Godzilla

By Rappy
in The Media Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mentor

Gaffney

Posted
Posted

What was there to think about? It was just a monster movie that went on and on and on without anything actually ever happening. It was like Cloverfield without any of the action.

 

The film overall was quite average, it's not an action film. It's a road movie/adventure/romance film with a low budget. It's not going to suit your taste if you don't like low budget, non action films.

 

Here is what is noteworthy:

- Low budget, $100,000-$200,000. Only $15,000 on equipment.

- Gareth Edwards shot and edited the entire film also he created all the special effects, in his bedroom on an average computer with 3ds Max, ZBrush and Adobe software. all in 13 months.

- All the extra's in the film, weren't actors.

- Came up with a fresh idea and had a decent plot that is essentially the exact same as District 9.

Grand Master

Hurmoth

Posted
Posted

The film overall was quite average, it's not an action film. It's a road movie/adventure/romance film with a low budget. It's not going to suit your taste if you don't like low budget, non action films.

- Came up with a fresh idea and had a decent plot that is essentially the exact same as District 9.

I love low budget movies, as long as there's at least a half decent story. My favorite film, Garden State, was a low budget film too (albeit not as low as Monsters).

I also loved Saw (low budget at $1.2 million compared to the sequels or most box office films).

And Upstream Color. Had a budget of <$100,000, but was an incredible story and was visually beautiful!

Monsters was just dull. It was visually beautiful for such a low budget film, but the story was severely lacking. I could have had the entire film on mute and gotten the exact same experience.

And comparing Monsters to District 9 won't help convince me. I absolutely hated that piece of crap film. Overrated and absolute rubbish!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing