Monsters. And Guilt. And Batman’s Nipples. In No Particular Order.

Whitney Able as Samantha Wynden in Monsters

Looking back, I fondly remember my first run in with Gamera, Godzilla and King Kong. I’d seen most of the films as a child, and, being easily influenced, I took every plot hole and meandering story line with a grain of salt. Then, I saw Gamera 3: Awakening of Irys back in the early 2000’s. It was less than stellar, and the aberrant school girl/giant monster tentacle love scene scarred me even deeper than when Schumacher decided to put pasties on Batman.

Suffice it to say, I set aside the “giant monster” genre indefinitely. Then, in 2008,¬† Cloverfield came along. It was underwhelming to say the least. As far as I was concerned, I made a wise choice to swear off giant monster films, but also a poor choice to allow J.J. Abrams to siphon $11.50 outta my pocket. Actually, it was my little brother’s pocket. So, really, Abrams took a total of $23 from my brother. That’s something I can’t abide.

I kinda liked Star Trek, though…

Now, two years later, I’m lowering my guard once again. Monsters, Gareth Edwards‘ theatrical debut, looks to be an amalgam of The Road, District 9 and (for better or worse) Cloverfield. After a NASA probe crash lands in someones back yard down near the Mexican border, it’s discovered that some alien organisms hitched a ride. As they spread and threaten life as we know it, we follow two protagonists through conflict torn America as they’re assailed by said alien adversary. It sounds awfully ho-hum but, despite the purported “micro-budget”, it looks to have some excellent production value. That, and I’m certain Monsters won’t have an underlying message of how much I, as an American consumer, pollute the environment and sully the beauty of nature with my excessive expenditure of natural resources.

The last thing I need to feel as I watch a Hollywood blockbuster is guilt, thanks Abrams. That’s especially true if my younger sibling is unwillingly (unknowingly?) picking up the tab. Here’s to you, little brother!

Monsters will see a U.S. release on Halloween 2010.

Anyone else swear off genres or directors, or am I just that neurotic? Lemme know, at least so I may feel less forlorn.

Trailer and clip below…


Tags: , , ,

Categories: News

3 Comments on “Monsters. And Guilt. And Batman’s Nipples. In No Particular Order.”

  1. Adam
    August 19, 2010 at 4:49 pm #

    Yeah, I guess I’m a little intrigued by this one as well. As for Star Trek and Cloverfield I couldn’t disagree with you more.

  2. Joey
    August 20, 2010 at 7:12 am #

    I mean, a $15,000 budget and it looks like that? I’d say it’s worth the ticket price for that reason alone.

    Regarding Cloverfield, I followed the hell outta the crazy marketing campaign. I watched all the teasers, trailers and fan analysis of both. I studied the posters for the little details you’d miss unless you really looked. I went to all the seemingly unrelated meta-sites that offered a handful of clues to what the movie was really about. Then, I watched the film. Characters I didn’t/couldn’t care about, headache inducing handycam, and a climax that was so predictable, I lol’d. The last line in the film was “I love you” as the tunnel caved in. C’mon.

    At least Star Trek was interesting. There IS something to be said about rehashing an old IP, but Abrams did it right without alienating anyone not familiar with the lore. When you can say the only real star power in the film is Leonard Nimoy and Simon Pegg, I think that’s pretty impressive for a movie that made close to four hundred million.

  3. Adam
    August 20, 2010 at 1:42 pm #

    Regarding Star Trek: I guess I didn’t like it because there were a buttload of trekkies in the theater that would laugh, giggle and make sounds of geekasm relief every 15 minutes from some inside joke or casting that went right over my head. I found all the characters to be really unlikeable, when clearly the writing suggested that the characters were supposed to be liked, even the rebelious Captain Kirk.

    Whereas in Cloverfileld, the characters were supposed to be annoying and while both films were far-fetcheched at least Cloverfield’s reality was more believeable. I mean, don’t even get me started on the paradox of two Spock’s existing at the same time through an extremely silly time travel plot.

    Maybe our expectations for the films had something to do with how we viewed them. I went into Cloverfield having purposely ignored all the hype and knew very little about it. As for cheesy endings, Cloverfield is no different from any James Cameron (King of cheese in every film he has ever directed) ending.

    For Star Trek, I was actually kind of excited, even considering the fact that I was never a big fan of the show. I left the theater thinking, “This is what everybody is talking about. You’ve got to be kidding me.”

    Anyway, I guess it is what it is right?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: