Author: Alton Williams

The Tourist ****

A remake of 2005 French film Anthony Zimmer – which was released by Studio Canal, the same company responsible for this film – The Tourist is a film with a production history that is almost as complicated as any thriller, having gone through numerous directors and lead actors before pre-production ever managed to get underway.
Originally Lasse Hallström was set to direct with Tom Cruise and Charlize Theron in the starring roles but after Hallström left due to creative differences a long journey began for this film to actually get made. Bharat Nalluri, best known for British TV shows such as Spooks, Hustle and Life on Mars and 2008 film Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, signed on to direct at this point but also left the project after more difficulties arose, subsequently replaced by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, director of the highly acclaimed 2006 German film The Lives of Others. At this point Angelina Jolie also signed on to play the leading female role originally filled by Theron and shortly after Sam Worthington joined the cast after Cruise dropped out of the film. However, more creative differences resulted in both Donnersmarck and Worthington departing the project. After this many directors were rumoured to be in the running to take over the job of directing, among them Alfonso Cuaron, but eventually Donnersmarck returned to the helm with Johnny Depp taking on the role that had originally been filled by Cruise. Following all this, along with rewrites of British writer Julian Fellowes’ (best known lately for period TV drama Downton Abbey) original screenplay by Valkyrie and The Usual Suspects screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie and Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck himself, the film finally entered production and has now reached at cinemas at long last in the form of a film that almost comes across like a more sophisticated version of this year’s Knight and Day (which interestingly stars Tom Cruise, the star originally intended to lead this film) with the male and female roles reversed. Amazingly, given that they have made 70 movies between them, they own homes within an hour of each other in the south of France and they both live with actors, Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie had never even prior to making this film and as this is their first time working together you might expect something quite special. But does The Tourist take you on a trip that you will remember for a long time or does the promise of its stellar leading couple prove too much for director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck to live up to?

Frank Tupelo (Johnny Depp) is an American maths teacher travelling by train as a tourist on the way to Italy. On his travels he encounters a beautiful woman named Elise Ward (Angelina Jolie) and a connection instantly forms between the two of them. Their meeting, however, is no accident. Elise’s former lover, Alexander Pierce (Rufus Sewell?) is being pursued by both Reginald Shaw (Steven Berkoff), a powerful gangster who he embezzled $2.3 billion from, and John Acheson (Paul Bettany), a Scotland Yard Inspector who, ignoring the orders of his superior, Chief Inspector Jones (Timothy Dalton), is determined to catch Pierce at any cost for his crime of failing to pay £774 million in back taxes. And Elise has deliberately crossed Frank’s path to throw them off the scent. Against the breathtaking backdrop of Venice, Frank pursues a potential romance but soon the clueless and lovesick everyday man finds himself in the middle of something so much bigger than he has ever dreamed of as he is hunted by two different sides and discovers that there is far more to both Elise and himself than first meets the eye.

