Heard of this movie?

Cracker Funk

Cracker Funk

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/monsters/

2-man crew, shot with a prosumer camera (and letus adapter), production budget of $15K.

It's already made almost three quarters of a million-dollars, and it hasn't even been released in the US, yet. I'm contemplating watching it on-demand, because I seriously doubt it will make it's way to Richmond (I'm guessing they won't have that many prints to distribute).
 
i havent seen this movie or the other 2 i am about to mention, but judging by the trailers it looks like they are trying to make it look like a cross between cloverfield and avatar
 
The trailer is pretty nice, looks like a good movie to me.... I hope its better than Cloverfield.....


-- spinner :cool:
 
I'll repost what I said on another forum:


MONSTERS is one of the most boring "monster" movies you will ever see. There is one JURASSIC PARK-like scene, when their caravan of cars get attacked. Otherwise, it's all just a backdrop as the lead guy and girl spend too much time quibbling while trying to hike back to the U.S. border.



What I do have to credit the director with is doing his own FX that look as good as anything Hollywood could put out. No exaggeration there, as the squids, I mean, monsters look real. Just as impressive, is how he puts a car in a tree, a crashed helicopter on the roadway and a jet fighter turning over in a river. They look fantastic.

The crew was just the director (Gareth Edwards), a soundman, line producer and a translator, plus the 2 main actors. They travelled through about 5 countries and though the production is spartan, I think $15,000 is an exaggeration. If I told you to shoot in 5 countries, with 6 people, on 15 grand, could you do that and have anything left over for actual filmmaking???? Any amount close to that is still very impressive, though. There is a nice little featurette on IMDB:



MONSTERS featurette


As you know, little movies like PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and BLAIR WITCH look cheap, but deliver a scare. MONSTERS is the opposite - it is brimming with quality, but there are no scares, save for some tension in the caravan scene. CLOVERFIELD this is not!!! This movie is about 6 monster attacks short of being an actual "monster" movie. It does look great, though - authenticy of the locations, the actors, fx, etc.

The director gets huge props, because Gareth is capable of making anything, and I mean "anything." This guy must be some sort of genius prodigy. Even more impressive is his work on BBC's ATTILA. You want to see "amazing?" Check this out:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IK1WJ-oveE
 
There's also nothing stopping anyone from capturing good dialogue and making a rockin' final mix for their film either :)
 
SinEater said:
Wait, Cracker Funk is talking about a movie that's not Avatar or Puffy Chair?!

*head explodes*
Click to expand...

You're right, those are the only movies I talk about.

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=26140

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=25984

Not to mention all of the shorts that are screened here that I offer critiques on (in fact, I probably offer more critiques than anyone else here, if not, I'm close).

Nice introduction, SinEater. I'm glad to meet you, too.
 
I've heard mixed things about Monsters itself (i'll see it when it comes to Britain) but that Attila featurette is seriously cool/clever.

I wish I could do that.
 
Scoopicman said:
I'll repost what I said on another forum:


MONSTERS is one of the most boring "monster" movies you will ever see. There is one JURASSIC PARK-like scene, when their caravan of cars get attacked. Otherwise, it's all just a backdrop as the lead guy and girl spend too much time quibbling while trying to hike back to the U.S. border.



What I do have to credit the director with is doing his own FX that look as good as anything Hollywood could put out. No exaggeration there, as the squids, I mean, monsters look real. Just as impressive, is how he puts a car in a tree, a crashed helicopter on the roadway and a jet fighter turning over in a river. They look fantastic.

The crew was just the director (Gareth Edwards), a soundman, line producer and a translator, plus the 2 main actors. They travelled through about 5 countries and though the production is spartan, I think $15,000 is an exaggeration. If I told you to shoot in 5 countries, with 6 people, on 15 grand, could you do that and have anything left over for actual filmmaking???? Any amount close to that is still very impressive, though. There is a nice little featurette on IMDB:



MONSTERS featurette


As you know, little movies like PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and BLAIR WITCH look cheap, but deliver a scare. MONSTERS is the opposite - it is brimming with quality, but there are no scares, save for some tension in the caravan scene. CLOVERFIELD this is not!!! This movie is about 6 monster attacks short of being an actual "monster" movie. It does look great, though - authenticy of the locations, the actors, fx, etc.

