42 replies to this topic

[Peter T Chattaway]

Links to our threads on other recent past, present and future alien-invasion and -visitation movies such as Cloverfield (2008), Monsters Vs. Aliens (2009), District 9 (2009), The Fourth Kind (2009), Skyline (2010), Apollo 18 (2011), Battle: Los Angeles (2011), Battleship (2011), Cowboys & Aliens (2011), Super 8 (2011), Paul (2011), Dark Moon (in development) and Under the Skin (in development).

So ... somehow Skyline (which I haven't seen, apart from a clip or two online) has a Tomatometer reading of only 29% right now, but Monsters (which I saw at this year's film festival) is up at 62%. Anybody want to explain this to me?

Edited by Peter T Chattaway, 12 November 2010 - 12:11 PM.

[morgan1098]

I haven't seen either one, but are you suggesting the ratings should be reversed? Based on the trailers alone, Monsters looks more interesting to me than Skyline. Then again, I prefer District 9 to Independence Day.

Edited by morgan1098, 12 November 2010 - 12:04 PM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

I haven't seen Skyline, so I can't say whether the ratings should be reversed. All I know is that Monsters is boring, banal, and generally pointless on every possible level. I wrote a blurb during the festival but didn't get a chance to finish it before sickness and scheduling caught up with me; maybe I should repurpose it for a two-movie-in-one screed on why even can-do low-budget movies about aliens can suck. But of course, before I could write said screed, I would have to actually see Skyline first.

[David Smedberg]

Heh.

Peter, I watched My Dog Tulip at my local indie theater (thoughts to come), and I dropped into the last 15 mins of Monsters to gauge whether I should stay and see it too. I did not stay. It looked like it would be confusing above all else.

[David Smedberg]

P.S. I just saw Skyline, and I'm astonished it even has a single positive review. Maybe they didn't stay until the end. Let's just say: Every way that the Wicked Witch of the East is dead, I hate the ending of Skyline that way.

Monsters simply couldn't have been that bad. It couldn't.

[SDG]

David Smedberg, on 13 November 2010 - 02:28 AM, said:

P.S. I just saw Skyline, and I'm astonished it even has a single positive review. Maybe they didn't stay until the end. Let's just say: Every way that the Wicked Witch of the East is dead, I hate the ending of Skyline that way.

[Christian]

David Smedberg, on 13 November 2010 - 02:28 AM, said:

P.S. I just saw Skyline, and I'm astonished it even has a single positive review. Maybe they didn't stay until the end. Let's just say: Every way that the Wicked Witch of the East is dead, I hate the ending of Skyline that way.

Monsters simply couldn't have been that bad. It couldn't.

The final 15 minutes of Monsters give you the best view of the creatures. If that's what you're interested in, you've seen the best part of the film.

I was hopeful that Monsters would work as allegory, while delivering some monster-movie thrills, but it got less interesting as it went. Well before the end of its short running time, I was ready to be free of the film. I tried to stay attentive, hoping something later in the story would force me to reconsider my growing apathy as the film unspooled, but it just didn't happen.

Andrew O'Hehir loved it, FWIW. Wish I shared his reaction.

Edited by Christian, 13 November 2010 - 09:35 AM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

FWIW, here's the blurb I wrote and then parked on my hard drive, with a few minor edits:

Alien lifeforms have "infested" northern Mexico, and a caddish photojournalist has to escort his boss's daughter back to the United States so that she can marry her fiancé. Sounds like a premise with potential, no? Anyone looking for a cross between District 9 and It Happened One Night will be sorely disappointed, though. The conversations between our unlikely couple are banal in the extreme, and what few glimpses we get of the monsters themselves are nothing special (and there are, indeed, very few such glimpses, despite the movie's title). Oh, and the photojournalist character, in particular, is so stupid as to be annoying: he's been told to bring his boss's daughter safely home, so what does he do on the night before they're supposed to catch their ferry? He gets drunk, makes a pass at her, and then, when she goes back to her room without him, he gets even more drunk, sleeps with a complete stranger, and then acts surprised when his one-night stand steals his passport. Perhaps there wouldn't have been a story to tell if this character hadn't screwed up like that, but it's probably not a good idea to let the audience spend the rest of the movie thinking, "This guy deserves whatever he gets, now." As for the creature effects, they're nothing you haven't already seen in movies like The Mist. (The one genuine jolt comes not from one of the monsters, but from a woman pushing a grocery cart, if that tells you anything.) Writer-director Gareth Edwards may have gotten his start in visual effects, but to judge by what's on screen, he didn't have to call in all that many favours to get this movie made. And despite the giant wall we see on the American-Mexican border, there's no real political subtext to this movie, either. It's just kind of pointless in about every conceivable way.