Given that The Tourist stars two of the biggest movie stars in Hollywood you might well that you’re going to get a Hollywood movie. You would be very mistaken. The presence of director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck gives a better indication of what to expect – this is a very European movie, by which I mean that it is far more stylish and sophisticated than the typical action thriller coming out of America. Beyond the fact that the film is set against the backdrop of beautiful European settings, mostly Venice, the film generally has a very European look and feel, coming across like an old fashioned sort of crime caper with a fresh twist, embracing simple but elegant cinematography and editing techniques, low key but nevertheless exciting action sequences – this is not an action movie but a thriller – effective use of music to convey emotions, moods and feelings and a very subtle, dialogue based style of humour. This is a very beautiful film to look at, its lovely settings being captured wonderfully on the screen. As a train speeds through the European countryside, expert use of colour captures the bright greens of the fields vibrantly and beautifully while beautiful sweeping shots of Venice portray a sense of elegance and lavishness. While not an action movie the film manages to deliver several exciting sequences as well but it is the dialogue that really carries the film, this being a very talky film. Here, most of the action is conveyed through words and conversations and superbly written dialogue ensures that the film never fails to engage us. The dialogue comes across as both smart and witty, particularly in the interactions between the two protagonists, whose first meeting on the train is very romantic, sweet and tender and, thanks to great performances from both leads, portrays a pure and unmistakable chemistry between the two. The use of music and other sound also adds to this chemistry as well as the various other feelings that the film is trying to portray, the musical score shifting between fast and kinetic and slow and enchanting as the film’s tone shifts from one scene to the next, something that really emphasises and complements what is taking place on the screen. As well as being smart the dialogue also proves very funny, particularly in the very European way it pokes fun at American tourists. This is probably not a film that will make your side splits or anything but its sophisticated sense of humour is certainly one that will keep you very amused and in a way that won’t make you feel guilty for doing so. This is a very light-hearted affair, a film that doesn’t really have all that much depth, something that is reflected and even made light of in the story which boasts a rather complex plot with several twists and turns, albeit with a final plot twist that you may guess quite early in the film – I certainly did, although the clever execution of the plot along with the generally fun nature of the film means that, rather than seeming like a cop out, the ending actually proves rather satisfying nonetheless. Presumably, the writers realised that there was no way to really avoid people guessing the outcome so they just went with it and made it work for them, throwing in just enough diversions to thrown us off the scent before revealing the truth that, to some, will be obvious from the very start. The not to be taken too seriously style of the film makes the twist work even when it is seen coming a mile off and it is important to note that this is a film as much about the journey as it is about the destination. Much of the reason the journey proves so enjoyable of course is not down to those people working behind the camera but those in front of it. Here, Johnny Depp portrays a normal everyday type of character for the first time since 2004’s Secret Window and he reminds us that, while we have grown to live his portrayals of mad characters, he can also play sane and down to earth superbly as well. Both looking and acting suitably clueless in his role here he not only makes the almost farcical character of Frank completely believable but also immensely likable and entertaining as well. Looking and acting classy and ravishing, Angelina Jolie also doesn’t disappoint, delivering a flawless British accent and also proving to be likable and engaging in her performance. The chemistry that Depp and Jolie share on screen is faultless, being quiet and subtle but, in the way they stare into each other’s eyes, seeming completely authentic. It is Depp and Jolie who carry the film but the rest of the cast also prove strong, whether it is Steven Berkoff as a sadistic and completely realistic bad guy – the realism here providing something of a contrast to the light-hearted nature that surrounds the relationship between Frank and Elise – or Paul Bettany as the agent determined to catch Pierce at any cost. Stylish, sophisticated and cleverly executed, The Tourist may not quite have the depth you would expect given the more serious tone of Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s previous film but it is certainly a very fun film and one that is aimed at older moviegoers with no compromises being made for the younger generations. This is a film that will take you on a very enjoyable trip.

———————————————————————————————————————————
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader 3D ***½
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader 2D ***½

