Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Old 02-08-11, 08:55 PM
  #51  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,306
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Originally Posted by TheySentYou
funny. i was just talking to a friend about this film a few weeks ago. he said he cried at the end.

this is the most unlikely film to cry about... except for the 90+ minutes you'll never get back. fuck this film.
I would love to know your friend's reasons for crying. I thought it was garbage but if some people like it...so be it. I could never imagine crying or even getting the tiniest bit emotional over it though.
Old 02-08-11, 09:37 PM
  #52  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

He must really be into monsters fucking...
Old 02-08-11, 09:41 PM
  #53  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,306
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Originally Posted by Solid Snake PAC
He must really be into monsters fucking...
Is that what they were doing? I couldn't tell what was happening and by that point didn't even care.
Old 02-08-11, 09:44 PM
  #54  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

I'm just saying that cuz it was mentioned here in the thread. I've yet to see it...it has my interest though.
Old 02-08-11, 11:21 PM
  #55  
DVD Talk Legend
 
DeputyDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,080
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Worth watching in my opinion.
Old 02-08-11, 11:53 PM
  #56  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Let me guess, it turns out the monster was man all along
Old 02-09-11, 12:13 AM
  #57  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

No, it was apes.
Old 02-09-11, 09:14 AM
  #58  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,946
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

...and they used nukes on the Statue of Liberty.
Old 02-10-11, 12:03 PM
  #59  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
islandclaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 20,084
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

From Dark Horizons:

Gareth Edwards, the director of the recent acclaimed ultra-low budget "Monsters", says Vertigo owns the rights to the film and are keen to move forward with another related project very soon - one he may not be a part of.

"I’m not sure how involved I can be right now, and I don’t think my next film really should be a sequel just yet. I’d like to do something else first, but I would definitely be open to returning at some point" he tells Dread Central.

He adds "I do think whoever Vertigo ends up hiring will do a great job because they really know what they’re doing there. For me, if they hire someone to direct another Monsters movie, the last thing they need is for me to be hanging around, telling people how the movie should be. Whoever comes in should definitely be given free rein to put their own spin on this world, and I know they’ll get the right person."

*********************************************************

I don't think the film needs a sequel, but if they can find someone with respect to the material who can ratchet up the action, then I'd be game. I'm a sucker for any big monster movie.
Old 03-15-11, 02:43 PM
  #60  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
CharlieK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,249
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Originally Posted by whoopdido
I would love to know your friend's reasons for crying. I thought it was garbage but if some people like it...so be it. I could never imagine crying or even getting the tiniest bit emotional over it though.
I saw this last night and really enjoyed it. While I wouldn't go so far as to say I cried, I can see why someone would get emotional at the end.

I found the movie - like someone said earlier - very hypnotic as you're just placed in this scenaro and follow this couple around. It was all very naturalistic. With all of the context you're given for the monsters, plus the countless monster movies we've seen before, you're led to believe that these monsters are hostile and just want to destroy things. Plus there's all this, you know, destruction to reinforce your belief. But there at the end, there are these 2 monsters and they're the exact opposite of aggressive. These 2 luminescent octopi don't just have sex, they make love. And that's beautiful. Kidding aside, it was an atypical way to portray the monsters and that's probably what I liked most about it.

I guess since the last post, Edwards has been tapped to direct the new Godzilla movie. After watching this, I think that's a good choice. He'll have teams of people helping him with the guy-in-suit stuff, but this movie suggests that he's able to keep focused on the human element of it all.
Old 03-15-11, 03:39 PM
  #61  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Larry C.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Let's Go Heat!
Posts: 7,494
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

I was bored by it. Ciuld've cared less what happened to the couple. Its was just blah. I really wanted to like it more.
Old 03-15-11, 04:41 PM
  #62  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,306
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Originally Posted by CharlieK
I saw this last night and really enjoyed it. While I wouldn't go so far as to say I cried, I can see why someone would get emotional at the end.

I found the movie - like someone said earlier - very hypnotic as you're just placed in this scenaro and follow this couple around. It was all very naturalistic. With all of the context you're given for the monsters, plus the countless monster movies we've seen before, you're led to believe that these monsters are hostile and just want to destroy things. Plus there's all this, you know, destruction to reinforce your belief. But there at the end, there are these 2 monsters and they're the exact opposite of aggressive. These 2 luminescent octopi don't just have sex, they make love. And that's beautiful. Kidding aside, it was an atypical way to portray the monsters and that's probably what I liked most about it.

I guess since the last post, Edwards has been tapped to direct the new Godzilla movie. After watching this, I think that's a good choice. He'll have teams of people helping him with the guy-in-suit stuff, but this movie suggests that he's able to keep focused on the human element of it all.
If they were attempting to portray the monsters as misunderstood creatures that got a bum rap they did a terrible job going about that since throughout the whole movie we're shown evidence that they're destructive and have killed many people and destroyed a lot of things. It would kind of be like at the end of Cloverfield, we're shown a 2 minute scene where we're suddenly supposed to feel sorry for the monster after we'd just spent 90 minutes watching it completely destroy New York and kill God only knows how many people. Only later did we find out that "Clover" was supposed to be a baby which could possibly change your opinion of him/her/it but throughout the movie we had no idea about that and just figured it was a destructive menace that needed to be destroyed before it killed anybody else.

