You're in some city in Mexico and a Monster has just attacked.  It that time of year when the Monsters escape from the infected area.  All the inhabitants are used to it.  

Your boss asked you to pick up his daughter who ran away from her fiancee to Mexico.  She's done something, not too serious, to her arm and she's really pretty so you don't mind too much.

For some reason you decide not to take a plane back home. Maybe you missed them all, maybe it wasn't in budget, or maybe there would be no story.  Instead you decide to take a train across the infected area.  And your boss complicates things by telling you seconds before you depart that you better get his daughter home safe or it's your job.

The train you're on stops in the middle of nowhere. It's going to turn back because there's some monster action up ahead, we can tell by the CGI fighters streaming across the sky and the glow of bombs dropping behind the mountain.  The train's going back to the city.

But do you stay on the train.  No. You get off, in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of the night, in infected Mexico, with a monster fight going on a few kilometers away and expect to what?  What could you possibly expect to do?

And that is the first act of Monsters, well maybe a bit more than that actually.  

Despite this, I thought the movie was entertaining. It tells the stories of these two people thrown together by stupid but dangerous circumstances.  And by the end it connects those stories to the Monsters - in a weird way but it connects it.

The movie has a bit of suspense,  the story is just enough to keep you going through the non-suspenseful parts.  The director has done a splendid job of world-creation on a very small budget, $15,000 US (reputedly).  

Unfortunately there isn't much monster in Monsters so if you were hoping for a creature feature - this isn't one.  This is much more like Cloverfield, without the very shaky camera and with even less monster.  The little you do see however, is creative.  

I'm going to give this a thumbs up but just don't go into it expecting lots of action.  You won't get it.

EDIT:  I forgot to mention this but watch how this movie sticks to formula.  Gareth Edwards definitely read Save the Cat.

Mcornetto,
Think the new indie marketing tactic is to release these types of films on ITunes and Xbox live. From the positive buzz I've read on this I thought they could have gone for a Cloverfield/District 9 approach, but I saw this one on Xbox for the price of a theater ticket before it was even released to theaters.

Seems like distributers are desperate to build buzz on films like this. Personally, I think the approach they've taken here cheapens their film. Doing a slow build theatrically would have been better. It seems like they are selling themselves short and this had the real potential to be a Paranormal Activity type success (maybe not $ wise, but I still think this less than $1 million budget flick could have easily made $25 million worldwide).

It will be interesting to see how the film fares in the next few weeks and if their marketing approach worked.
Nate

P.S., I just watched the "i'm Still Here"  the Joaquin Pheonix thing on Xboxlive...3 weeks after it was released in theaters... that doesn't give a whole lot of incentive to people who are willing to seek out indie films in theaters when they can watch it for next to nothing online.

To clarify, the rental for "I'm still Here", cost roughly $7 to rent for myself and two friends to watch on Xbox live, compared to the $30'ish it would have cost too see it at a theater..(and if given the chance we would have seen it with a crowd in major markets only minutes away from us in mainstream California)

That doesn't sound too promising for the future of independent film... I certainly hope this is only a phase and it won't catch on.

Interesting little movie. If what I've read about the production cost of this movie is true then I'm impressed. It's remarkable what you can squeeze out of half a million dollars. Okay, some of the Aircraft looked a little too CGI but the monsters themselves - what little you see of them - look quite good, actually very good.

It's a slow movie with relatively little action but it works regardless because the atmosphere builds up rather cleverly. The acting is good as well - the two main characters' arcs are good - a little predictable - but good.

Damn, the crazy barking woman spooked the hell of out me!

The most interesting part about the movie is obviously the monsters themselves. Like I stated earlier, you don't see a whole lot of them but the end scene at the gas station definitely gives you a glimpse of the "true" side of the monsters. Touching.

I doubt this'll be a hit but I'm glad I saw it and will definitely recommend it.

I think it's the best $15,000 movie I have ever seen.
Gareth Edwards really makes this look like a heck of a lot more than what he had.
I applaud the central American guerilla film making style.
It reminds of when William Friedkin stole shots for The French Connection.
I'll be interested to hear the audio commentary for this film.

I was on board for this one until the climax at the gas station.
It took me right out of the movie and here's why...

I know this movie only cost 15k. What does that tell me?
It tells me not a single thing is going to break or blow up at that gas station.
If you're making a monster movie on a shoestring budget, don't use a gas station.
Any other building would have been fine, but that one really distracted me.
I know it's weird of me, but there it is. I knew that tentacle wouldn't do any damage.

Still, a fantastic effort, I wonder what Edwards will do with more cash.

E.D.

For the money spent, this was a pretty well shot film.

MONSTERS is essentially a DIY "Shoot principle photography then add Adobe After Effects compositing"

This is the same approach The Brothers Strause took with SKYLINE, a cr@p film - but largely because their story writing sucks!

Compare these two features together:

(You can click on these purple titles to my recent DVD extra's technical reviews)
MONSTERS   -   SKYLINE

Principle Photography
   $50k est.    -   $500k  

Post Effects
          <$500k      -   $<$10m-$20m

Gross Revenue
$4.5m    -    $67.5m
(It just isn't fair.   )


Both are independent films. (<50% financed by a studio)
Both are writer/directors/editors
Both look beautiful.
SFX in either are fine.

But the story in the ad libbed MONSTERS was sooooo much better than that of the much more expensive SKYLINE.

Budgets and SFX really don't and can't save a story's a$$.

This is how important your stories are, and in the end... it might not even matter.