When it was released in cinemas back in Christmas 2005 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, the big screen adaptation of the first book in the beloved classic literary series by C.S. Lewis, immediately became a huge box office hit both in America and in the United Kingdom, even if it didn’t impress critics quite as much as it impressed moviegoers.
The huge success of the first film meant that adaptations of further chapters in The Chronicles of Narnia were inevitable and in summer 2008 the second instalment was released in the form of The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Something went very wrong somewhere though. At the US box office it managed to gross less than half of what The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe took and in the UK it fared even worse, grossing just a quarter of the first film’s box office. So what wrong exactly? Many reasons have been given for the underperformance of that film, ranging from Prince Caspian being the least popular (or one of the least popular) of the books and a story too intensive on battles and lacking in magic to the different release date – Christmas often proves to be a better time to release fantasy movies than the summer months – and weak marketing efforts on the part of Disney. In fact, it was probably a combination of all these things and whatever the reason the underwhelming box office numbers – along with other more complex factors surrounding a dispute between Disney and Phil Anschutz, a real estate baron who is very powerful in the states and who is one of Walden Media’s (the production company that owns the rights to The Chronicles of Narnia movies) biggest shareholders – for the second instalment prompted Disney to not pick up their option to co-finance and produce any further films in the series. This led to production company Walden Media searching for another studio to back and produce The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader with them and they found that studio in 20th Century Fox, although not before doubts began to emerge as to whether the film would ever actually get made. Of course it has been made but it hasn’t gotten away unscathed. The underperformance of Prince Caspian has resulted in the production budget for The Voyage of the Dawn Treader being cut significantly – although this perhaps isn’t as big a deal as it might seem as the story takes place mostly on the seas of Narnia and lacks any big battle sequences, effectively eliminating two of the most expensive elements of the first two films: on location shooting in New Zealand and big epic battles – and, this being a 20th Century Fox film the running time is coming in at less than two hours (studio head Tom Rothman doesn’t seem to think that people want to see films over two hours long – has he even seen the box office takings that Avatar did?), way below the almost two and a half hour running times of the last two films. What’s more, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is the latest film to be released in post production 3D (something that Disney probably wouldn’t have done were they still releasing it), i.e. it was made in 2D and converted to 3D just so that Fox can charge you more to see it. The results from converting 2D movies to 3D this year have been simply atrocious with both Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender boasting perhaps the worst 3D effects ever seen on film. But, as evidenced by last year’s G-Force and Coraline, good quality conversions can be done and, unlike this year’s post conversion efforts where the conversion to 3D was rushed, ample time has been allowed for the latest Narnia film to be converted to 3D. So, is the 3D actually any good and much more importantly does The Voyage of the Dawn Treader establish itself as a truly worthy follow up to the first two Narnia movies?

Stranded in wartime England, Edmund Pevensie (Skandar Keynes) and his sister Lucy (Georgie Henley) are stuck living with relatives including their stuck up cousin Eustace (Will Poulter), whose home contains a painting of a ship that reminds them of their adventures in Narnia. When the painting suddenly swallows them up, the Pevensies and Eustace find themselves on board the ship – The Dawn Treader – in Narnia once again. There they are greeted by Edmund and Lucy’s friends King Caspian (Ben Barnes) and the warrior mouse Reepicheep (voiced by Simon Pegg), the two of whom are on a mission across the seas of Narnia to track down the seven lost Lords of Narnia. Learning that the fate of Narnia itself rests on their mission, they find themselves taken to mysterious island and a river that turns everything it touches to gold, to confrontations with magical creatures and sinister enemies – and to a reunion with the Great Lion, Aslan (voiced by Liam Neeson).