I have since been told that the budget was even lower than I thought, so I partly rescind the bit about not needing to call in all that many favours to get this movie made; obviously, quite a few people must have worked for free on this, just in terms of the acting or working the equipment or whatever. But there are still far, far fewer visual effects than you might have expected, given the director's pedigree and how the movie is being sold. You're mostly just stuck with these two people, neither of whom is particularly sympathetic.

[Scott Derrickson]

Peter T Chattaway, on 13 November 2010 - 11:03 AM, said:

FWIW, here's the blurb I wrote and then parked on my hard drive, with a few minor edits:

Alien lifeforms have "infested" northern Mexico, and a caddish photojournalist has to escort his boss's daughter back to the United States so that she can marry her fiancé. Sounds like a premise with potential, no? Anyone looking for a cross between District 9 and It Happened One Night will be sorely disappointed, though. The conversations between our unlikely couple are banal in the extreme, and what few glimpses we get of the monsters themselves are nothing special (and there are, indeed, very few such glimpses, despite the movie's title). Oh, and the photojournalist character, in particular, is so stupid as to be annoying: he's been told to bring his boss's daughter safely home, so what does he do on the night before they're supposed to catch their ferry? He gets drunk, makes a pass at her, and then, when she goes back to her room without him, he gets even more drunk, sleeps with a complete stranger, and then acts surprised when his one-night stand steals his passport. Perhaps there wouldn't have been a story to tell if this character hadn't screwed up like that, but it's probably not a good idea to let the audience spend the rest of the movie thinking, "This guy deserves whatever he gets, now." As for the creature effects, they're nothing you haven't already seen in movies like The Mist. (The one genuine jolt comes not from one of the monsters, but from a woman pushing a grocery cart, if that tells you anything.) Writer-director Gareth Edwards may have gotten his start in visual effects, but to judge by what's on screen, he didn't have to call in all that many favours to get this movie made. And despite the giant wall we see on the American-Mexican border, there's no real political subtext to this movie, either. It's just kind of pointless in about every conceivable way.

I have since been told that the budget was even lower than I thought, so I partly rescind the bit about not needing to call in all that many favours to get this movie made; obviously, quite a few people must have worked for free on this, just in terms of the acting or working the equipment or whatever. But there are still far, far fewer visual effects than you might have expected, given the director's pedigree and how the movie is being sold. You're mostly just stuck with these two people, neither of whom is particularly sympathetic.

Boy, do I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote here, Peter. I just saw this last night, and I thought it was outstanding - especially for a film made for 800K. I infer from your blurb that perhaps YOU were looking for a cross between District 9 and It Happened One Night. Whether you were or you weren't, I think it's pointless and unfair to the makers of the film to compare Monsters to an imaginary film you think you'd enjoy more.

As for the blunder of the main character, I loved it. It felt about as true-to-life as it gets. Waking up in a Mexican hotel room with a one-night stand, then stumbling outside while hungover is exactly the kind of singular mistake that normal people in the world make when they drink too much. Yes it was stupid of him - but otherwise he demonstrated tremendous decency and unselfishness in the film - and yes, he paid dearly for his mistake, and did his best to recover from it.

What you seemed to miss in the film was the remarkable poetry of the imagery and the interesting blend of wondrous eyes-open patience with subtly mounting tension - I found this blend very unique and engaging.

There is a huge, obvious metaphor in the film about immigration/fear of the immigrant, which gives each sequence unique political subtext.

As for visual effects, you are repeating the same mistake I saw critics make with Children of Men: many critics couldn't understand why that film cost 80 million and had so few visual effects -- but just because you can't pick out the visual effects doesn't mean they're not there. In fact, the best effects never feel like effects. There are hundreds of effects shots in Monsters, but they're so good, they don't feel like effect shots. Why do you think the production value was so rich and full? Do you think all those planes and helicopters were real? Do you think they built all those downed aircraft, giant signs, and the huge separation wall? On a budget of 800K? Only because I have a much better than average eye for picking out effects and because I understand what's impossible on an 800K budget, I was able to see just how many effects shots there were in this film - they were everywhere.

