Search - Monster on DVD

Forrest H. (fzacharvey) from PLEASANTVILLE, PA
Reviewed on 11/6/2010...

Total crap! Done in the same manner as Cloverfield, but just so bad!!!! The camera jerks, cuts out, static, green, snow, you name it the camera does it! Gave me a headache from watching so I shut it off. Very bad movie, very poor visual effects. The two girls in the movie did a good job of acting, but Asylum needs to just give up on their junk movies! Pass on this one. You don't even get to see the Monster! What a joke!

1 of 1 member(s) found this review helpful.

Penh G. (Penh) from SUNNYVALE, CA
Reviewed on 6/21/2010...

The Asylum specializes in what are called "mockbusters" -- cheap quick rip-offs of upcoming big-budget horror or SF movies that they rush into production so the DVD will hit the shelves right around the time the original hits theaters. This is their version of "Cloverfield," and it fails on every conceivable level. Two sisters are in Tokyo to make a documentary about global warming when a major earthquake strikes, sending them scurrying to the basement. But is it really an earthquake? Or is it a... MONSTER?!?! Well, if you read the DVD title, you know the answer to that question already, so let's move on.

Because this is a rip-off of "Cloverfield," the entire movie consists of the footage taken by the sisters as they run back and forth through Tokyo, ostensibly to document the horrifying events taking place around them. Unfortunately, because this is a cheap straight-to-DVD affair, they mostly only point the camera at each other, and we have to take their word for it that things are happening around them. Every so often we get lucky and see a CGI plane fly crookedly past or big CGI tentacles whipping around in the background, but the camera inevitably ends up pointed right back at the sisters, and often at their chests. Seriously, there's maybe a total of 60 seconds of actual footage of anything other than the sisters looking scared, or whining, or arguing, or jiggling. There's only one shot in the entire movie that attempts to give a wide view of the alleged destruction -- a quick shot of CGI smoke pouring from a few office towers -- and it lasts about five seconds before the camera pans away to treat us to two minutes of a sister looking at it. They are, without a doubt, the worst documentarians ever to walk the Earth. It's painfully obvious that the reason we never see much of anything besides the girls is that the movie's low budget didn't have room for much of anything to show.

And, of course, in order to give the impression that this is genuine "found footage," the picture is constantly breaking up, freezing, cutting out, dissolving into static, turning green, fuzzing out, pixelating, blurring, and so forth. I guess it's only fitting that the world's worst documentarians should have the world's worst camcorder. They're lucky it didn't just explode in their hands, though by the time the movie's halfway over, you'll be praying it will. A certain amount of film damage does help to give an air of authenticity, but the movie goes way, way, WAY overboard with it. As with their refusal to point the camera at anything interesting, it's clear that the main purpose of all the static and fuzz is to conceal the fact that they just couldn't afford much in the way of special effects.

But dammit, that's no excuse. Look up "Ataque de Panico!" on YouTube and see what one talented guy in Uruguay did with just $300. Any 15 second sequence of that short film absolutely blows away the entirely of "Monster." The problem with "Monster" is not just a lack of money, but a total lack of talent, and an equally total lack of giving-a-crap.

2 of 2 member(s) found this review helpful.

Too much talking, not enough monster...

Carlos Gomez | The Moon | 01/09/2008

(1 out of 5 stars)

"Do yourself a favor and save a few bucks by doing this: Downloading the Cloverfield trailer, watching it once and then waiting for its release. Not only will those two minutes be better than this entire movie, but you'd be excited for Cloverfield's release.

Monster comes from the same studio that brought us Transmorphers and Snakes on a Train, thus you can conclude that it's utter trash completely ripping off its bigger brother, in this case Cloverfield, J.J. Abrams, at the time of this review, yet-to-be-released monster movie.

Like that movie, this movie is about a monster that (instead of New York) attacks Tokyo for reasons unknown. Apparently a cover-up, the monster reigns terror on the denizens of Tokyo and two American filmmakers. These American filmmakers run around the city avoiding the monster while filming whatever they can with their American camera. The two Americans in distress run around, scream, flail and tell everyone with a pulse they're American in the hope of getting out of Tokyo. All of this running around like a chicken with its head cut off action is filmed through a handheld camera and really annoys rather intrigue because the monster is hardly shown. At all.

In fact all you really see is a few tentacles every now and then, legs, some buildings and smoke, not to mention audiovisual distortions that make the Cloverfield trailer look like a Steven Spielberg film. The acting is horrible, with ignorant line after ignorant line spewed out and the action is, well, something a notch below action. Actually, the only action in this movie is the occasional rough camera shake, fall and rumble. Not to mention the monsters roar which is heard around five-hundred million times. With all that noise everywhere, it's hard to find out what the hell the plot is, what everyone is saying and how everything ends. But really, what makes this movie such a big rip is the fact you don't see the monster in its entirety.

It's like having sex with someone you love and then finding out it was really just you the whole time. You feel dirty, you feel ashamed and you wonder why the hell you didn't realize beforehand and in return become slightly more retarded than when you started. All in all, I gave this movie too much time (and hour and a half) and too much credit. This review is way more detailed than the actual movie. Bleh."

Headache Inducing Piece Of ...

Fred Rayworth | Las Vegas, NV United States | 02/27/2008

(1 out of 5 stars)

"I think Ed Wood spent more money on Plan 9 From Outer Space. Probably the most expensive part of this movie was the flight to Tokyo.

I absolutely hate the herky-jerky camera and I wasn't kidding about the title of this review as it really did give me a headache. After the first few minutes, I kept wondering when they'd go to a regular steady camera, but it never happened. The next thing I know, a half hour went by and by then I just didn't have the energy to get up and hit the eject button. It was like driving by a car wreck where you just can't stop looking. As I sat there, I kept hoping something would happen to redeem the awful acting and story movement, but it stayed consistently annoying to the end.

The icky bug is almost non-existent. You hear a little roar once in a while, and see the odd octopus arm flash in the background. The art on the DVD box is highly misleading as you NEVER see the monster in as much detail as in that painting.

I can't give it no stars because the rating system would not allow it. I would have given it one star for originality, but wait... Blair Witch???

Save your money and your time. Oh, and one other thing... if you liked this type of hand-held filming, you'll love Cloverfield. I'll pass.

"

Stop making these movies

Dach Nednil | Slidell, La USA | 03/06/2008

(1 out of 5 stars)

"Why does this company still exist??? Who rents this stuff and how do they get into the big chain stores??? As usual, utter garbage from Asylum. You've been warned."