make was lost in all this noise.
85 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Deserves every lost dime of it's poor box office performance
Paynebyname13 January 2016
What a load of pretentious, art w*nk nonsense this film really is.

It's bad enough that the story is paper thin and the characters are as unlikeable as an upset stomach (one minute gangsta tough, the next screaming like babies) but the direction is shocking.

It's like a frustrated art student trying out every possible style of image capture. Long shots, close shots, lens flare, angled, shaky cam, slow mo and none of them working.

One pointless scene of a helicopter taking off showed it's ascent from at least 10 different angles - outside looking up, inside looking out, inside looking inside, outside different angle etc etc.

Every character must have had at least two shots of them silent screaming from the Dummies Guide to filming internal angst.

Things aren't explained, geography is not established and you can almost feel the makers telegraphing their contempt to the audience that 'if you don't get this, you're too stupid'.

It's not engaging, thought provoking or entertaining. And when it's finished all you can contemplate is the utter pointlessness of the whole film.

I know many complain of studio execs interfering with a film but you really have to question who greenlit this laughable project or signed off the finished product for general release.

Whoever it was can't tell the difference between a movie and a flickerbook of cool filtered Instagram pics.
54 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Monsters: The Hurt Locker 2
jgibbons-519 March 2015
Wow! Not a good wow, but just wow. I was really psyched to hear about a sequel to "Monsters" because that was such a great sci-fi movie but man, was I disappointed in this one. This was really just an anti-war movie and I think there was a message in there about the middle-east conflict but I couldn't be sure because there were so many confusing themes happening at the same time. The one thing this wasn't was a sci- fi movie about.....monsters. They could have edited out every monster scene and it would not have changed the movie one bit, I'm not kidding. If I had seen a pre-release copy that didn't have the special effects added in, I wouldn't have been confused about what was going on, at least no more than I am now. I'm sorry Tom Green but a swing and a miss.
77 out of 101 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Should have been titled Monsters: in the background
xedgex66614 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This is the most disappointing movie I have seen in a while. I have no idea why they even had "Monsters" in the title or movie for that matter. They could have saved everyone some time and money by not having monsters at all, seeing as how they only serve as a backdrop for a poor war story, which is really just a 5 minute shoot out and a 3 minute escape. It starts out with a sad story about some "poor kids" growing up in Detroit, so of course they think they are hard. They decide to join the army to fight monsters. They get their wish as they kill 1 shortly after arriving in the middle east. And that is about it, other than a few monsters being bombed there is no reason to have monsters in the movie at all. The monsters are decent looking even though they serve almost no purpose to the story, except to draw attention away from the HORRIBLE story. If you have 2 hours and nothing to do and can't sleep , it might be worth watching. If only to put you to sleep.
57 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Did Monsters get in the way of your war movie?
jonathan-150-7215263 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The first Monsters was fantastic, this I'm sorry to say is not.

Basically it's a US against Middle East war movie with a few monsters thrown in. It felt like the monsters were there just to look like they could do graphics and or create the sequel. They honestly felt like they were getting in the way of the war film!

There was very little interaction with the Monsters and 99% of the movie was between the army lads.

Nothing at all like the first monsters movie, even with a bigger budget. The film seamed to go on and on and there was very little plot.

The friend I went with fell asleep twice and that was in a packed Premier screening!

Thank goodness we got free tickets to watch it in Nottingham last night as neither of us would want to buy them.
90 out of 122 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Avoid these monsters
abisio21 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I was not really a fan of the first movie; however it was intriguing and nicely setup; by the end it was just a love story. This one has better budget but aside from more monsters but it is not used properly. There are more monsters but always in the distance and almost no interaction with the characters. There is the Jordan desert but the movie is basically a war movie; with unlikable characters a lot of screaming and crying and madness but nothing really interesting happens and the movie becomes too long and irritating by the middle so the last hour is really painful to sit through. If you expect a payoff for the last hour; forget it. Nothing really is clarified or anything surprising occurs.

It is even worse that the movie is not even clear why is going. There are some pro-war moments on the beginning; then tries to show the lack of communication between cultures and languages; later begin a strong anti Arab statement with Muslim terrorists at it worst; but few minutes later a school bus full of dead kids; product of US Air Force attacks to kill a monster and a very nice Bedouin tribe contradicts the previous statements to finally turn to the madness and lack of real intelligence of the Army (every dead monster become thousands of new ones; but it seems nobody found that yet).

Nothing is quite original and everything has been show far better and clear before. It is obvious there is some anti-war message in all these; but it is never fully supported.

In brief; it might had been a good idea but is poorly written and developed so do not lose your time. It is not fun at all.
31 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Another US vs Taliban movie, with an occasional monster thrown in. A lot like Battle LA, if there were no aliens
cosmo_tiger24 April 2015
"This was our home. It was our last day, so for those last few hours we needed to forget about what was coming." Ten years after the monsters landed on Earth things have gotten worse. They have begun to fully take over the entire planet and now with the US military using all of its resources to fight them off they now have to contend with a new type of insurgency. I will start by saying that I remember seeing the first one, thinking it was a little slow, but it's been so long all I remember about it is the cheesy ending. I had the same expectations for this one. I was wrong. While I though this one was a little better it was still pretty slow moving and was really missing something the first one had...monsters. In terms of war movies this one is pretty decent, the problem with it is that every so often a monster would pop up out of nowhere, presumably to remind you the movie is called monsters. Some movies are deceiving because of the trailers released, they seem funny and are really dramas, etc...this is the first movie I have seen where the title is misleading. This is really just another US vs Taliban movie, with an occasional (out of place) monster thrown in. Overall, a movie much like Battle LA, if there were no aliens in that movie. I give this a C.
32 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Verdict: Insulting Toward the Original
MoviesReviews10114 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Story: Monsters: Dark Continent starts with narration from Michael Parkes (Keeley) a reluctant solider who explains that the monsters have started to spread destroying cities through the Middle East, where the new Infected Zone is. Frater (Harris) is a sniper who has completed his mission before making his swift getaway back to the US base. Flashback I think to watch Michael and his unit Frankie (Dempsie) Inkelaar (Soller) and Shaun (Sawyers) back in Detroit preparing to be shipped out again. We learn how the unit all has each other's back and will fight anyone to protect each other. Drugs, booze and hookers this must mean we are having a leaving party because that is what everyone does right? Well that was a painful excuse to show boobs in a war based film. Now for the real story to start, we are now following the helicopter assault of a heard of giant monsters which is quickly completed. Frater and Forrest (Pinnock) run the base and give the new recruits the rules on how to survive the situation. We follow the soldiers on basic missions around towns as we witness the effects of war not just on with the monsters but with the terrorists. The unit has been on plenty of patrols without seeing much action before they get a mission to locate a group of missing soldiers. When the convoy gets hit, the mission changes to one of survival against a human enemy as well as a monster threat. Frater, Michael, Inkelaar and Frankie are the four surviving members of the unit who have to try and stay ahead of the enemy, but aren't very successful. Before long Frater and Michael are left alone, captured by the enemy they have to escape while the enemy is dealing with a monster attack. Monsters: Dark Continent moves the action to a different continent and never explains how the monsters ended up in that location considering the first one being set in Mexico. The most part of this film is a dreadfully boring war story that just has monsters on the outside of it, I am willing to say I don't even know what the point of having the monsters in this film actually is. The war side of the story has been done so many times it offers nothing to the genre and ends up ruining anything the first film created. I personally think this will be one of the worst stories of the year. (2/10)

Actor Review

Johnny Harris: Noah Frater the veteran on tour who leads the unit on the mission and after things go wrong he takes charge of the inexperienced unit as they try to fight against enemies both human and monster. Johnny ends up being a very generic soldier who has been at war too long. (3/10)

Sam Keeley: Michael the rookie soldier who is with his unit and after they all die he is left alone with Frater as they try to survive against the odds. Sam fills the generic rookie soldier and doesn't make an impact in the role. (3/10)

Support Cast: Monsters: Dark Continent has a supporting cast that includes the fellow soldiers who mostly die early on and we get to see the effects of their death on the two remaining soldiers.

