Monsters: Dark Continent
Tags: anti war, revenge, suspenseful, murder, violence

Plot synopsis:
Ten years after the events of the previous film, four closely knit friends from Detroit—Michael, Frankie, Inkelaar and new father Williams—are U.S. soldiers deployed to the Middle East for their first tour as they must deal with the monsters and a new insurgency on the rise. They meet their team leaders, Forrest and Frater. Frater, who has already gone through nine tours, has become estranged from his wife and daughter, who he says is afraid of him. On their first mission, they investigate a farm house and interrogate the owner. During the encounter, one of the gigantic monsters approaches the group and they are forced to gun it down. Three months into their tour, the team receives a search and rescue mission for four soldiers who have gone missing along a particularly active area.
During a drive, the team's convoy hits a hidden IED which disables both vehicles, killing Forrest and two of their team. Williams, disoriented by the explosion, wanders onto another IED, which detonates, blowing his legs off. The group is then set under fire by insurgents. Rushing Williams to safety, Inkelaar is unable to stabilise Williams, who dies shortly after. Forced to abandon his body, the four remaining escape on foot. After finding another shelter and while recovering from what has happened, Inkelaar is killed by a sniper while Frankie is wounded before a group of insurgents surrounds them. Frater leads the others into surrendering. After being captured, Michael and Frater are bound and forced to watch as Frankie bleeds to death in front of them. That night, Frater uses the distraction of an approaching monster to disarm and kill one of their guards, and the two of them escape on motorcycles, determined to finish their mission.
After the bikes run out of gas, they continue eastward until they encounter a destroyed school bus. As Frater searches for water, Michael encounters a boy still alive. They briefly debate euthanising him until they are rescued by locals, who feed them and give them water in gratitude for saving the boy's life. Michael wanders off with one of the women, and they witness one of the monsters spreading luminescent spores through the night time desert around them, while Frater visits the boy who succumbs to his injuries. Frustrated at their failure to save the boy, Frater angrily reminds Michael of their mission, and the two continue east toward a settlement their men would have gone to. However, they discover there that the soldiers they were meant to rescue had all been killed prior to their arrival. Now enraged by the futility of their mission and the lives lost, Frater snaps and kills one of the villagers. Michael is forced to shoot him to keep him from killing the rest of the family.
Violent tremors prompt Frater to wander out of the village as Michael follows him to their extraction point. As an enormous monster emerges from the sands in front of them, Frater collapses and dies from his injury. The evac helicopter comes in and picks up Michael, who looks on in silence as the screen cuts to black.

Review: Now that I've watched it, I can't stress how much of a disappointment it was.MONSTERS: DARK CONTINENT is NOT a Sci-Fi / Horror movie.
To bad they were overwhelmingly used as backdrop props, looking like a herd of buffalo at times.I'll never understand why this wasn't just strictly a war movie.
It could have been an above average war movie if the money spent on the monster effects had been used for a bigger war setting or better actors.
There was just no need for monsters to be roaming in the background of a war movie, never really posing any threat to the characters.
I remember only vaguely the first Monsters movie and my review from back then said that I liked it a lot.
The story is about a group of kids from Detroit who join the army, go in some Arabic desert and fight both monsters and insurgents.The big big problem with this film is the length.
I am being a bit mean.I guess the message was that monsters are everywhere, from the people setting a dog on a little alien forcing it to defend itself and kill the dog, to the American forces mindlessly killing civilians, from the Arab insurgents who kill soldiers, to the maddened soldier who needs to kill everybody that even looks like an enemy.
As usual, the alien monsters are just minding their own peaceful business.Bottom line: the movie failed in a number of ways: bad character exposition, pointless length, stupid soldiering, a plot that has no need of the aliens.
What a load of pretentious, art w*nk nonsense this film really is.It's bad enough that the story is paper thin and the characters are as unlikeable as an upset stomach (one minute gangsta tough, the next screaming like babies) but the direction is shocking.It's like a frustrated art student trying out every possible style of image capture.
