MONSTERS

sonnyboo

sonnyboo

monsterswebposter.jpg


Just saw this indie from UK director Gareth Edwards, a dude who is known for making top notch FX stuff all by himself, and it includes this movie. I was blown away by it's simplicity and beauty.

They played the movie off a DVD as an official release in the theater on digital projection, but it was a one time only official screening here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_-gL3U1T5Y

Flawless cinematography, editing, and sound/score.

It cost $200,000 to make and it's ON DEMAND and also in theaters, as well as still doing some fests.
 
Great flick, I ordered it from Comcast OnDemand and was very impressed. Though when I last checked, boxofficemojo priced it at $500 K (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=monsters2010.htm). Regardless, the movies made M $1.6 worldwide, I wish I could rack that kind of coin in any of my projects. It's good to see an Indie do so well.

Great flick that I recommend you watch if you can.
 
Yeah, I thought it was pretty cool. The $15K was an internet rumor (one that I personally bought into). The latest I've heard is that it was half a mil. Still though, very impressive.
 
Scoopicman said:
Original thread, HERE.
Click to expand...


In regards to people's reviews in that thread, it was a very slow movie and I guess if you prefer faster paced movies or expect a lot of action, this isn't the movie for you. It successfully avoided several cliches I was expecting. The character development and plot were made enjoyable to me.

I really liked this movie. I prefer a nice, slower paced movie that lets the atmosphere breathe and the characters say a lot more without words. This movie had more in common with THE AMERICAN and SEVEN POUNDS than it does CLOSE ENCOUNTERS or BLAIR WITCH, in terms of camera work and pacing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGYnRmWnwzg
 
Last edited:
Aaron.Faulkner said:
I remember when this first started popping up all over the web. Since then, I've wanted to see it. Can't wait 'til I finally get the opportunity!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8JpdND--g8

Can't get the YouTube thing to work right but that's another interesting video of Gareth talking about the film.
Click to expand...

Just use everything after the "=" from the URL of a YouTube video in the YouTube quoter thingy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8JpdND--g8
 
Sweet! Thank you very much.

Here's another Gareth Edwards video I thought was quite interesting. Not Monsters related but still an interesting look into how he does what he does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IK1WJ-oveE
 
It's getting a full cinematic release over here.

500k is the figure that I'm hearing bandied about at the moment, much more reasonable than that original 15k.

I'm going to see/review the film this week but I'm distressed at the amount of misreporting there's been about this film. I've read reviews which have said that Gareth Edwards did the effects on a laptop! And others suggesting this is just a hobby or that he was doing the effects using nothing but Photoshop and iMovie. Crazy reporting. The guy is super talented but has been a pro for quite a while. He did a documentary thing for the BBC as well...
 
My understanding is that he did all the FX work himself, or at least the lion's share. He seems to have a firm grasp on After Effects, Photoshop, and some 3D animation though, so I have little doubt he did this himself.
 
sonnyboo said:
My understanding is that he did all the FX work himself, or at least the lion's share. He seems to have a firm grasp on After Effects, Photoshop, and some 3D animation though, so I have little doubt he did this himself.
Click to expand...

I wasn't intending to dispute this. I have also heard that he did it all himself, but the animation is of such a quality that there is no way it was done using amateur/consumer products. Plus this is the guys career and there are some online videos of him doing absolute wizardry.
 
Having seen some more of his work, believe me, he did it himself, and it was with off the shelf software and computers, as that is not that different than what the big boys use these days.

With quad core processors and 64 bit OS and software, a home PC and a CGI tech workstation at ILM aren't that far apart.
 
NickClapper said:
I wasn't intending to dispute this. I have also heard that he did it all himself, but the animation is of such a quality that there is no way it was done using amateur/consumer products. Plus this is the guys career and there are some online videos of him doing absolute wizardry.
Click to expand...

Well, I can't verify or deny any claims about what "Monsters" was made on, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume that it couldn't have been made on a regular ol computer. Even the weakest computer on the market today is considerably more powerful than those which "Jurassic Park" were made on.
 
No, ok, I concede the point about the equipment (although from his production videos you can see that he uses top end consumer equipment and does have a team of people assisting him).

What I contest is that this guy is an amateur filmmaker. For those of us who've seen bits of his work on Attilla the Hun for BBC 1, it's clear that this guy is as serious as any of the top filmmakers. Yes it was done on the cheap and off the cuff, but it wasn't edited on iMovie, the special effects weren't done on a laptop and this is his job not a hobby.

My problem is purely with the press using massive hyperbole in describing the film's indie origins...
 
sonnyboo said:
The end credits roll wasn't very long at all for MONSTERS. There is no one else listed for visual FX.
Click to expand...
I meant for "Jurassic". Cracker mentioned that they used comparatively "primitive" computers. My point was "Jurassic" used a lot of computers and had huge visual and special FX departments to make up for that "deficiency".
 
Last edited:
My problem with MONSTERS wasn't that it was slow. I can handle slow...especially when it comes to love making. :blush:

I really didn't have a problem with it at all. Just felt that it could have used more monsters, since it was called MONSTERS. But it was a nice little character piece.
 
NicklausLouis said:
My problem with MONSTERS wasn't that it was slow. I can handle slow...especially when it comes to love making. :blush:

I really didn't have a problem with it at all. Just felt that it could have used more monsters, since it was called MONSTERS. But it was a nice little character piece.
Click to expand...

Full agreement. I enjoyed the movie well enough. But it's poorly named.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top