Going in to see The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader it is hard not to feel as if some crucial ingredient is missing. While the trailer’s claim that this sequel will “return to magic” is largely true, the fact is that the change in studio has had an adverse effect on the overall quality of the film. Whereas Disney spared no expense with the first two ‘Narnia’ movies, producing lavish and truly epic adaptations, 20th Century Fox seems to have adopted the approach of doing the film as cheaply as possible and the result is a film that isn’t without spectacle but that never recreates the epic look and feel of its predecessors and that perhaps establishes itself as the weakest entry in the series to date in terms of its production values. Obviously, a lot of attention is going to be drawn towards the 3D. On this front the good news is that the 3D conversion is MUCH better than that in The Last Airbender, delivering crystal clear picture quality that doesn’t detract from the film in any way and when you put the glasses on there is no loss of vibrancy in the colours of the image. The 3D also provides some fairly notable enhancements to a few scenes, notably a scene featuring a dragon, another featuring a battle with sea serpents and a rather beautiful scene where it snows. Now the bad news – while the 3D conversion is a solid one and technically can’t be considered bad, it certainly isn’t particularly good either. While the 3D may be better than this year’s other post conversions it still isn’t a great advertisement for post production 3D and, just as with The Last Airbender, this is a case of the 3D being better in the trailer than it is in the actual film. For the most part the 3D effects are barely even noticeable – there is very little depth and nothing really comes towards us either although every now and then you can see that parts of the image really are three dimensional – and when they are they don’t really add anything of value to the film (with the possible exception of those aforementioned scenes at least), often being so subtle as to pass by almost completely unnoticed. Put simply, the 3D is passable and probably won’t leave you feeling short changed but if your cinema is showing the film in 2D you may as well see it that way – you won’t be missing much and will save yourself a bit of money. The 3D may be passable but it is hardly “breathtaking” as claimed by the trailer. 3D aside, the film still doesn’t quite live up to the first two movies on many levels but this isn’t to say that the film doesn’t have it strengths. Returning to the more magical aspects of the ‘Narnia’ stories – the key aspect that was missing from Prince Caspian – proves to be a very smart move and with it a real sense of wonder is restored to Narnia. The visual effects are nowhere near as good as in the first two movies but (new to The Chronicles of Narnia) director Michael Apted manages to get plenty of magic and enchantment out of them nonetheless, realising many wondrous magical creations, among them majestic dragons, terrifying sea serpents, beautiful and enchanting night skies and the Dufflepuds (hopping one legged trolls). The effects lack the impact of anything from this film’s predecessors and seem quite cheaply done compared to them, this film not comparing too favourably, but on their own terms the effects still have the power to dazzle and they make for some rather exciting action sequences that won’t appeal as much to adults and again won’t compare with anything in the first two movies but that kids will certainly love. The visuals are also of a decent standard in other areas, the Dawn Treader itself being a wonderfully designed and crafted ship – and it is one of the few things in the film that is real not CG, actually being built in real life – and costume and location design generally being pretty good. The real world only features very sparsely – at the beginning of the film the characters are whisked away to Narnia pretty quickly – only featuring in the opening scenes and a dream sequence that features lately (one that features cameo appearances by Anna Popplewell and William Moseley as Susan and Peter Pevensie) but the World War Two period feel is captured well on the screen in the short time it does feature. Story wise the film will again be quite sufficient to please the younger viewers but anyone looking for more will feel rather underwhelmed with a plot that, just like the 3D, lacks depth. The plot follows a very episodic story format and seems more like a series of adventures loosely linked together than one consistent storyline, although this is perhaps a problem inherited from the book upon which the film is based rather than explicitly an issue with the film itself. The old fashioned style adventure feel kind of works here and makes for an enjoyable if not memorable piece of cinema, also boasting a streak of humour throughout to complement the magic and adventure. The one big failing of the story is a lack of a clear identifiable villain this time around. In place of the White Witch or Miraz of the first two movies we have a faceless adversary – mist that never takes on any other form. The lack of an interesting villain really robs the film of a lot of the tension it could really do with. Apted does at least manage to get some pretty good performances from his cast members. Georgie Henley is simply wonderful as Lucy, being a truly delightful screen presence and proving quite believable as a young girl in all too realistic position of wanting to be pretty but not realising that she already is. As Edmund, Skandar Keynes also proves fairly convincing as his character has to face off temptations that pander to his darker side (something that allows for an encounter with the White Witch (once again played by Tilda Swinton), a character who apparently doesn’t feature in the book). The real scene stealers, however, are Will Poulter and Simon Pegg, the latter taking over from Eddie Izzard as the voice of heroic mouse Reepicheep. Poulter is perfectly cast as a condescending and downright irritating character but the way his character softens as the film progresses proves rather believable thanks to strong work from him and, perhaps most impressively given that Reepicheep is an entirely CG creation, he has a terrific on screen dynamic with his furry co-star, the banter between Eustace and Reepicheep providing much of the film’s humour, the film being pretty funny at times. Elsewhere in the cast, Ben Barnes once again proves to be a strong performer as Caspian and, in a brief role, Laura Brent is suitably ethereal as star turned human Liliandil. So, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is a decent third instalment in the Narnia series but one that won’t leave you with any lasting impression. There is plenty here for kids to enjoy but the film just lacks the depth necessary for older viewers to hold much appreciation for it. The film’s “return to magic” may well be clear in the film itself but sadly there isn’t a whole lot of magic behind the camera.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