Director Review: Tom Green – Tom doesn't do the original film any justice and gives us one of the most misleading films of the year. (2/10)

Sci-Fi: Monsters: Dark Continent tries to put us in a world where the monsters are now part of the world but doesn't rise to the levels it could have. (5/10) Thriller: Monsters: Dark Continent is meant to be a thriller but you will spend time looking at your watch wondering how much more. (2/10) Settings: Monsters: Dark Continent brings the action to the Middle East but never explains why it ends up there. (4/10) Special Effects: Monsters: Dark Continent has one positive, the monster creations all look very good and very real throughout the film. (10/10) Suggestion: Monsters: Dark Continent is really going to have to be one to avoid, it is too long, too dull and lacks any real monster action. (Avoid)

Best Part: The monsters all look very real. Worst Part: Too Long and no monster action. What Could Have Been Better? – Explain how the monsters ended up in the Middle East, Involve the monsters, make it interesting.

Believability: No (0/10) Chances of Tears: No (0/10) Chances of Sequel: Left open to one and made right I would watch a sequel. Post Credits Scene: No

Oscar Chances: No Runtime: 1 Hour 59 Minutes Trivia: The main actor from the first Monsters movie Scott McNairy is signed on as an Executive Producer for Monsters:Dark Continent.

Overall: Very disappoint sequel to one of the best low budget films of recent years. Rating 25

Check out more reviews at moviesreviews101.com
50 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
No beauty or profound statement like the original, just a cheap uninspired knock off
ArchonCinemaReviews7 April 2015
The beauty of the original 2010 Monsters was its profound statement, Dark Continent satisfies the original naysayer's with action, and not much else.

The initial 2010 film Monsters was a profound parable about humanity and its interactions with one another that used an 'alien invasion' as a mirror for this introspection. It is an independent film I adore and can not recommend enough. Four years later, with seemingly no connection to the original's genius creator Gareth Edwards, Monsters: Dark Continent is released, with absolutely no relation to the 2010 film in both scope or talent.

Though the term 'derivative' does not imply subservience in its definition, quite often it is used as a descriptor for inferiority, and Monsters: Dark Continent warrants the adjective. When I first learned of a sequel to Monsters, I was aghast, for the narrative had been told in its entirety. When I saw the trailer, I was mortified of the bastardization of the beautiful film into Hollywood action drivel.

With the scope of potential from its predecessor being a peak of perfection to the lows of my expectations of pure garbage, Monsters: Dark Continent falls somewhere in the middle but certainly closer to trash. In truth, Dark Continent tries to be like its original in using the alien invasion to be an allegory for the war efforts in the middle east. Unfortunately it feels terribly superficial and contrived.

There is no beauty in the story telling of Dark Continent. The dialogue is poor and voice overs are used constantly to convey the narrative rather than creative artistry. Monsters: Dark Continent is neither philosophical nor intelligent in the manner of its originator. Writer and director Tom Green tries to speak of the war but it is in a very ignorant and uninformed perspective that is neither deep or even unique.