Maybe if "Monsters" had gone the route of the monsters not actually being monsters at all but just aliens that weren't aggressive but the humans more or less went to war with them just because they're aliens then maybe my opinion of the movie would be different. Again, think of the Cloverfield monster being a scared baby that has no clue what it's doing but since it's so big it ends up destroying everything even though MAYBE it didn't mean to. If "Monsters" spent some of the movie delving into that aspect then the final scene would have been different. Instead the whole movie is spent showing how bad the things are, so at the end we see 2 bad things having sex which will probably result in one of, or both of them giving birth to many more bad things.
Old 03-15-11, 05:44 PM
  #63  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell
Posts: 34,175
Received 745 Likes on 545 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

It's funny... while I liked the film, I really don't want big G to be about the human element. I want man in suit, radioactive fire breathing, city stomping destruction. What I got from it was a little less Cloverfield and more The Mist, just less destructive and suicidal.
Old 03-15-11, 06:02 PM
  #64  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,946
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

I need to watch this again, I really liked it.
Old 03-15-11, 07:07 PM
  #65  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
CharlieK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,249
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Originally Posted by whoopdido
If they were attempting to portray the monsters as misunderstood creatures that got a bum rap they did a terrible job going about that since throughout the whole movie we're shown evidence that they're destructive and have killed many people and destroyed a lot of things. It would kind of be like at the end of Cloverfield, we're shown a 2 minute scene where we're suddenly supposed to feel sorry for the monster after we'd just spent 90 minutes watching it completely destroy New York and kill God only knows how many people. Only later did we find out that "Clover" was supposed to be a baby which could possibly change your opinion of him/her/it but throughout the movie we had no idea about that and just figured it was a destructive menace that needed to be destroyed before it killed anybody else.

Maybe if "Monsters" had gone the route of the monsters not actually being monsters at all but just aliens that weren't aggressive but the humans more or less went to war with them just because they're aliens then maybe my opinion of the movie would be different. Again, think of the Cloverfield monster being a scared baby that has no clue what it's doing but since it's so big it ends up destroying everything even though MAYBE it didn't mean to. If "Monsters" spent some of the movie delving into that aspect then the final scene would have been different. Instead the whole movie is spent showing how bad the things are, so at the end we see 2 bad things having sex which will probably result in one of, or both of them giving birth to many more bad things.
I think that's exactly what they did, but it was only revealed after you saw the final scene.

I thought the final scene between the 2 monsters was really well done. To me it had a nice blend of suspense and awe and made me reevaluate what I knew about the monsters. 1) You only saw TV footage of the monsters during battles. 2) One of the jungle guides said that they only seem to fight when provoked. (Self-defense?) 3) There was also talk of how the military bombs them, so that explains a lot of the destruction we see. Especially that one house where there was a dead monster on it. 4) They didn't seem to have atomic breath or anything, they were just really, really big and couldn't help but bust shit up when they move around.

I think Edwards played to our expectations and wanted us to think the monsters were bent on destruction (Did they kind of look like Cthulhu's head?), but that final scene suggests to me that maybe they are just aliens who somehow ended up on Earth and are trying to survive.
Old 03-15-11, 07:10 PM
  #66  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
CharlieK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,249
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Originally Posted by devilshalo
It's funny... while I liked the film, I really don't want big G to be about the human element. I want man in suit, radioactive fire breathing, city stomping destruction. What I got from it was a little less Cloverfield and more The Mist, just less destructive and suicidal.
Oh, I'm not interested in a Monsters-like version of Godzilla. But in so many of the classics like Jaws or Raiders or SW, they didn't forget about character. That's what I'm hoping he brings to the wanton destruction.
Old 03-15-11, 08:35 PM
  #67  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
sauce07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 6,547
Received 22 Likes on 16 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

What do you have against a couple soldiers sneaking off from group and getting it on in a field?
Old 03-15-11, 10:42 PM
  #68  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,306
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Originally Posted by CharlieK
I think that's exactly what they did, but it was only revealed after you saw the final scene.

I thought the final scene between the 2 monsters was really well done. To me it had a nice blend of suspense and awe and made me reevaluate what I knew about the monsters. 1) You only saw TV footage of the monsters during battles. 2) One of the jungle guides said that they only seem to fight when provoked. (Self-defense?) 3) There was also talk of how the military bombs them, so that explains a lot of the destruction we see. Especially that one house where there was a dead monster on it. 4) They didn't seem to have atomic breath or anything, they were just really, really big and couldn't help but bust shit up when they move around.