The Warrior’s Way **½

Is the mere premise or title of films like Ninja Assassin and next year’s Cowboys Vs Aliens enough to get you excited about a movie? Because if it is then here is a film for you – cowboys vs. ninjas! Okay, the film is actually called The Warrior’s Way and the cowboys vs. ninjas element only really amounts to one sequence towards the end of the film but, based on the direction taken in the marketing, it is clear that this is the aspect of the film that the distributor wants to emphasise and the aspect that will most likely make people want to see this film.
A bringing together of East and West both in front of and behind the camera – the culture clash isn’t merely present in the film but also in the cast which brings together actors from both sides of the world – this may be an entirely concept driven film that will only really be fully appreciated by a fairly limited audience but it is also one that boasts a fairly impressive cast line up for a film of its type. The name of “international superstar” Jang Dong Gun may not mean much to that many people over her in the West but the South Korean actor is a big star where he comes from while the names that people will really be familiar with here are the likes of Geoffrey Rush, Kate Bosworth and Danny Huston, hardly the most prestigious cast line up ever put together but real actors nonetheless who bring something a little extra to what is primarily an action driven film. Of course, it is likely that few if any will be seeing The Warrior’s Way for its cast, they will be seeing it for its East vs. West action showcase – but does the film actually live up to the promise of its cowboys vs. ninjas showdown?

Trained from boyhood to be a master of the ancient arts of combat, Yang (Jang Dong Gun) is the greatest swordsman in the world. After refusing to kill a baby girl, he turns on his master and flees to America, taking the child with him. He arrives in a forgotten carnival town where he encounters a group of carnies led by Eight-Ball (Tony Cox) who welcome him with open arms. Among them is Lynne (Kate Bosworth), a fiery knife-thrower obsessed with revenge against The Colonel (Danny Huston), a sadistic outlaw who murdered her family. Lynne urges Yang to teach her the art of the sword, but Ron (Geoffrey Rush), the wise town drunk, warns Yang to keep moving. When his friends are threatened by The Colonel once again, along with his army of vicious Hell Riders, Yang is forced to unsheathe his sword, knowing the ring of its blade will reveal his location. The battle rises to an epic crescendo with the arrival of Yang’s terrifying foes from the Far East.

The Warrior’s Way is not a film that should be taken very seriously. This is something that is made clear by the casting – or should I say miscasting – of Tony Cox, who is completely wrong for the role he plays here and who ranks as the only cast member to not even attempt a period accent. It is also something that is made very clear from early on when the words “The greatest swordsman in the history of mankind” appear on the screen in text form, comic book style. This clearly indicates that this is going to be a film that embraces a more farcical comic book style of action hence anyone looking for anything with a more realistic edge will be disappointed with what the rest of the film has to offer. With both a look and feel that is very much in the comic book spirit and action that is very heavy on the CG effects, the fight sequences that are delivered here – which are, face it, what you’re going to see this film for – fall into the category of heavily stylized violence, lots of fake – or perhaps CG – blood being spilled and the action sequences generally proving quite entertaining, particularly the climactic battle royale which first sees the townspeople taking on the Hell Riders and then sees the ninjas thrown into the mix in a climax that combines Western style gun slinging action with Eastern martial arts/sword fighting and that is literally very explosive. This sequence is what the entire film really builds up to and for the most part it delivers the goods, proving to be rather exciting, but at the same time it is hard not to feel that more could have been made of the whole cowboys vs. ninja’s thing. Throughout the film, the action relies perhaps a bit too much on CGI and often fails to be original or inventive – the sight of a bullet flying through the air in slow motion brings to mind many other better action films. If there is one good thing that can be really be said about the film, however, it is that it often looks rather striking, sometimes even almost beautiful. It is clear that CG and green screen have been used for the backdrops and locales rather than physical sets but, rather than seeming explicitly cheap, it instead gives the film a very vibrant, different and colourful look and the actors do at least appear to be immersed in the CG environments. There is some quite beautiful imagery here, a kiss in the middle of the desert beneath a clear star lit sky being a prime example. Sadly, considering this is supposedly an action movie, aside from the climax, the film is rather low on the action, what there is often being too brief – this is particularly true of the fight that opens the film – and while it sometimes seems like the film is perhaps trying to be a sort of drama as much as it is an action movie, it completely fails at achieving this goal.