And lastly, you seemed to completely miss the poetry and emotional significance of the ending, which is really what the film is about. The final scene was an epic achievement, even if it wasn't flawless. The film may not provide much cerebral information to dissect, but the aesthetic experience and emotional journey of these characters was deeply fulfilling for me. And the scene-to-scene directing and use of natural locations was phenomenal - absolute first class filmmaking.

I've never seen more accomplished with less money in a film.

Edited by Scott Derrickson, 14 March 2011 - 12:08 AM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Scott Derrickson wrote:
: I just saw this last night, and I thought it was outstanding - especially for a film made for 800K.

The budget is relevant to a discussion of the effects. Not so much the writing and acting, such as they are.

: I infer from your blurb that perhaps YOU were looking for a cross between District 9 and It Happened One Night.

Um, well, no, I came up with that description after I saw the film as a way of articulating what I had seen. I might have gone into the film with a vague premonition of something District 9-ish, since it's got aliens etc. (but even then, I would have taken into account the fact that this film did not have the millions of dollars or mentorship of Peter Jackson that that other film had), but I had no idea what the actual story was going to be, so there was absolutely no way for me to anticipate anything It Happened One Night-ish.

: There is a huge, obvious metaphor in the film about immigration/fear of the immigrant, which gives each sequence unique political subtext.

Details, please. I grant that the movie begins in Mexico and is all about people trying to cross into the United States. That would be the "huge, obvious" part that I acknowledged when I referred to the giant wall at the border. But beyond that...?

: As for visual effects, you are repeating the same mistake I saw critics make with Children of Men: many critics couldn't understand why that film cost 80 million and had so few visual effects . . .

Wow, I remember MANY criticisms of that film (such as its "huge, obvious subtext"), but not THAT one.

: There are hundreds of effects shots in Monsters, but they're so good, they don't feel like effect shots.

That's a fair point. FWIW, I don't think I knew the film's budget when I wrote the above blurb, so I wasn't looking at the production design and thinking "digital or practical?" the whole time. When I talked about "effects", I was primarily thinking of the aliens themselves (a la my reference to "creature effects" specifically).

: And lastly, you seemed to completely miss the poetry and emotional significance of the ending, which is really what the film is about.

I didn't miss it so much as I didn't find it particularly impressive. I'm tempted to say it was even kind of trite.

[Scott Derrickson]

Quote

: I just saw this last night, and I thought it was outstanding - especially for a film made for 800K.

The budget is relevant to a discussion of the effects. Not so much the writing and acting, such as they are.

The budget more often than not has everything to do with acting quality, in that more money means more shooting time; the more takes, the more footage available to cut together a good performance. The budget is also relevant to the production quality, the cinematography, the sound design, the score, etc...

And it's my understanding that most of the acting was improv work that wasn't scripted.

Quote

: I infer from your blurb that perhaps YOU were looking for a cross between District 9 and It Happened One Night.

Um, well, no, I came up with that description after I saw the film as a way of articulating what I had seen. I might have gone into the film with a vague premonition of something District 9-ish, since it's got aliens etc. (but even then, I would have taken into account the fact that this film did not have the millions of dollars or mentorship of Peter Jackson that that other film had), but I had no idea what the actual story was going to be, so there was absolutely no way for me to anticipate anything It Happened One Night-ish.

Um, well, I never thought you were actually looking for that. My point was that it seems unfair to blast the film for not being more like other films it made you think of.

Quote

: There is a huge, obvious metaphor in the film about immigration/fear of the immigrant, which gives each sequence unique political subtext.

Details, please. I grant that the movie begins in Mexico and is all about people trying to cross into the United States. That would be the "huge, obvious" part that I acknowledged when I referred to the giant wall at the border. But beyond that...?

I was struck by the fact that these aliens weren't advanced intelligences who invaded our world. They're animals following their instincts without evil intention. Mexican immigrants, like the creatures, are simply doing what they can to survive -- they are not motivated to cross the US border just to steal jobs. More importantly, the characters -- two white Americans -- are forced to experience firsthand the perils and difficulties of the immigrant journey. To me, much of the movie is about empathy for immigrants who must make the difficult and perilous trek. In that respect, to that say this movie has no political subtext is like saying El Norte has no political subtext. And all that said, I like the fact that the film doesn't feel like a liberal tract either. There are as many if not more opportunistic Mexicans as there are gracious, helpful ones, and even when you compare the aliens to Mexicans, the film isn't a simple call for tolerance as the sheer size (i.e. volume) of the creatures makes them dangerous and damaging, and containing them seems like an obvious necessity.