I think Edwards played to our expectations and wanted us to think the monsters were bent on destruction (Did they kind of look like Cthulhu's head?), but that final scene suggests to me that maybe they are just aliens who somehow ended up on Earth and are trying to survive.
I'd probably have to watch it again, but frankly I hated it, so I wouldn't want to waste my time. I really, really wanted to like this and tried hard to like it while I watched it, but it just plain sucked in my opinion.

Like I said, I'd probably have to watch it again because I just don't remember much, if any attempt at making the monsters out to be anything but monsters. If I remember correctly, there was news footage of them destroying things and I remember the jungle attack being an unprovoked attack.

Now, if you think about logically...most likely the aliens would not be aggressive or at least overly aggressive monsters that were Hell bent on destroying anything. Just as, in theory, the Cloverfield monster didn't try to destroy anything or kill anything. The aliens would simply be trying to survive and they wouldn't be evil. They were just animals...big ones from another world, but still just animals. There are no evil animals on Earth, except for some humans (but that's a different topic), so it seems unlikely that there would be evil animals from another world either.
Old 03-15-11, 11:07 PM
  #69  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 71,383
Received 122 Likes on 84 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

When they were discussing the wall on the American border, it almost seemed like they were talking about something else. I couldn't put my finger on it...
Old 03-16-11, 11:55 AM
  #70  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell
Posts: 34,175
Received 745 Likes on 545 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Originally Posted by Groucho
When they were discussing the wall on the American border, it almost seemed like they were talking about something else. I couldn't put my finger on it...
Es verdad.
Old 03-17-11, 09:16 AM
  #71  
DVD Talk Legend
 
d2cheer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 11,547
Received 278 Likes on 205 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Originally Posted by whoopdido
If they were attempting to portray the monsters as misunderstood creatures that got a bum rap they did a terrible job going about that since throughout the whole movie we're shown evidence that they're destructive and have killed many people and destroyed a lot of things. It would kind of be like at the end of Cloverfield, we're shown a 2 minute scene where we're suddenly supposed to feel sorry for the monster after we'd just spent 90 minutes watching it completely destroy New York and kill God only knows how many people. Only later did we find out that "Clover" was supposed to be a baby which could possibly change your opinion of him/her/it but throughout the movie we had no idea about that and just figured it was a destructive menace that needed to be destroyed before it killed anybody else.

Maybe if "Monsters" had gone the route of the monsters not actually being monsters at all but just aliens that weren't aggressive but the humans more or less went to war with them just because they're aliens then maybe my opinion of the movie would be different. Again, think of the Cloverfield monster being a scared baby that has no clue what it's doing but since it's so big it ends up destroying everything even though MAYBE it didn't mean to. If "Monsters" spent some of the movie delving into that aspect then the final scene would have been different. Instead the whole movie is spent showing how bad the things are, so at the end we see 2 bad things having sex which will probably result in one of, or both of them giving birth to many more bad things.
That sums it up pretty well, I didn't hate it or love it but thought it was just OK. If they were trying to portray the monsters as misunderstood as posted above they did a terrible job at it. The jungle attack pretty much ruled that out. No one did anything at first and many were killed.
Old 03-17-11, 09:35 AM
  #72  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
CharlieK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,249
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Originally Posted by d2cheer
That sums it up pretty well, I didn't hate it or love it but thought it was just OK. If they were trying to portray the monsters as misunderstood as posted above they did a terrible job at it. The jungle attack pretty much ruled that out. No one did anything at first and many were killed.
At the campfire, you heard gunshots and explosions over the radio so the other group was obviously engaging the monsters.

When the group jumps in their trucks to rescue the other group, they stop but leave their headlights on. We find out at the end that the monsters are attracted to, and probably consume electricity. They see the truck lights and pick them up to 'eat' them. As the truck crashes to the ground we can see the lights aren't on anymore.

They're not being aggressive, they're just having an inadvertently deadly and destructive snack.
Old 03-17-11, 09:38 AM
  #73  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
CharlieK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,249
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Originally Posted by whoopdido
Just as, in theory, the Cloverfield monster didn't try to destroy anything or kill anything.
Yeah, but those little, lice fuckers that fell off of it were pretty nasty.
Old 03-17-11, 09:53 AM
  #74  
DVD Talk Legend
 
d2cheer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 11,547
Received 278 Likes on 205 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Originally Posted by CharlieK
They're not being aggressive, they're just having an inadvertently deadly and destructive snack.
Inadvertantly or not if an animal (bear, wolf etc...) is being destructive like that it gets put down. I would not feel bad for it either. So if the film was going for that they failed IMHO.
Old 03-17-11, 10:06 AM
  #75  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
CharlieK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,249
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Monsters (2010) dir. Gareth Edwards

Originally Posted by d2cheer
Inadvertantly or not if an animal (bear, wolf etc...) is being destructive like that it gets put down.
Yep.

Originally Posted by d2cheer
I would not feel bad for it either. So if the film was going for that they failed IMHO.
I wouldn't feel bad either. It is what it is. We couldn't just let those things roam free and it looked like they reproduced pretty easily via the trees. I'm just saying the whole scenario sucked for everyone involved.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.