Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

2010 Film "Monsters"

Michael Millichamp

Michael Millichamp

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2010
Messages
1,126
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I just got done seeing "Monsters" and I was blown away. There were of course goofs, and sometimes the cgi wasn't amazing, but for the budget, the crew, and the actors, this movie was really amazing to me.

I really enjoyed this movie, and I hope some of you did as well.
 
+1
Really enjoyable sci fi!
 
Hated it, absolutely hated it. It goes to show that having that shallow of depth of field does not work on the big screen at all.

I saw it at TIFF, and really, really, did not like it at all.

+1 for small crew and good sound design
-10 for annoying actors, terrible script and way too shallow DOF
 
I on the other hand really enjoyed it. Alot of it was so improvised that you had to put yourself into that mindset. Thats why the girl annoyed me at first, but i got used to it.


It looked good to me the shallow DOF didnt take anything away, it secluded them.
 
I think a lot of the negative stuff I've heard had to do with the misleading marketing, trailer and title - none of which were the director's decision. He wanted to call it "Far From Home" and pitch it as a road movie/love story. A lot of people will have gone in expecting Cloverfield or District 9 and been disappointed.
 
I agree with Eric. When I first heard about it, I thought it was going to be this action packed cool movie. On the dvd cover it says "Best Monster movie of the millennium" so it is kind of off putting in that sense, but when I started watching it, I was so intrigued by the characters and how they filmed it. Im actually thinking about watching it again. Definitely going to buy it on blu ray.
 
Yes, from the way it was marketed I went in expecting trashy sci-fi/horror and was pleasantly surprised to see a love story/road movie.
 
I enjoyed it. Thought the relationship between the two was pretty believable. What was it shot on? DSLR? definitely wasn't film but still looked great via Netflix instant.
 
Mark Collins said:
Hated it, absolutely hated it. It goes to show that having that shallow of depth of field does not work on the big screen at all.

I saw it at TIFF, and really, really, did not like it at all.

+1 for small crew and good sound design
-10 for annoying actors, terrible script and way too shallow DOF
Click to expand...

Too shallow for what?
 
Ruairi Robinson said:
Too shallow for what?
Click to expand...

For the big screen. Small screen probably isn't as bad, but on a theatre sized screen your eyes start going crazy because of how shallow it is.
 
In my opinion the Far From Home angle would have made it better, but probably far less sellable or appealing to a bigger audience... who knows, maybe the misleading "Monsters"/Action-packed Sci-Fi/horror angle gave it enough popularity for it to actually reach a broader audience. Chances are, if I read "an independent love-story/road movie" I wouldn't have watched for fear it was exactly the same as every other independent love-story/road movie, which, I guess, it still was.

That being said, I still couldn't get into the formula of the movie. Walk for a bit, talk about random crap, two leads hating-then-loving each other, peppered with some close encounters... that just doesn't really float my boat. I'm not really a fan of improv in most genres (to me it can only work in comedies), and there were certainly long scenes in the Monsters where, mid-way through, I caught myself thinking of my 'to do' list and after focusing back on the movie I'd be like, 'holy crap, this convo is still going?'

Also, I think it was shot on an EX1 (or EX3) with a DoF adapter and only a 50mm Nikkor lens (probably wide-open). On the technical side, nothing really bothered me... the shallowness of the DoF looked perfectly adequate to me (on the small screen) and it's really cool that it was done with only 4 or 5 people...
 
Kalani Prince said:
I enjoyed it. Thought the relationship between the two was pretty believable. What was it shot on? DSLR? definitely wasn't film but still looked great via Netflix instant.
Click to expand...

It was shot on an EX3 with a Letus adapter on it im pretty sure.
 
And it was literally just done with 2 people. A sound man and the camera man, which was the director and the director of photography.
 
for some reason i posted about this movie last year.. and my thread was immediately deleted..

but for what they shot with money wise.. and run and gun style.. I really enjoyed it.

I love hearing stories about film makers who just go and do it.. little money.. no studio backing.. it gives hope
 
I agree with you 100% Zakaree.

It made me want to go out there and film something.
 
Michael Millichamp said:
I agree with you 100% Zakaree.

It made me want to go out there and film something.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but no one ever hears about the 100s (or 1000s) of other attempts of 'just going out and shooting it' that ultimately fail... (sorry about my naysaying, I'm just 'devil's advocating'.)
 
Last edited:
Michael Millichamp said:
It was shot on an EX3 with a Letus adapter on it im pretty sure.
Click to expand...

Yep. I can confirm this. I saw some behind the scenes clips and that's exactly what it was being shot on. I also read it was the EX3/letus combo somewhere else... can't remember where that link was though.

Mark Collins said:
Hated it, absolutely hated it. It goes to show that having that shallow of depth of field does not work on the big screen at all.
Click to expand...

No offense man. But it sounds like you just saying this out of spite. Nobody use to make comments like this until affordable 35mm was available to everyone. Get over it. Shallow DOF looks really good 70% of the time... especially in character driven films. As long as DOF is used consistently during a film I don't ever see a problem with too much or too little. If half the film was shot with the EX3's native 1/2" format and then the other half was random 35mm wide-open shots, then yea, it would see your point. But there is nothing inherently wrong with consistently shallow shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top