Quote

: : And lastly, you seemed to completely miss the poetry and emotional significance of the ending, which is really what the film is about.

I didn't miss it so much as I didn't find it particularly impressive. I'm tempted to say it was even kind of trite.

Trite? It's the first time I've ever seen aliens without recognizable faces connecting and relating to each other in a way that emotionally moves the characters (and myself as a viewer). Even if you weren't moved, you should be impressed - the fact that it worked on any level at all is a grand achievement. It's not like any scene you've ever seen before; trite it is not.

Edited by Scott Derrickson, 02 March 2011 - 01:43 AM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Scott Derrickson wrote:
: And it's my understanding that most of the acting was improv work that wasn't scripted.

It shows.

: My point was that it seems unfair to blast the film for not being more like other films it made you think of.

But that's not what I was doing. I was blasting the film (or its characters, at any rate) for being dull, witless and annoying. I mention It Happened One Night only to give the reader a sense of what kind of narrative premise this movie is working with, and to acknowledge that a movie with this sort of narrative premise does not have to be as dull, witless and annoying as this particular movie is. I am certainly NOT saying that this film needed to be more Capra-esque, or whatever.

: I was struck by the fact that these aliens weren't advanced intelligences who invaded our world. They're animals following their instincts without evil intention. Mexican immigrants, like the creatures, are simply doing what they can to survive . . .

Well, two points: First, the lack of evil intentions does not necessarily mean that the aliens don't pose a threat. (You acknowledge this further down.) Second, while it may be plausible to suppose that all of the ALIENS are simply animals following their instincts, it would NOT be plausible to suppose that all IMMIGRANTS are free of evil intentions; they are human beings, after all. So the analogy falls apart at that level.

: To me, much of the movie is about empathy for immigrants who must make the difficult and perilous trek.

Are we given any reason to believe that the journey is difficult and perilous FOR THE ALIENS? Are not, in fact, the aliens themselves the reason why the trek is so difficult and perilous in the first place? (What does THIS do to the movie's political subtext?)

: Trite? It's the first time I've ever seen aliens without recognizable faces connecting and relating to each other in a way that emotionally moves the characters (and myself as a viewer).

I dunno, to me it feels like the sort of thing Star Trek has been doing for years, if not decades. (I find myself thinking of 'The Devil in the Dark', the 1967 episode that introduced the Horta -- but of course, there, the adult Horta was alone and protecting its eggs, and did not get to interact with other adult Hortas.) And in order to find the aliens moving (or in order to find the characters moving, or in order to find the aliens as moving as the characters do, etc.), I'd first have to be invested in them in some way. But the movie didn't really give me any reason to care about the aliens OR the humans prior to that point. If anything, like I said above, it kept the aliens too hidden and made the humans too unsympathetic.

[Scott Derrickson]

Peter T Chattaway, on 02 March 2011 - 04:39 AM, said:

Scott Derrickson wrote:
: And it's my understanding that most of the acting was improv work that wasn't scripted.

It shows.

Agreed. It's why the performances feel so real.

Quote

Well, two points: First, the lack of evil intentions does not necessarily mean that the aliens don't pose a threat. (You acknowledge this further down.) Second, while it may be plausible to suppose that all of the ALIENS are simply animals following their instincts, it would NOT be plausible to suppose that all IMMIGRANTS are free of evil intentions; they are human beings, after all. So the analogy falls apart at that level.

No it doesn't. The analogy holds up because the film supposes that MOST immigrants are free of evil intentions. That's the point, and the film makes it.

Quote

: Are we given any reason to believe that the journey is difficult and perilous FOR THE ALIENS? Are not, in fact, the aliens themselves the reason why the trek is so difficult and perilous in the first place? (What does THIS do to the movie's political subtext?)

Why can't the circumstances of both the aliens AND the two white Americans be allegorical of Mexican immigrants? The political subtext exists within every perilous situation both the monsters and the main characters find themselves in as they try to survive. As I said before, what's interesting and sophisticated is that the aliens are to big to just be ignored, just as the the influx of Mexican immigrants are too many to just be ignored. But what's missing from the political debate regarding Mexican border crossing is empathy and understanding for the difficulty and need of those trying to cross, which we get from our main characters in their role-reversal.