Please check out our website for full reviews of all the recent releases.
20 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I should have left this out
office-934-6818394 June 2015
When you watch a movie, when you go into a cinema or search, download, buy any movie, than you are looking for a certain kind of movie a certain genre at that moment, at that time. When you see title that comes along with any associations of a horror movie than you don't expect a comedy, unless it is a parody or so. But you can read that in a preview or see that from many small parts, like commercial, posters, etc. Here in this movie, I still don't know what I have watched. It wasn't a real sci-fi, it wasn't a horror and it was not a combat/war movie. It is more or less a try to put a war conflict situation combined with a sci-fi background and a today's Afghanistan war, culture etc. Conflict, into a movie. A try to show a social conflict but there are so many way better movie like this on the market out there. The movie has no beginning and no end. The only credits I can give for this movie is the making. The scenes are good, the clothing, wearing's, the monsters (those few which actually have not a big part in this movie at all). So at the end this is a complete waste of time and if you don't want to spent time after seeing the movie to think about all the little, stupid and no logical scenes and parts of the movie and shaking your head, whenever you think back of it, then do something better with your time.
20 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
We need more movies like this
imaginty4 May 2015
I don't understand why people give this movie (and the standalone prequel) so much hate. Who wants yet another monster disaster movie shoved in your face? Both Monsters movies heavily focus on human interaction and the development of the main characters when put in extreme circumstances. With regards this film specifically - what the main characters go through mentally could easily be mirrored by actual soldiers overseas today but the fact that the main enemy is not of this world, puts a different and interesting perspective on war. Yet what I think Monsters is trying to say, is that the truth is still the same. This movie is littered with ambiguity and symbolism - do the aliens symbolize terrorism or something else altogether? Who knows. The point is, this movie lets you make up your own mind without giving you any definitive answers - contrary to most films today, that plainly dictate what the audience should think or feel. Monsters is absolutely stunning visually and has a soundtrack to match. I think it's only downfall, and that of its predecessor, is how it was advertised. Maybe this was done on purpose but I think it is the main cause of the majority of its bad reviews. If you want to go watch an action packed disaster movie, don't bother watching. And definitely don't bother writing a bad review. It's boring.
74 out of 126 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This is NOT a Sci Fi movie. Avoid at all costs!
rajivness14 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is NOT a sci-fi movie. its more like a confused war movie - who tries to be like Black Hawk Down, American Sniper, Platoon and even like 8 mile - but does a lousy job. The cinematography is nice. Acting is OK. But the movie has Zero plot and just doesn't go anywhere.

The main problem is with the story or lack thereof. The movie suggests scifi since the monsters supposedly come from outer space. But this movie does nothing to talk about where the monsters come from and what their plan is or anything like that.

The monsters seem more like African Elephants moving around in large herds - who make whale like sounds.

This movie deserves to be a horror movie coz its a horrible waste of your precious time. Avoid at all costs.

The first movie was bad, this is worse!
31 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
War not Monsters.
panther_husky17 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I started feeling annoyed after only watching the first 10 minutes. 4 Young kids enlist in the Army, well not really enlisting as it states for each young man the years they had already served. These 4 young men were like little kids and I just hope the Army doesn't really have men with this type of mentality.

The movie really had nothing to do with monsters. They were only put there to make the movie more interesting. It centers more these men and the war. Yes, kill a few monsters and jump up and down with joy.

Some scenes were a little shocking and the scene with the dog fighting a baby alien while these uneducated dead heads watched and cheered was something that I thought shouldn't have been included in the movie. Especially when the poor dog gets killed by the alien and then some thug shoots the Alien.

The acting wasn't too bad but I felt it went a little over board. I was hoping the film would finish earlier than it's 2 hours or so. I was getting fed up with the war and wanted more of the Monsters but disappointingly, I had to see through gun fire, screaming and nonsense.

The title really has nothing to do with the movie.

Waste of time unless you like war films, people firing guns at each other and a story line which to me didn't make much sense.
23 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
If you liked the first one, skip this.
Sminthian16 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I liked the first one and was hoping that they were going to continue and explain more about the monsters. Nope. There seems to be a different kind of monsters in this one, and they don't really explain it at all.

This is made out to be mostly a war movie. It's a few losers from the inner-city (just skip the first 15 minutes of the movie or you won't want to watch the rest) that get sent to war in the mid-East. They spend the whole time in shock or crying whenever any fighting happens, which I find extremely annoying.

The new monsters seem interesting, even though they didn't explain it at all. Everything else in the movie was bad. I had to force myself to watch this in three sections because I kept getting tired of it.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
good flick
Hschuntermann16 March 2015
OK. I think people are being way to harsh on the movie. I mean I watch a lot of films and I've seen nothing but mediocre and trash in the last 2 weeks. When I saw this i wasn't blown away nor was it as good as the first. That being said, this is an entirely different movie. I was never bored. If anything it kept me pretty edgy. The movie had a feeling of dread. No. It isn't a horror movie, neither was the first one. I considered it a science fiction movie and a war movie. I'm going to check it out again. I think anyone who is tying to decide to watch it or not. Then skip all the opinions from strangers and just watch it. I loved the first Monsters and had big expectations for the sequel and I wasn't disappointed. I find science fiction fans can be harsh sometimes just like horror fans. Movies are personal. What one finds sucky another may find gold.not to mention the movie stayed in my head the next day. That says something.
79 out of 145 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
waste of time
lydon-corbin-782-56091929 January 2016
I'm not going to give you a massive review on why, but this film is beyond diabolical. It's like a child trying to be an adult, it can't and it does a very poor attempt at trying. It should have been an excellent film with the idea, but the actors over act, half the time, you don't really even know what is going on. I will admit that the visuals can be quite stunning, but it's just ruined by everything else. The cutting from one scene to another is just annoying. And at the end just when it looked like it was about to start getting good, it just ends, no answers, no decent plot, just 100% rubbish, save time and do not watch this...
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The first movie had more of an original concept but I like how this film was made
subxerogravity21 April 2015
The movie is called Monsters, but similar to the first, the monsters have so little to do with the story, even more so in the second than the first.

It's all about male bonding during military time as a platoon of boys from the same hood in Detroit go to war together in the Middle East.

The picture moves quickly, never a dull moment, very kinetic movement. Good action and lots of good war scenes.

The acting could used improvement. All the screaming and crotch grabbing did not convince me of their military standpoint.

But director Tom Green is definitely a good visual artist here. The imagery was very instance. Very good cinematography.

Visual effects were decent as well.

Total exploitation of war that ads a sci-fi fantasy elements with the monsters, used only as a backdrop no different than the dessert the movie takes place in.

Overall, I like the movie, despite how little the monsters have to do with the story at all. It seems misleading going into it, however.
18 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Excellent hard hitting war film but not Monsters
amesmonde24 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
An American platoon on a mission to extract four comrades are ambushed by enemy soldiers and must find their way to the extraction point through the alien infested Middle East.

Inkeeping with the format of the first film the aliens are a background entity to the main plot. Written by Jay Basu and Tom Green, aside from some tidbits of their off spring this follow up offers no great revelations about the aliens. Monsters: Dark Continent feels more of a sequel to a different alien film than Gareth Edwards first outing.

The effects are great, especially the larger Monsters when on display. The acting is outstanding from the cast. Oozing screen presence is Johnny Harris who is notable as the slowly unhinging Noah. Director Green offers a hard hitting war film that pulls no punches with mines, limbs, madness and pressure on display. Yes the analogies of the worlds conflicts is pushed in your face from outset, American politics, warfare, air strikes and its effects on the local inhabitants and the occupying soldiers. If anything, as the soldiers get picked off one by one it's a little too real, relevant and close to the bone. The bombed school bus of children, torture and mine scenes spring to mind.

The opening sets up the relationships of the characters as they live in the ghetto watching illegal alien-like dog fighting. As the men are deployed, it borrows the voice-over of Platoon, unavoidable elements of Full Metal Jacket, Hurt Locker and Jarhead with Basu's plot reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan. Green gives a gritty documentary feel similar to Battle: Los Angeles and Godzilla. Mix in the Middle East kidnappings and setting of Homeland and Rambo 3 and it should be painting a picture of Dark Continent's palette. Yes, there's every kitchen sink war cliché thrown in but it's well written and handled finely by Green with a gusto realism. It's a long hard slog and you feel you've gone through the mill with the characters.

To Greens credit it stands on its own, it's dusty location setting adds to the tense ominous war atmosphere and Dark Continent shows the grim side of humanity.