Writing is to blame for this, the story feeling very rushed, the plot being too inadequate to provide a truly engaging storyline and insufficient backstory being provided for the protagonist and with it little insight into what really motivates the character. Aside from a few flashbacks to his childhood years, we get no real indication as to what kind of person he really was before he begins his journey of redemption – which is perhaps the true focus of the film, rather than the action – and consequently we are not so aware what drives him. Unfortunately, what little backstory there is also let down by an overreliance on voiceover narration by Geoffrey Rush to put across things that really should be put across in the actual plot. Fortunately, the same issues don’t apply quite so heavily to another principal character, Lynne, who also gets some flashback scenes which detail the brutal murder of her family and give us valuable insight into what motivates her – and also why The Colonel has come to have a scarred face. Sadly, this is too little to overcome the many flaws elsewhere in the script. While it is clear that some effort has been made to provide authentic sounding dialogue, a lot of what there is still sounds uninspired and the characters have to speak lots of clichéd Western style one liners. Clichés are also present elsewhere, a shot towards the end of the protagonist walking off into the sunset being a classic staple of the Western movie and a one that can be viewed as either a homage or an unimaginative cliché here. Despite having unimaginative dialogue to work with, the cast largely fare decently. Geoffrey Rush makes a rather convincing drunk, even though it is hard not to feel that his talents are being wasted playing a character who spends a large chunk of the film completely wasted. Kate Bosworth delivers the perfect balance of tough and sexy, being adequately believable as a young woman out for revenge. Danny Huston is perhaps a bit pantomime as the villain but proves reasonably convincing as the sadistic and perverted Colonel. Jang Dong Gun is less impressive as an actor but does handle the action very well. And, Tony Cox aside, the cast pretty much all deliver convincing sounding period Western accents. Overall, first time writer and director Sngmoo Lee delivers a movie that proves just about competent overall but that fails to live up to the promise of its concept and that suffers from something of an identity crisis, seeming not quite sure as to what it is really supposed to be. The Warrior’s Way doesn’t fully satisfy with its action and lacks a strong enough storyline to bring all the pieces together but, in spite of its flaws, there is something quite entertaining about it all. You probably won’t be bothered about the hinted at sequel – “No, it is just the beginning” says Yang before starting another fight at which point the film comes to an abrupt end – which will never come but for an amusing diversion this film may just about satisfy, provided you don’t expect to be blown away.

————————————————————————————————————————————
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