Quote

: Trite? It's the first time I've ever seen aliens without recognizable faces connecting and relating to each other in a way that emotionally moves the characters (and myself as a viewer).

I dunno, to me it feels like the sort of thing Star Trek has been doing for years, if not decades. (I find myself thinking of 'The Devil in the Dark', the 1967 episode that introduced the Horta -- but of course, there, the adult Horta was alone and protecting its eggs, and did not get to interact with other adult Hortas.) And in order to find the aliens moving (or in order to find the characters moving, or in order to find the aliens as moving as the characters do, etc.), I'd first have to be invested in them in some way. But the movie didn't really give me any reason to care about the aliens OR the humans prior to that point. If anything, like I said above, it kept the aliens too hidden and made the humans too unsympathetic.

I think the fact that the Hortas were simply acting as all natural creatures act -- protecting their young -- makes them categorically different. I didn't care about the aliens until that point either, and then I realized that the aliens were in EXACTLY the same situation as the main characters, and were able to connect and communicate and bond just as the human characters did under duress. And I did care about them - the human characters.

I started watching the hour long doc on the blu ray about the making of the movie. I highly recommend it, as it demonstrates how filmmaking is changing because of technology. This really was a guerilla style shoot -- basically five people, a camera, and one light. And I've been told that the director did all the effects himself on his home computer. The quality of the effects are excellent considering...

Edited by Scott Derrickson, 02 March 2011 - 11:00 AM.

[Overstreet]

Well, this has all convinced me of one thing: I'd better see this film.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Scott Derrickson wrote:
: Agreed. It's why the performances feel so real.

Really annoying, at any rate.

: The analogy holds up because the film supposes that MOST immigrants are free of evil intentions.

The film doesn't suppose anything about immigrants AT ALL. They simply aren't there in the text at all, at least not that I can recall. There may or may not be an illegal-immigrant SUBtext, but to the extent that there is, the film advances the idea -- as you yourself pointed out -- that aliens can still be a threat even when they have no evil intentions.

: Why can't the circumstances of both the aliens AND the two white Americans be allegorical of Mexican immigrants?

Because the two Americans are going home and the aliens are not, for one thing.

: I think the fact that the Hortas were simply acting as all natural creatures act -- protecting their young -- makes them categorically different.

Well, maybe, and maybe not. How many other mere animals has Spock mind-melded with? How many other mere animals have struck a partnership with the Federation and its representatives once communication had been established between them?

: I didn't care about the aliens until that point either, and then I realized that the aliens were in EXACTLY the same situation as the main characters, and were able to connect and communicate and bond just as the human characters did under duress.

Well, like I say, there's nothing particularly novel about that. But for what it's worth, I think what made the ending seem even more trite to me is precisely the way the "Oh, look, aliens can share their feelings too!" bit was immediately turned back on the human characters -- who, as noted, had done nothing to win my sympathy in the first place. (And I certainly didn't buy them as a COUPLE.)

: And I did care about them - the human characters.

And I didn't. *shrug*

Like I say, someone who gets orders from his boss to protect the boss's daughter, gets drunk, makes a pass at the daughter in question, then gets even MORE drunk, then has a one-night stand with a total stranger in a foreign country, and THEN leaves his wallet behind, etc., etc. ... there's just way too much "LOSER" built into that character right from the get-go. After an intro like that, the character would have to work hard to earn my sympathy, and he doesn't. (I can appreciate that, if you look at only one or two of those elements, his behaviour might seem "normal" ... but when you look at the entire pile-up of behaviours, it gets harder to maintain that stance.)

: I started watching the hour long doc on the blu ray about the making of the movie. I highly recommend it, as it demonstrates how filmmaking is changing because of technology.

That DOES sound interesting. I'll see if I can check it out sometime.

[Scott Derrickson]

Quote

: There may or may not be an illegal-immigrant SUBtext, but to the extent that there is, the film advances the idea -- as you yourself pointed out -- that aliens can still be a threat even when they have no evil intentions.

Yes, that was my point. I was arguing against your claim that there was "no real political subtext to this movie." There is political subtext and that's part of it.