The director gets huge props, because Gareth is capable of making anything, and I mean "anything." This guy must be some sort of genius prodigy. Even more impressive is his work on BBC's ATTILA. You want to see "amazing?" Check this out:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IK1WJ-oveE
Click to expand...

Actually, I totally believe they could make this movie on $15K. The majority of that was probably travel, room and board. I mean, there were very few scenes in this movie that couldn't have been done ultra-low-budget guerilla style. Plus, don't forget, for most of the movie we're not talking about a $15K budget, but a 37 gazillion pesos budget.

I just finished watching it. I agree with your assessment that this is really not a Monster Movie. So, if you go in expecting that, I can see why you'd be let down. It's more of a Road Trip Movie, but one that takes place in a post-apocolyptic-monster-attack setting. And in that respect, I didn't think it was half bad. In particular, I thought the girl's acting was quite nice.

Also, why does a movie have to be like all the others before it, in a particular genre? "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" didn't have any alien attacks, and was mostly just about a dude going bat-shit crazy over aliens. Mind you, "Monsters" is no "Close Encounters", but at least I enjoyed watching it. My final grade? Mmm, I'll say "C+".
 
SinEater said:
Haha, I meant it as a joke, I didn't mean to offend. I have nothing but respect for you, Cracker. I look forward to watching Antihero once it's finished.
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks man. I would've taken it as a joke if I'd had more interactions with you, so we'll call this one a do-over, on both our parts. Cheers! :)













I guess it's also worth noting that I may be a tad sensitive, in this respect because, believe it or not, some people are not so fond of me, and have stated so, publicly. I know, that's crazy, right? Anyway, I'm glad it was just a miscommunication; sorry if I over-reacted.
 
Last edited:
That's a fair grade. From the perspective of an indie filmmaker, it is nothing short of impressive. Those of you who heard me call it boring are going to have the right "expectations" and will probably enjoy the movie.

I watched it with a group of 15 people, who were not filmmakers, though a couple of them are reviewers and a couple more are artists. They could care a less about the movie's budget. They were just plain bored to the point where the guy next to me started playing mini-games on his I-Phone. After it was over, one of the reviewer ladies asked, "How the hell did this get 6.9, on IMDB?" The rest of them talked about how they were expecting a monster movie and were extremely disappointed.

Again, I think a filmmaker oriented crowd would have a different reaction. I was okay with the movie, but I just didn't care if the lead character slept with a hooker, while his engaged to be married lady partner got jealous. I wanted to see some chasing, screaming and hiding!! :D

Cracker Funk said:
Also, why does a movie have to be like all the others before it, in a particular genre?
Click to expand...

I absolutely loved PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and a lot of people were bored by it. Regardless, it had a couple of scares. If MONSTERS wasn't really going to be much about monsters, then change the title or try for a pay-off scare. Being different is not the same as being misleading.



One more comment about the crew. I noticed in the featurette, they mentioned that there were also a couple of editors cutting the movie in their hotel rooms, while the others shot. That brings it up to 8 people in 5 countries. I would be impressed with the quality, even at $100,000. It looked great. But the whole "we did this for 15 grand" can mislead people into thinking that is all that is needed to make a great movie. The actors were experienced, as was Gareth Edwards. I've never seen an indie pull of FX as good as those! There is a lot of value in those elements that probably couldn't be replicated by any one here - at least for 15 grand.

Just my thoughts.
 
Scoopicman said:
The actors were experienced, as was Gareth Edwards. I've never seen an indie pull of FX as good as those! There is a lot of value in those elements that probably couldn't be replicated by any one here - at least for 15 grand.
Click to expand...

Very true. Also, you're right to point out how incredibly misleading the title is.

This movie's got me thinking though -- maybe I should piece together a nice script, with a medium/small main cast, that takes place in an exotic location -- say, the Phillipines, where the American dollar goes a loooooong way. Only problem is that airfare to the P.I. would negate any savings elsewhere. Maybe plane ticket to Thailand would be cheaper? Or maybe somewhere in Central America is a good option?
 
You've changed your profile info to some kind of "gun runner" tale! Didn't you used to live in AZ? Pretty easy to cross the border there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top