Monsters *****

You have may noticed that there has been a lot of word of mouth going around about a particular film recently. Nothing particularly different there then but in this case the film that everyone is talking about is not some big Hollywood blockbuster but rather an ultra low budget film made by a first time British director.
Monsters – the second of what looks to be many alien themed films coming over the next year, the first being last month’s Skyline – is the latest film to follow the trend established by Paranormal Activity, having being made solely by the director without any studio interference and for a bargain budget of just $15,000, an amount that wouldn’t even get you started in Hollywood and that massively pales in comparison to the $30 million (an amount that is considered to be quite low by Hollywood standards) budget of last year’s District 9, the film with which Monsters is certain to be most readily compared, perhaps unjustly – appearances aside, it is a very different film. So, how did Brit director Gareth Edwards make a film as epic as Monsters on a budget of just $15,000? Here’s how – he shot the film with basic off the shelf video equipment, using a special adapter to attach more expensive lenses that allowed him to create a more film like look and, working with just the two main actors and a crew of just two people, he set out across Central America filming wherever he felt like and getting whoever happened to be around at the time to appear in the film and, after completing shooting, he produced the film’s impressive visual effects on his home PC with fairly standard photo-shop and effects software – Edwards is something of a visual effects whiz, having previously done digital effects for documentaries such as Seven Wonders of the Industrial World, Dive to Bermuda Triangle, Space Race, Perfect Disasters and In the Shadow of the Moon as well as TV movie Hiroshima. Visually speaking, he has definitely achieved something truly incredible with Monsters but does this film surpass the buzz, which has mostly related to what Edwards has achieved visually, in also delivering much needed depth in other areas or does it follow in the footpath of Skyline in being a film that may look good but has all the depth of a TV soap opera?

In 2009 NASA discovered the possibility of alien life within our solar system. A probe was launched to collect samples from Europa, Jupiter’s moon, but crashed upon re-entry over Central America. Soon after, new life forms began to appear there and half of Mexico was quarantined as an ‘Infected Zone’. Today, the US and Mexican military still struggle to contain ‘the creatures’. Against this backdrop of war between humanity and these alien ‘monsters’ US photojournalist Andrew Kaulder (Scoot McNairy) agrees to escort his boss’s daughter Sam Wynden (Whitney Able) back to America. Forced to travel through the Infected Zone, they find themselves fighting for their very lives as they struggle to get to the safety of the US border. Along the way a connection develops between the two. But will they make it home alive and more importantly will there be a home left to make it back to?

If you go in to see Monsters expecting a film that features lots of action and flashy effects you will find yourself in for a very big disappointment. While a lot of the buzz surrounding the film ahead of its release has undoubtedly related to director Gareth Edwards’ visual effects work on this film, these visual effects are very much secondary to the true focus of the film and those that we do see tend to be rather subtle for the most part. This is a film that doesn’t need epic action sequences or flashy over the top visuals – it is epic in its own way. This isn’t so much an alien invasion film as it is a film set in the aftermath of an alien invasion – or should I say infestation. Aftermath is a key word here, in fact, us seeing far more of the aftermath of encounters with the creatures than of the creature encounters themselves – the aftermath portrays everything we need to see. The effects are never in your face, rather just there in the background creating the world against which the film’s true events take place. This is not to say that the effects don’t impress, however, as the subtlety is extremely effective and what Edwards has created with very limited resources is simply outstanding. Edwards works some real visual effects magic here, seamlessly transforming real life locations into desolate environments by dropping in derailed trains, capsized boats, crashed planes, downed helicopters, battle ravaged tanks and lots of destroyed buildings, by showing a giant fence surrounding the Infected Zone and a massive wall between the Infected Zone and the US border, by depicting military jets causing explosions far off in the distance, by showing us desolated suburban environments with dead creatures collapsed among the wreckage and simply by changing road signs. The scenes of desolation look amazing and everything looks so real, the world depicted on screen being one that is completely believable, something that is certainly helped by the fact that a lot of what we see on screen is real, which gives the film a whole extra level of authenticity. The photoshopped visuals are stunning, the CGI blending so seamlessly with the real life settings as to make it seem almost like the places seen really are like that in real life and the way Edwards takes real places and makes them fit the story is masterful. And it isn’t just these instances of CGI that impress but also the few more elaborate examples. The alien creatures may appear only sparsely but in the short time they do appear they make quite a substantial impression, being quite spectacularly realised creations, even though their design is not the most original you will have ever seen in a film such as this – they look a lot like giant squids, a lot of what we see of them being their tentacles (which, interestingly, Edwards had to create as rope when he was doing the effects as no effects software could do tentacles but could do rope). There are very few direct encounters with the creatures, us hearing them as much as we actually see them – the sounds they make being chilling enough on their own – and many encounters merely shown in the form of TV news reports – the news reports, along with several radio transmissions that we hear, being all that we see of the big picture, the primary focus being on the film’s two protagonists and their journey through the Infected Zone – and those that we do see take place in the dark, often with just the tentacles in shot – although we do get to see the creatures in their entirety on occasions as well. This is not to say that these sequences are not effective, however, as they are very intense and, almost reminiscent of Cloverfield in showing us the perspective of normal people trying to survive, they prove very chilling – the sight of a downed military jet being pulled down into a lake by a set of tentacles is particularly unnerving – and quite scary at times. It’s not just the creatures that are alien either but pretty much the entire Infected Zone which is being transformed into an alien ecosystem and a wonderfully realised one at that, featuring an array of alien plant life, which demonstrates some quite beautiful CG effects.