Quote

: Why can't the circumstances of both the aliens AND the two white Americans be allegorical of Mexican immigrants?

Because the two Americans are going home and the aliens are not, for one thing.

So? That's not required for the allegory to exist. The point -- as I implied earlier -- is that the allegory is found in a white American role reversal where the main characters are forced to experience firsthand the difficult Mexican immigrant (especially illegal immigrant) experience.

To me, your argument is about as convincing as saying there was no nativity allegory in Children of Men because Clive Owen wasn't taking the girl to Bethlehem.

Quote

: I think the fact that the Hortas were simply acting as all natural creatures act -- protecting their young -- makes them categorically different.

Well, maybe, and maybe not. How many other mere animals has Spock mind-melded with? How many other mere animals have struck a partnership with the Federation and its representatives once communication had been established between them?

The point I was trying to make about the impressiveness of the ending had more to do with the particular visuals - the fact that giant CG creatures with no human characteristics communicated something that seemed so...human.

Quote

: I didn't care about the aliens until that point either, and then I realized that the aliens were in EXACTLY the same situation as the main characters, and were able to connect and communicate and bond just as the human characters did under duress.

Well, like I say, there's nothing particularly novel about that. But for what it's worth, I think what made the ending seem even more trite to me is precisely the way the "Oh, look, aliens can share their feelings too!" bit was immediately turned back on the human characters -- who, as noted, had done nothing to win my sympathy in the first place. (And I certainly didn't buy them as a COUPLE.)

And well, like I say, what's quite novel is that the realization for the characters and the viewer comes through such unprecedented visuals.

Quote

Like I say, someone who gets orders from his boss to protect the boss's daughter, gets drunk, makes a pass at the daughter in question, then gets even MORE drunk, then has a one-night stand with a total stranger in a foreign country, and THEN leaves his wallet behind, etc., etc. ... there's just way too much "LOSER" built into that character right from the get-go. After an intro like that, the character would have to work hard to earn my sympathy, and he doesn't. (I can appreciate that, if you look at only one or two of those elements, his behaviour might seem "normal" ... but when you look at the entire pile-up of behaviours, it gets harder to maintain that stance.)

I understand the "too much LOSER" reaction, though I didn't have that. But what I don't understand is the "pile-up of behaviours". He put his ass on the line protecting that girl quite a few times, and even tried to use their money to get her and only her a ticket out. Overall, I thought he redeemed himself quite well.

Quote

: I started watching the hour long doc on the blu ray about the making of the movie. I highly recommend it, as it demonstrates how filmmaking is changing because of technology.

That DOES sound interesting. I'll see if I can check it out sometime.

I'll finish it tonight, but I'll tell you, even the first few minutes made me feel like I was looking at the impending decimation of studio filmmaking as it currently exists. Regardless of how you like the film, the fact that they made a film so technically proficient and good looking with so little money and technology and crew...it's really quite astounding.

Edited by Scott Derrickson, 02 March 2011 - 06:09 PM.

[Thom Wade]

I watched this on Netflix watch Instantly last week...I was not impressed because I guess I hoped for more than a fleeting few glimpses and a little more creature-related peril. Instead I got loooooong and drawn out scenes of the two people talking.

Granted, I didn't want to slap the two leads (as I did in the Blair Witch) so that is something. The technical apects of the film are impressive...but I wasn't enthralled by the film itself.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Pardon the delayed reply.

Scott Derrickson wrote:
: I was arguing against your claim that there was "no real political subtext to this movie."

A few posts back, you said you never "actually" thought I was looking for a cross between District 9 and It Happened One Night even though, in your post prior to that, you had said you did "infer" that. I think a similar allowance could be made for my claim here, too: obviously, I did acknowledge the depiction of the wall on the border, which indicates that I am aware that there is a subtextual element of SOME sort in this film. But my point was that the film didn't really do anything with it, or have anything to say about this subtext.

Perhaps, as you say, the filmmakers DID intend to comment that illegal immigrants DO pose a threat to the United States even though they are worthy of empathy -- but the overall trajectory of the film seemed, to me, to go in the complete opposite direction. And I certainly wouldn't have expected the film to receive as much praise as it has if THAT were the perceived subtext.

: : : Why can't the circumstances of both the aliens AND the two white Americans be allegorical of Mexican immigrants?
: :
: : Because the two Americans are going home and the aliens are not, for one thing.
:
: So? That's not required for the allegory to exist.