Long shots, close shots, lens flare, angled, shaky cam, slow mo and none of them working.One pointless scene of a helicopter taking off showed it's ascent from at least 10 different angles - outside looking up, inside looking out, inside looking inside, outside different angle etc etc.Every character must have had at least two shots of them silent screaming from the Dummies Guide to filming internal angst.Things aren't explained, geography is not established and you can almost feel the makers telegraphing their contempt to the audience that 'if you don't get this, you're too stupid'.It's not engaging, thought provoking or entertaining.
This was really just an anti-war movie and I think there was a message in there about the middle-east conflict but I couldn't be sure because there were so many confusing themes happening at the same time.
With regards this film specifically - what the main characters go through mentally could easily be mirrored by actual soldiers overseas today but the fact that the main enemy is not of this world, puts a different and interesting perspective on war.
The movie is called Monsters, but similar to the first, the monsters have so little to do with the story, even more so in the second than the first.It's all about male bonding during military time as a platoon of boys from the same hood in Detroit go to war together in the Middle East.The picture moves quickly, never a dull moment, very kinetic movement.
Very good cinematography.Visual effects were decent as well.Total exploitation of war that ads a sci-fi fantasy elements with the monsters, used only as a backdrop no different than the dessert the movie takes place in.Overall, I like the movie, despite how little the monsters have to do with the story at all.
But before we talk about whether the sequel really qualifies as a reward, let's set the stage for the second film by taking a quick look back at the first.The story of the original "Monsters" has NASA bringing samples of possible living organisms back from one of Jupiter's moons, only to inadvertently introduce Earth to a new species that is larger and deadlier than anything currently on the planet.
The sequel picks up about ten years after the first film ends and has all new characters in a completely different setting and with a very different plot.The production schedule for "Godzilla" prevented Edwards from directing "Monsters: Dark Continent" (although he did serve as Executive Producer) and the sequel's writers, Jay Basu and Tom Green (the latter making his directorial debut with this film), made the sequel about the soldiers who are fighting the monsters.
As in the original film, the follow-up is mostly a story of human survival, with the monsters practically fading into the background (a point that some praise, but many criticize).
This film is a combination of "The Hurt Locker", "Saving Private Ryan", "Platoon" and "Starship Troopers", but with much more intensity."Monsters: Dark Continent" delivers in terms of the emotions experienced by soldiers in high-stress situations, but that's all it does.
(Oh, the tragedy of wasted monster potential.) Even though I don't feel like I got what I paid for, I was impressed with the performances of the actors playing soldiers, but that wasn't enough for me or maybe it was too much.
The beauty of the original 2010 Monsters was its profound statement, Dark Continent satisfies the original naysayer's with action, and not much else.The initial 2010 film Monsters was a profound parable about humanity and its interactions with one another that used an 'alien invasion' as a mirror for this introspection.
When I saw the trailer, I was mortified of the bastardization of the beautiful film into Hollywood action drivel.With the scope of potential from its predecessor being a peak of perfection to the lows of my expectations of pure garbage, Monsters: Dark Continent falls somewhere in the middle but certainly closer to trash.
In truth, Dark Continent tries to be like its original in using the alien invasion to be an allegory for the war efforts in the middle east.
Back to the film It starts off with our "heroes" involved in a conflict with insurgents in the Middle East and spends the ENTIRE film as a war movie with the Monsters in the background.
Now I thought war movie in the context of he title Monsters meant Alien vs.
I do not go into this film expecting to watch, wait for it a WAR MOVIE.
But the monsters had very little airtime, it looked like the creatures had other engagements and had no time to remains in this particular movie!.
However, this movie seemed more like a film about the Iraq war with the monsters as a very distant backdrop.
And at the end just when it looked like it was about to start getting good, it just ends, no answers, no decent plot, just 100% rubbish, save time and do not watch this....
Edwards managed to direct an entertaining sci-fi film using alien monsters as the background to tell the story of a journalist trying to escort an American tourist through an infected zone in Mexico back to the US.
It tries to follow a similar premise as the original film by being an allegory of sorts, this time about American intervention in the Middle East and it too leaves the monsters as an afterthought.
