Monsters

The very simplistically-titled MONSTERS tries to do a lot in its short running time. It tries to be a quasi dramatic romance, a monster thriller, and a critique of U.S. immigration policy. Of those three things, it does a more than good job at the first one (thanks to a solid script), a lackluster and unoriginal job at the second one, and as for the third third thing, well, it's kind of hit-and-miss.

Chaos is taking place in both the U.S. and Central America as a result of some creatures that have spawned recently, and the situation is so intense that a massive wall has been built in the border between California and Mexico. Although Andrew (Scoot McNairy) is American, he's currently in Costa Rica, and when he enters a hospital looking for a girl, we instantly assume he's looking to get his girlfriend out of there, but it turns out it's just his boss' daughter, Samantha (Whitney Able). Andrew has been given strict orders to get Samantha safely across the border. As Andrew and Samantha make their way towards the border, they're basically forced to spend a lot of time together. Samantha is engaged, though we quickly get a lot of signs that all isn't necessarily going well in that department. After a few drinks, Andrew is okay with being more forward and trying to see if he can spend the night in Samantha's room, but she doesn't think it's a great idea.

These initial scenes are quite good. After several minutes had elapsed of Andrew and Samantha interacting with nothing else happening in the movie, I was more than ready to forget about the titular characters and just focus on these two people. Of course, though, once they start getting closer to the destination, the monsters surface and so do some of the film's flaws. I wouldn't have had a problem with this in the least bit if, during these "suspense" sequences, it would've been easy for us to root for Andrew and Samantha to survive the attacks and that maybe all that adversity would lead Samantha to relent emotionally, but the problem is that the monster chase sequences are simply dull and generic. Nothing interesting to see here - they feel pointless.

As for the film's obvious condemnation of U.S. immigration policy, the results are mixed. On the one hand, there's some brilliant irony during several scenes in which our American characters are forced to ask their lower-hemisphere counterparts for help, in particular a moment in which a Latin American woman gives food and shelter to Andrew and Samantha. On the other hand, some of the criticism is just too bloody obvious. Once our protagonists make it to the border, a character says "It's different looking at America from the outside in"... okay, so far, a little cliche, but not too bad, but THEN he adds: "... in our little, perfect suburban homes." It's a little surprising that a script that was so good at depicting romantic awkwardness in those early scenes stumbles like this towards the end.

However, the reason why the film ultimately deserves a recommendation is due to how different and interesting the film's ending is. The "monsters" switch from being threatening to being something else that you may not expect. And, without spoiling anything, I'll just say that the final moment between Andrew and Samantha is like a punch to the gut. Emotionally, the moment isn't easy to take but therein lies the strength of that final scene.

I do have to make reference to something that has been mentioned in tons of reviews (by both critics and users) and that has been, um, bothering me a little bit. It's the whole "OMG I can't believe this movie was made for only $15,000! Look at how much they did with just that. Maybe I didn't like it so much, but you GOTTA at least give it credit for that." I'd like to talk about how thoroughly WRONG it is to praise a movie for something like this. You see, the fact that the movie was made for $15,000 is something you discovered only because you did research on the movie... so, what would have happened if you did NOT have that piece of information? Was it going to change your mind about what rating to give it? We shouldn't base our assessment of a movie on what resources the filmmakers had, because we often don't KNOW what they were - we weren't there on set. We're supposed to evaluate a movie on the FINISHED PRODUCT we see on the screen, regardless of how they got there. It's like praising someone for studying super hard for an exam, even if the person just gets an average grade; you just HAPPEN to know that the person studied a lot, so you praise them for it despite the final product, while the person who evaluated the test probably has no idea that the person studied a lot, and they definitely weren't gonna take that factor into account when giving them the grade. What's gonna happen if someday you no longer have access to information that tells you what resources filmmakers have or didn't have to make a movie? My rating for MONSTERS would be the same if it had been made by James Cameron. It would be ludicrous for people who are giving this film a good rating to have switched to a lower rating if Cameron directed it, claiming "WTF, Cameron could've done so much more with this!". It's about the FINAL PRODUCT, NOT about the behind-the-scenes aspects that we're not necessarily always privy to.

So, after that long tangent, I'll conclude by saying that MONSTERS is a decent cinematic effort. It's marred by an overdose of formula in the action-based sequences, but there are more than enough solid moments between its two leads to make for a satisfying experience. The last time I saw Scoot McNairy on a film, his character was also sharing a lot of dialogue with a female character. That was IN SEARCH OF A MIDNIGHT KISS, one of 2008's best films. While I can't give MONSTERS the same amount of praise, it may be something you'd like to check out when it comes out in indie theaters during the next few weeks.

6/10