Sure it is. What makes this a story of IMMIGRATION is the crossing of borders -- NOT the crossing of jungles or rivers or roads or whatever. A story about someone wandering around Mexico is just a story about someone wandering around Mexico; there has to be a crossing of the border in order for this to be an allegory about immigration. And it is precisely at the border that the allegory falls apart. There's a giant wall and nobody's guarding it. What's more, when the Americans (who could just as easily have been black, or Asian, or even Hispanic if they were actual American citizens) cross that border (whether by land or by sea), they have the right to do so because they are GOING HOME. This creates an entirely different set of expectations than a character might have experienced if he were sneaking into a country where he had no right to be. (I say this as a Canadian, of course, who knows that he has no "right" to be in the United States even though I drive down there to pick up the mail every now and then. I might think it is advantageous for the flow of trade, etc., for your border guards to let me through, but I would never complain that I have a "right" to cross that border -- at least in that direction. Coming back to Canada, on the other hand...)

: To me, your argument is about as convincing as saying there was no nativity allegory in Children of Men because Clive Owen wasn't taking the girl to Bethlehem.

But the Nativity is a story of mere migration, not immigration. (The film version of Children of Men, of course, introduced immigration into the mix as well, among many, many other subtexts -- pretty much everything but the subtext that actually inspired the novel. But that's another topic for another time.)

: The point I was trying to make about the impressiveness of the ending had more to do with the particular visuals - the fact that giant CG creatures with no human characteristics communicated something that seemed so...human.

Hmmm. I find myself thinking of the T-rexes in Jurassic Park 2, but I'm not sure if they would meet that description or not. (I single out the second film because that's the one that emphasizes the T-rex "family", and in a way that is strikingly tender and terrifying at the same time, i.e. when the parent T-rexes teach their offspring to "hunt" by nudging it towards one of the humans.) The T-rexes are certainly closer to humanoid than the aliens in Monsters are, since they have two arms and two legs and similarly symmetrical features.

As for the visuals themselves, I'm not quite sure how "unprecedented" they are, since I seem to recall catching glimpses of similar creatures in The Mist... though the visuals there were not put to the same use as the visuals here, as I recall.

: I understand the "too much LOSER" reaction, though I didn't have that. But what I don't understand is the "pile-up of behaviours".

I'm referring to the first act, and not so much to the movie as a whole. It's the whole "you never get a second chance to make a first impression" thing. After that first act, I had pretty much no interest in the character, and nothing he did subsequent to that made him any more interesting to me, though I can certainly see how his later actions were better and thus "redeemed" him in some objective sense.

: I'll finish it tonight, but I'll tell you, even the first few minutes made me feel like I was looking at the impending decimation of studio filmmaking as it currently exists. Regardless of how you like the film, the fact that they made a film so technically proficient and good looking with so little money and technology and crew...it's really quite astounding.

I'll certainly try to give it a fairer shake if I see it again. But I'm curious to know where you're going with this "impending decimation of studio filmmaking" bit: It seems to me that there are LOTS of low-budget studio-based alien-invasion movies in the pipeline right now.

Nezpop wrote:
: I watched this on Netflix watch Instantly last week...I was not impressed because I guess I hoped for more than a fleeting few glimpses and a little more creature-related peril. Instead I got loooooong and drawn out scenes of the two people talking.

I think Scott and I both saw this on the big screen. I wonder if the size of screen might have made a difference to the kind of impact that those "fleeting glimpses" had.

[Persona]

Peter T Chattaway, on 07 March 2011 - 09:18 AM, said:

I think Scott and I both saw this on the big screen. I wonder if the size of screen might have made a difference to the kind of impact that those "fleeting glimpses" had.

I suppose that could make a difference in how you see the creatures, but it won't change the fact that the film is a real bore. It also won't add chemistry to the main couple and give a reason for their disappointment when torn apart at the end. It also won't make up for the fact that the dude is a major jerk, and the girl should have chosen the aliens over him any day of the week.

This one is up there with Never Let Me Go. I saw both science fiction features over the weekend, and they're both unbelievable in every way and boring as all get out.

Edited by Persona, 07 March 2011 - 03:35 PM.

