Let It (Them) Be…

Last updated on: March 14, 2011 at 8:34 am by J. Ryan Parker

Let It (Them) Be… 2011-03-14T08:34:08-07:00 J. Ryan Parker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that a movie called Monsters would feature, well, numerous monstrous characters, creatures, or beings terrorizing their human counterparts. If that’s what you like in your monster movies, then Gareth Edwards‘ Monsters might not be the film for you. However, if you like more intimate, suspenseful films that do not sacrifice emotion as soon as a monster emerges on screen, then this is the film for you.

Monsters is closely related to Neill Blomkamp’s District 9, in terms of their production, aesthetics, and themes. In Edwards’ film, set in the not-too-distant future, we have discovered the possibility of extra-terrestrial life in our solar system. NASA sends out an expedition to gather samples of this possible life and upon its return, the space shuttle crashes over Mexico. The samples inevitably infect the area surrounding the crash and evolve into giant alien beings. The beings occupy a wide swath of northern Mexico that becomes known as the “Infected Zone.” Through televised news coverage, we see military forces “at war” with “monsters” that look like a giant squid/giraffe hybrid.

The film centers on two Americans living in Mexico, Andrew (Scoot McNairy), a journalist, and Samantha (Whitney Able), the daughter of a wealthy American publisher. Andrew has been charged with the task of escorting Samantha to the coast so that she can take a ferry back to the United States. Through a series of mishaps, Samantha misses out on the ferry option and the two are forced to take an overland journey through the Infected Zone. Armed “coyotes” shepherd them through the zone, but as they, and we, soon see, the reality of its infection may not be as terrifying as the press and rumors make it out to be. When (not necessarily a spoiler here) the two return to the United States, they also see that, despite its (somewhat hilarious) best efforts, the United States has not gone unchanged either. The film’s ending is simultaneously awe-inspiring and somewhat shocking, so I’ll save it for those of you who might actually want to watch it.

A hole in a new wonder of the world?

Like District 9, Monsters is impossible to view without thinking about issues of immigration and war. In fact, some viewers might feel that Edwards telegraphs his messages too explicitly. The United States has built a disturbingly large wall to keep out the aliens…and not just the 50-foot tentacled kind either. The film more-than-subtly attacks the notion that such measures are effective border controls. One of the “coyotes” mentions in passing that it seems like the monsters would pretty much keep to themselves if left alone. Of course, learning how to live with towering 50-feet giants is much more difficult than just bombing them to oblivion…but it might be cheaper.

The aforementioned television coverage of attacks on…not necessarily battles with…the monsters is reminiscent of footage of the first Gulf War. The film gives us glimpses of the monsters’ corpses, so we do know that the attacks “work.” However, the extent of the infection in the forests of Mexico reveals that nothing short of clear-cutting an indeterminable amount of land would stem the infection. At the same time, other critics have noted that Monsters also addresses the wars in which the United States currently finds itself as planes blindly bomb or fumigate the Infected Zone to kill monsters that may or may not be there. On the other hand, at least the military forces in Monsters can clearly see the “enemy” when it emerges.

A monster tease...

These themes or messages might sound trite and would most likely come across as such if Edwards’ film wasn’t so well executed. Much of the news that surrounded the film’s release centered on the extremely low production budget ($500,000) with which Edwards worked. Like Blomkamp, Edwards proves that he knows how to stretch a production dollar. Aside from the two lead actors, Edwards employed locals from the locations in which he shot, and, to a supporting actor, they all perform admirably. The only drawback to any of the film’s performances is the somewhat stilted dialogue with which the actors have to work. Roger Ebert speculates that Edwards shot some of his footage in post-Katrina areas, employing images of washed up cars and boats and half-destroyed homes. While this might border on the exploitative, it lends an aura of believability to the film that most other low-budget features lack. The cinematography is both gritty and beautiful, as is the infected zone, and proves that filmmakers do not have to sacrifice quality visuals on the altar of digital filmmaking.

Monsters is a suspenseful film that retains its effectiveness by downplaying the gotcha moments that so often plague films of this genre. It certainly proves that Edwards is a director worth paying attention to. Hopefully that attention, and its accompanying production dollars, won’t rob him of his talent.

Monsters (93 mins.) is rated R for language and is available on DVD and streaming on Netflix.

Film

Previous Post

March 10, 2011

Sufjan Stevens Stretches Out

Next Post

March 15, 2011 Graphic Religion

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Classics DVD Film Music News Pop Culture Events Print Sports Television Uncategorized Video Games

Select a Month March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Why was Daniel thrown into the lion’s den?

Select your answer to see how you score.

He stole from the treasury He spoke against the king He prayed to God He refused to bow to the king