In addition to great effects, the film also boasts excellent cinematography. For something shot on video – a format that tends to produce dull looking images – the picture quality really is fantastic, certainly looking as though it was shot on film and, in fact, the film acquires a rather distinctive look from being shot in the format, the camerawork making great use of focus and delivering some highly evocative imagery and some very beautiful cinematography – a shot where sunset light is reflected on the water is a particularly captivating and stunning piece of camerawork. Additionally, the handheld camerawork gives the film a realistic edge and a raw look, something which aids the realism on display. The film may have been opportunistically shot – i.e. shot with no specific advanced planning, rather just made up as they went from location to location – but it all comes together so perfectly that you probably won’t be able to tell. This is a testament to both the strength and versatility of the storyline and the terrific editing and composition work, all done by Edwards himself. The film’s action mostly takes place in the background, the main events being purely character based stuff. At its heart this is a love story set against the backdrop of an alien ravaged environment rather than a full on sci-fi film. The only backstory really comes in form of on screen text at the start of the film and for the duration what we are really seeing is a story based around the two protagonists rather than the alien creatures. Don’t be mislead by the title – this isn’t a film about a monsters, it’s a film about people. Who are the real monsters – the creatures (who really seem more like untamed wild animals than thinking alien beings) or us? A well written screenplay provides a strong storyline – even though we know roughly where things are headed because the opening scene is actually the end of the story we are still emotionally invested in the journey of the characters – good dialogue and well established characters, creating a real sense of tragedy throughout and strong emotional resonance, things that make the film as believable as it is engaging. Like with ‘Skyline’ the focus is on the little people but unlike that film the setting is not limited to one rather uninteresting location, the scale is actually quite epic in its way and the characters are ones who we actually can be interested in. This can, of course, be attributed as much to the actors as to Edwards himself and the film really is carried by excellent performances from both of the two leads. Scott McNairy and Whitney Able apparently fell in love for real during filming so the chemistry we see between them on screen is actually real not acted, something that really adds to the authenticity of the film, their chemistry on screen being excellent and thus the developing relationship between their characters proving entirely convincing. Out of everyone we see in the film, the only actual actors are McNairy and Able. Everyone else is just people who happened to be around at the time. You might think that this would result in the rest of the cast not being any good but this couldn’t be further from the truth. The use of real Mexican people proves very effective and authentic with everyone seeming completely believable. Believability is something that really makes this film stand out. There is nothing that happens in this film that doesn’t seem plausible if such a situation were ever to arise in reality and, with apparent subtexts, this is a film that proves every bit as interesting as it is convincing. So, Monsters may be a rather slow paced film but it is also a very rewarding one and quite a haunting viewing experience. If Gareth Edwards can do this for $15,000, someone give him $15 million, hell even $150 million and watch him work some visual effects magic on a blockbuster scale.

———————————————————————————————————————————–
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)