[Scott Derrickson]

Peter T Chattaway, on 07 March 2011 - 09:18 AM, said:

Perhaps, as you say, the filmmakers DID intend to comment that illegal immigrants DO pose a threat to the United States even though they are worthy of empathy -- but the overall trajectory of the film seemed, to me, to go in the complete opposite direction. And I certainly wouldn't have expected the film to receive as much praise as it has if THAT were the perceived subtext.

I agree that the film goes the opposite direction overall, but I do think it's obvious that the aliens are still presented as dangerous and a kind of threat should they be left to roam wherever they wanted. It's part of why I liked the political subtext - it didn't oversimplify the issue.

Quote

: : : Why can't the circumstances of both the aliens AND the two white Americans be allegorical of Mexican immigrants?
: :
: : Because the two Americans are going home and the aliens are not, for one thing.
:
: So? That's not required for the allegory to exist.

Sure it is. What makes this a story of IMMIGRATION is the crossing of borders -- NOT the crossing of jungles or rivers or roads or whatever. A story about someone wandering around Mexico is just a story about someone wandering around Mexico; there has to be a crossing of the border in order for this to be an allegory about immigration. And it is precisely at the border that the allegory falls apart. There's a giant wall and nobody's guarding it. What's more, when the Americans (who could just as easily have been black, or Asian, or even Hispanic if they were actual American citizens) cross that border (whether by land or by sea), they have the right to do so because they are GOING HOME. This creates an entirely different set of expectations than a character might have experienced if he were sneaking into a country where he had no right to be. (I say this as a Canadian, of course, who knows that he has no "right" to be in the United States even though I drive down there to pick up the mail every now and then. I might think it is advantageous for the flow of trade, etc., for your border guards to let me through, but I would never complain that I have a "right" to cross that border -- at least in that direction. Coming back to Canada, on the other hand...)

I said this film is "allegorical of Mexican immigrant", then you said "what makes a story of IMMIGRATION is the crossing of borders." It's an important distinction, because the Mexican immigrant experience IS about crossing difficult terrain, dealing with hired coyotes, money, etc... And you seem to be saying that the allegory falls apart because the characters are going home -- but if they weren't going home, it wouldn't be an immigrant allegory at all, it would just be an immigrant tale. The fact that they are white Americans in a role reversal is what makes it an allegory.

I do think our different reactions to the film have a lot to do with you being a Canadian and me being a U.S. Los Angelino who knows many first-hand Mexican immigrants both legal and illegal.

Quote

: The point I was trying to make about the impressiveness of the ending had more to do with the particular visuals - the fact that giant CG creatures with no human characteristics communicated something that seemed so...human.

Hmmm. I find myself thinking of the T-rexes in Jurassic Park 2, but I'm not sure if they would meet that description or not. (I single out the second film because that's the one that emphasizes the T-rex "family", and in a way that is strikingly tender and terrifying at the same time, i.e. when the parent T-rexes teach their offspring to "hunt" by nudging it towards one of the humans.) The T-rexes are certainly closer to humanoid than the aliens in Monsters are, since they have two arms and two legs and similarly symmetrical features.

The significant difference is that Spielberg's anthropomorphized creatures (both dinosaurs and his various aliens) have faces, and he uses those faces for his emotional effect. Much of what's impressive to me about the visuals in Monsters is that Edwards does not.

Quote

As for the visuals themselves, I'm not quite sure how "unprecedented" they are, since I seem to recall catching glimpses of similar creatures in The Mist... though the visuals there were not put to the same use as the visuals here, as I recall.

What was unprecedented was the final scene which used giant, faceless aliens to inspire a positive emotional reaction from the main characters and from myself as a viewer. Didn't get that at all from those glimpses in The Mist.

Quote

: But I'm curious to know where you're going with this "impending decimation of studio filmmaking" bit: It seems to me that there are LOTS of low-budget studio-based alien-invasion movies in the pipeline right now.

A studio would spend 50 million dollars to make the exact same film. The studios will capitalize on that for sure, but it won't be long before lots of people are making lots of films at that quality level that can compete with studio fare and can be distributed for a profit within other new media. What toppled the music business was the accessibility of high quality product outside the old modes of distribution -- when teenagers and college age kids who are content to watch movies on their computers and phones are given more and more high-quality, high-stimulus material to sift through, things will change dramatically for studio distribution.

Persona, on 07 March 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

This one is up there with Never Let Me Go. I saw both science fiction features over the weekend, and they're both unbelievable in every way and boring as all get out.

Ah, my other favorite SF film of the past year.