Those who enjoy war films will get a kick but as a sequel to Monsters it's subject matter is a hard viewing experience, evoking all the wrong emotions which is not made any easier by none of the original cast returning.
20 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Boring, Boring, and More Boring
chrismackey197214 March 2015
OMG! I just saw this and...don't! It was soooo boring. It was NOTHING like the first movie. I know the director said it wasn't a sequel, but still, it was not good. A big problem was the title. It's called Monster: The Dark Continent. The dark continent is what Africa's known as. However, this movie seemed more like a film about the Iraq war with the monsters as a very distant backdrop. Granted, they didn't say they were in Iraq. I don't actually recall them saying where the film took place.

Some said the acting was bad. I didn't have a problem with the acting. The cinematography was good. I just expected something VERY different.

Some of the monsters were like galloping antelope. Others were like birds. Some seemed like walking trees. The point is, they didn't come across as any sort of a threat. As I said, boring.

I gave this a 4-star rating. I do not recommend. Watch the first one, and look at that as a one-story movie. This one didn't do anything but bore me to tears. Now I'm really tired. When I feel like going to sleep after watching a movie -- in the early evening -- that's how I can tell a movie sucked.
29 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Superlative worst ever ending of a movie
frank_kneepkens10 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The movie starts like it is a new version of full metal jack or similar movies with a SciFi twist of the monsters. Distantly reminding me of Starship Troopers. Also some twist from movies of warfare in the middle East (don't remember their names). The movie continues and continues and nothing serious happens. After 1.5 hours I begin to wonder when does the real action starts? What's the edge? What about the monsters? Nothing. Then suddenly the movie ends... Huh? What's the point of this movie? I don't understand. Complete waste of time. Avoid watching this movie because there is no real action, no real story. Just images of deserts with soldiers and some alien like monsters. You just end up with a question mark of why did I watch this till the end? Really, avoid!
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The pointless nature of conflict with a twist
brianuk-419-851715 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
OK, if you wanted GI's fighting aliens in non stop combat this could leave you wondering why, on the whole, the aliens are always somewhat remote. For me, I saw the aliens as a metaphor for the waste of time war is (no disrespect to anyone who has served). The monsters weren't the threat that the soldiers had been led to believe and they were unbeatable (reproducing in huge numbers by the end)...it was a nice way of putting across 'this is all messed up and pointless.' Also clever to use the 'but we're here to help you' feel with the reality of civilian deaths and insurgency. The locations in Jordan and cinematography are really nice. Acting was good too. Oh, and I'm no prude, but if you are going to show sex scenes they really need to serve a purpose and not just be there for titillation. They didn't help the story. On the whole I really enjoyed this, and enjoyed watching the main characters - particularly Johnny Harris - unravel with the pressure of combat, death and loss of hope. Just forget the aliens, and don't think of it as a sci-fi film and you will enjoy it as a piece that chooses not to glorify combat by making it gung ho.
21 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Disappointing!
Liadtella14 October 2014
Just saw the Empire Magazine Premiere of this film at the aptly named Empire Leicester Square. As with a with other London Film Festival offerings a brief introduction normally with a few words from the director, and the odd actor or screenwriter was done. The introduction was kicked off by scruffiest person I have seen all year from Empire Magazine (to be fair to him he did admit as much) Then there was a vote of thanks by the director Tom Green who then proceeded to, I exaggerate not, thank EVERY person involved in the movie (I wondered what the end credits were for) this went on forever it seemed. All the films stars were paraded on the stage all suited and booted and all MALE. That aside I settled down to watch the film. First let's go back to the Empire Magazine guy who "warns" that this film was a war move. Back to the film It starts off with our "heroes" involved in a conflict with insurgents in the Middle East and spends the ENTIRE film as a war movie with the Monsters in the background. We were warned remember? Now I thought war movie in the context of he title Monsters… meant Alien vs. Humans not war movie as in Hurt Locker. So you can gather by now that I did not like the movie, the acting was so clichéd it hurt, the script and dialogue was all over the place and it tried to be too many things at the same: War movie, Sci-Fi, War Movie, Drama, War Movie, Action, War Movie, Road Movie, War Movie (did I say war movie?). I do not go into this film expecting to watch, wait for it a WAR MOVIE. I have seen else where on this site that this film is better than the first one. IT IS NOT, the original was not exactly a flawless piece or work, but its main appeal was that it was made on a shoestring budget with a director's vision, wit and a wing and a prayer. This film was empty and for all the bullets flying around was frankly quite boring. It only lit up when the Monsters of the title Remember? Appeared. To be brutality honest THE MONSTERS were this film's BEST ACTORS. To be fair to this film, and I'm really trying to be, the monster effects were excellent. But the monsters had very little airtime, it looked like the creatures had other engagements and had no time to remains in this particular movie!
42 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Decent effort turning the genre, but neglecting the entire story development
Seraphion23 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I've watched the original movie starring Scott McNairy, which for me was not that good either. But this movie sparked my interest because it's weird that the production house gave a go on a sequel of a movie deemed good only by the critics and not the general audience. Maybe because of that thing, the studio decided to turn the genre around in this movie, from semi-thriller mystery adventure to war action semi thriller. The focus on war and action bits definitely meant to appeal on the larger masses of the audience. For me those bits really did quite well, although the fact is that there's no new things presented to the audience besides shootouts, RPGs, IEDs, with the addition of monsters at the background. But by doing so, the movie really stretch itself too much from the previous movie. The loss of the mystery side makes the monsters don't look so intimidating as in the first movie. The story also veers off course too many times, setting aside the monsters which are the title of the movie. The acting overall is just slightly below my standards. Well I think with this kind of confusing story the actors subconsciously gets it hard to give maximum performance.
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A lazy allegory with uninteresting characters
estebangonzalez1010 June 2015
"Why am I here? What am I doing here?"

