Film: British B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

Science Fiction B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Can someone find a better ref for the budget amount? Budget number of $15,000 at top of article uses reserveresult.com as ref (budget amount doesn't seem to be mentioned in the video there). Budget number near bottom has been changed from $250,000 to £250,00 but the next ref (traileraddict.com with what seems to be same vid) seems to have no mention of the budget amount (including the video). Failed to find budget amount at Monsters website and magpictures.com. --EarthFurst (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at London's FrightFest (August 28th 2010) the figure of £15,000 was mentioned.Twobells (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb has an estimated $15000 here Dylan (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the plot really this bad or did someone make it so the synopsis sucks....I haven't seen the movie..just wondering.--Alex Maione (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis is pretty bad, with numerous errors. Should be rewritten or deleted. Examples of errors: his son is not "estranged"; the ring is to pay for the trip escort, not just a bribe; they are traveling through Mexico, not Central America; there is no "terraforming"; the evacuated region where they arrive is probably Southern California or Arizona, not Texas; she speaks to her fiancé on the phone, not her father; neither "reconciles" with their family; the aliens are probably mating. --Kai Carver (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the movie and she does speak to her father... what are you talking about? --Againme (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "evacuated region" shown after the border crossing is Galveston, Texas, shot right after Hurricane Ike while the island was still evacuated.

The scene just after they cross the border is typical Texas coastal plains, it could certainly be the Texas coast just north of the border. There is, on the other hand, nothing like a jungle for hundreds of miles in any direction, so the idea of them walking there from the jungle encrusted pyramid in a half a day or so is laughable.Baron ridiculous (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the description to fit exactly as the places are presented in the movie, but clearly the film director does not know the geography of Mexico and Central America. The initial title says the protagonists are in San Jose, Central America (the capital of Costa Rica?), not Mexico, but when reaching the coast they are in Mexico (do they travel across Central America up to Mexico?). Also, the movie credits do not include Belize, so I delete it from the list of shooting locations.--Mariordo (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, if they start in San José, Orange Walk District, they can easily travel a little to the north and to the coast of Mexico. --Againme (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But San Jose in this film was a big city, not vilage. --Zipacna1 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Mayan Temple in the Rainforest at the Mexican-US border. There isn't much more to say about this movie... --Echosmoke (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is probably only going to be cared about by Armegon, so I will mostly make this a message to you. Why does this film need all of those genre descriptors? I agree that I shouldn't have removed "independent", but "science fiction monster film" is excessive. I think we need to do a source search to see what most refer to it as. My guess is that our result will be just science fiction, which I think describes this film the best as the titular monsters seldom appear. Thoughts? Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 11:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Some sources:[reply]

• Allmovie: Genre(s): Science fiction. Sub-genres: Creature film and Sci-fi disaster film.
• AV Club: "low-budget science-fiction film"
• The Guardian: "a thrilling postmodern sci-fi film", "terrifically exciting sci-fi movie"
• LA Times: "lo-fi sci-fi construct 'Monsters'"
• Toronto Star: "There are monster movies, made by real fans of the genre...Into this...first category steps Monsters"
• Roger Ebert: "Drama, Foreign, Science Fiction, Thriller"
• Empire: "less a mumblecore movie with monsters than it is a sci-fi picture which never loses sight of the human factor"
• The Hollywood Reporter: "broad sci-fi sensationalism."

I'd say that's a solid list, but I didn't go through every single source (other than Allmovie and AV Club, these were just the top few critical reviews on Rotten Tomatoes). If you find more, post them here of course. But at the moment, we have seven calling it sci-fi, two calling it a monster movie, and one calling it a drama and thriller. I'm thinking, based on all of this, that the lead should say "independent science fiction film." Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 11:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]