This is where the real fight begins for the new recruits.I can't complain about the aliens being simply a background for this clichéd anti-war film because it was the same thing in the first movie, but Dark Continent doesn't even take its time to develop interesting characters.
If you enjoyed MONSTERS don't watch this film, because this is a serious tragic war movie.
Is it the soldiers performing the mission regardless of the consequences, is it the insurgent people who rebel against the foreign invaders (I'll let you decide who the actual invaders are), or is the benign octo-beast roaming the desert?I can expand upon this premise more, but I would refer you to too slight different review which pretty much sum up the rest of my points:"good flick" - 9/10 - Author: >Hschuntermann< from United States - 16 March 2015"The real monster is inside" - 6/10 - Author: >siderite< from Romania - 16 March 2015I would heed >Hschuntermann's< advice and forgo reading too many reviews, as it may sway what you might get out of this movie.
If you're looking for a movie that makes you think about what or who the real monsters are within our lives, then I would highly recommend both films but if you're looking for a gun-ho, mindless, movie about killing aliens, then might I recommend Starship Troopers.
While the film was a little overlong (it got a bit navel-gazey in places, especially toward the end), it mostly had me gripped for its entire running time: the action was visceral (the dogfight, for example), there was an almost-constant feeling of tension and the special effects were breathtaking: the monsters have had some serious creature design done on them, introducing the young and some (I think) subspecies.
Every time they appeared on screen I was captivated by their depiction: of course, their appearance at the Bedouin camp was the highlight of the film along, I suppose, with the tantalising half-reveal at the end.The performances from a not well-known troupe of actors were excellent, especially from Sam Keeley as Parkes, Nicholas Pinnock as Forrest (even if his character was a bit Underused) and Johnny Harris as Frater.
I wasn't overly keen on Gareth Edwards 2010 sci-fi indie film MONSTERS down to the fact that it was marketed as science fiction featuring an alien invasion when the main bulk of the story revolved around what was a back packing romance .
With this sequel director and co-writer Tom Green goes one better and makes an out and out war film set in the Middle East where the aliens are peripheral As stated I wasn't impressed with the original and was rather puzzled with the high praise it received from many quarters .
If you're expecting something in the way of WAR OF THE WORLDS then fair enough and despite being a different genre in that a sappy love story becomes a hard hitting war film MONSTERS DARK CONTINENT at least has the stylistic look and feel that it is a spin off from the 2010 film Apart from having alien monsters in the background it doesn't do a lot different from what you might expect from a straight war movie .
That said for a relatively low budget independent film the action scenes are handled well and might have been very impressive as a straight forward war movie.
After seeing the original Monsters movie, I thought the sequel would be at least a little, tiny, itsy bitsy bit like the original,its not.
It is the world's most boring US v Middle East War movie and they pointless plot goes on and on and on with uninteresting people doing uninteresting things that you couldn't possibly care less about,all while they mixed in about 40 seconds of total screen time for the monsters.
This movie is a brilliant and original allegory of what is monstrous in human nature when it's unbound against what others describe as monstrosity.An invasion on a country and continent westerns do not fully understand described in so many levels that you can read from almost every scene not only the cruelty of war but also the price it requires from it's participants.Who or what is the invader ?
This was a great sequel to Monsters in my opinion...and I read a review that said they were disappointed because they felt it was boring and had less to do with the monsters; but the whole thing was that it was years later and I think they were trying to point out how having these things in our world would impact us as a culture.
Having to fight creatures AND each other because we are fighting the creatures in foreign territories...in war torn countries, in countries like Iraq or Afghanistan...I mean, it makes sense to make a sequel that focuses on the impact the monsters being in the world has on the people.
I mean, is it a war story, a drama, an existential trip about our place in the universe, a horror, a sci-fi, a monster movie, or a commentary about our country's involvement in every other country that we aren't suppose to be in?
I hit the fast-forward button because I decided that I didn't need the 5 minutes of (pun intended) EFFing exposition from the human apes against the wall and was even more disappointed by the fact that it wasn't a monster hunting movie it was just a long long long boring slow film about the mental trials of war.i think apocalypse now did it better and they had a whole scene wear our "heroes" payed to screw heroine addict porn stars.but it wasn't a fan service moment.
First the good -- excellent monster special effects.Now the bad -- everything else.The movie is filled with pointless denigration of the soldiers.
You should watch the movie if you like war drama movies with a bit of Sci-Fi,because we all fight a monster in our lives but the scariest one.
I watched this movie expecting monsters galore and soldiers all up in arms trying to stop them.
I saw the first MONSTERS movie, and then saw that there was a sequel, watched the trailer, which looked like it would have more aliens.
The aliens just cause saw awe struck looks from a few of the characters a few time, but like I said 97% war movie, with realistic battle wounds.
The movie stars Johnny Harris, Sam Keeley and Joe Dempsie.Like the first film, the monsters/'alien invasion' plot line serves more as a backdrop to the actual story.
The monsters are the best part of the movie, and some of the scenes (involving them) are truly breathtaking and beautiful (just like the first film).
All I got from the film was that war is bad, innocents die and the US military cannot control monsters or Jihadist in the Middle East.
This is a slow movie, with a lot more drama than there actually is action, but the level of action and violence that is shown brings out the true realism of the conflict ( yes I said realism even though it's a world that has huge giant monsters ) and you can see the after effects on our main protagonists.
It is a war movie with many human monsters, a few special effect monsters thrown in to pretend it is sci-fi/horror and unlikable characters (at least for me).
All in I never got to the end of the film as it was so bad what could have been a good story and survival war movie was lost in the plot of this film.
I liked this movie.In my years of watching films, I learned to understand what a director has in his horizon in terms of budget restrictions, ambition and risk taking.
This movie will do it again by the end, as will do with the protagonist and his struggle.If you expect to see massive city wrecking and large scale battles like War of the Worlds, look elsewhere.
I'm a huge fan of Starship Troopers but for me movies like Monsters: Dark Continent is what science fiction is really all about.
Like in the first film things look good and acting isn't too offensive, but you still hardly see any monsters and it's still dull.
Unfortunately, the sequel, Monsters: Dark Continent, ignores all the pros from its predecessor to punish us with a boring war film which takes the concept of the monsters as a distant and inconsequential background of the exaggerated drama developed between a group of absolutely anonymous and antipathetic soldiers.
This is not a movie about monsters and if you expect to watch another huge monsters action adventure you'll be disappointed.The USA Army fights the monsters in some Middle East country without avoiding to kill or destroy the lives of innocent locals.
A good film for someone who wants to watch a "monster" movie with a second level of interpretation.
Did Monsters get in the way of your war movie?.
They honestly felt like they were getting in the way of the war film!There was very little interaction with the Monsters and 99% of the movie was between the army lads.
(2/10) Settings: Monsters: Dark Continent brings the action to the Middle East but never explains why it ends up there.
Post Credits Scene: NoOscar Chances: No Runtime: 1 Hour 59 Minutes Trivia: The main actor from the first Monsters movie Scott McNairy is signed on as an Executive Producer for Monsters:Dark Continent.Overall: Very disappoint sequel to one of the best low budget films of recent years.
I was getting fed up with the war and wanted more of the Monsters but disappointingly, I had to see through gun fire, screaming and nonsense.The title really has nothing to do with the movie.Waste of time unless you like war films, people firing guns at each other and a story line which to me didn't make much sense..
There seems to be a different kind of monsters in this one, and they don't really explain it at all.This is made out to be mostly a war movie.
Whatever your views on the violence in the middle east is, I feel this movie is not a war movie or a Sci-fi, but a human story with a different point of view..
Monsters: Dark Continent feels more of a sequel to a different alien film than Gareth Edwards first outing.The effects are great, especially the larger Monsters when on display.
At the end of the movie, the quote from the beginning gets a whole different meaning."Put a bullet in a monster, that was supposed to be our war, but you better know your enemy".
An introduction at the beginning made it clear this was a war film, rather than a road movie like the first, and they weren't wrong.