Gareth Edward's low-budget feature debut, Monsters, made some noise with critics as well as with Hollywood producers who decided to hire him for the latest Godzilla remake, which I happened to enjoy quite a bit. Since then he has become a household name and is already working on a Star Wars anthology film and on the Godzilla sequel. Edwards managed to direct an entertaining sci-fi film using alien monsters as the background to tell the story of a journalist trying to escort an American tourist through an infected zone in Mexico back to the US. The film created a wonderful atmosphere and in a lesser way served as an allegory on the US immigration system.

Five years later, we get a sequel to Monsters and a new director. This is Tom Green's first feature film and he had a bigger budget to work with than Edwards did, but unfortunately the sequel is a mess and a bore. It was by far the longest two hours I've had to sit through in a movie all year. It tries to follow a similar premise as the original film by being an allegory of sorts, this time about American intervention in the Middle East and it too leaves the monsters as an afterthought. The soldiers are sent overseas to fight the monsters (which could easily represent the terrorists in our world) who have spread all the way to the Middle East, but in a way these soldiers become the real monsters. The allegory is heavy on this one and it doesn't quite work as well because it is too lazy and simple. The characters aren't interesting at all and no one stands out here. They even have to resort to using voice-over narration to introduce each character because there was no interest in character development whatsoever.

The sequel takes place several years after the original and now the monsters have spread through different parts of the world. At the same time, an insurgency has broke out in the Middle East and soldiers are being deployed to fight off the insurgents and destroy the monsters in that deeply infested area. Michael Parkes (Sam Keeley) grew up in Detroit and has been training in the military for the past two years along with his native friends: Frankie (Joe Dempsie), Karl (Kyle Soller), and Shaun (Parker Sawyers). They are all being deployed to the Middle East together and are ready to make a difference. After a few weeks of light fighting the recruits are sent on a mission with Sergeant Frater (Johnny Harris) to rescue some soldiers in the Infected Zone. This is where the real fight begins for the new recruits.

I can't complain about the aliens being simply a background for this clichéd anti-war film because it was the same thing in the first movie, but Dark Continent doesn't even take its time to develop interesting characters. The story is incredibly lazy and all the characters are unsympathetic. I felt the extremely slow pacing take its toll on me and I understood that it was trying to explore the human behavior in extreme conditions, but it did so in a very lazy way. The subtext here isn't nearly as provoking as it was in the original. I get it that Green is trying to show the irony of the world crumbling around us as we ignore it and still continue to destroy each other, but it simply didn't do anything for me.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed