Monsters of War

I cannot imagine a single redeeming feature of this film. The acting is so wooden that cadboard cut outs would have been far superior to any of the performaces rendered by this cast. The plot is contrived in theworst sense of the term and is almost a stream of consciousness affair. Not worth even a ten minute look-see! The British should be tried for War Crimes for this movie!

The story of this movie had potential. The acting, therefore, is ridiculously bad. The children who are cast have null charisma and what the children lack in acting talent the rest compensates for with terrible overacting. The local amateur drama society employs more credible actors. The monsters in this movie are quite imaginative, but the execution is downright bad. The CGI looks ridiculously cheap. I can't believe anyone put the time and money into making this. Sometimes there are those movies that are so bad it's still funny to watch but this just hurts your eyes. Avoid this movie at all costs. Go do something fun with your time. Go scrub a toilet, iron the laundry, or literate your stamp collection. These are 81 minutes of your life you will never get back.

When I sat down here late in 2022 to watch the 2021 movie "Monsters of War", I had never actually heard about the movie. I stumbled upon it by random chance, and I must admit that I found the movie's cover to be interesting enough to make me sit down and give it a chance.

Now, anyone familiar with the production level of the average movie from The Asylum might find "Monsters of War", though it was not one of their movies. In fact, "Monsters of War" outdid the usual level of lousy movies they did. So yeah, you are truly in for a dumpster fire of a movie, should you opt to sit down and watch "Monsters of War".

Writer Scott Jeffrey put together a scrambled jumble of a storyline for the movie, one that made absolutely no sense whatsoever. So if you want a movie that is all over the place without making an ounce of logical sense in any way, then by all means give "Monsters of War" a chance. I prefer a movie that provides proper entertainment when watching it, and writer Scott Jeffrey failed on an epic scale here.

The acting performances in "Monsters of War" were terrible, one and all. I swear, it was as if director Jack Peter Mundy went out of his way to ensure that the entire cast ensemble was everybit as dubious, wooden and rigid as the mutation of a script he was handed by Scott Jeffrey way. Of the entire cast ensemble in the movie, I was only familiar with actress Chrissie Wunna.

Visually then you're in for quite a treat here. Yeah, the special effects and the CGI effects in "Monsters of War" were indeed exactly that - special. The CGI was such an eye-sore to behold on the screen, and it was difficult to fathom that something that bad would actually get around to seeing the light of day in 2021.

It was as if the people behind "Monsters of War" were virtually going on all in on every front in making "Monsters of War" every bit as horrible, laughable and poor as humanly possible.

Do yourself a huge favor and stay well clear of this heap of dung disguised as a movie.

My rating of "Monsters of War" lands on a one out of ten stars.

I think that says it all.

You'll understand if you watch this movie.

It's a monster movie. Bunch of weird monsters.

The opening family is really weird. All through the movie, you'll be thinking that they were really robots, or something to explain their weirdness and stiffness.

But it never happens.

In its defense, I'll say that it certainly looks like some very important information was CUT. Maybe more was filmed, maybe more was scheduled to be filmed. It wouldn't take much to add for some coherent story line or character line.

Mostly, the military angle looked like something was cut. The two surviving soldiers who join the isolated group have weapons that never work. That is possibly what is missing from the story. Were they given decrepit weapons on purpose by humans, or was there a supernatural reason? Nothing is indicated either way. Was there a scene cut from the movie to explain this? The woman playing the military leader gets top billing, even though the family is center stage, so I'm inclined to believe there was initially more to the script.

Until that is added on to the movie, I have to grade it on its merits as is. So, here goes:

We learn many lessons. The people in the military are given weapons that don't function. And eventually the ones who survive learn to just toss those weapons away.

We learn that if a beast is about to eat you, to stand and talk and don't run away or drive away for a good 15 seconds. This is to ensure that the slower beasts don't get their meal, and you get to feed faster beasts who will breed faster beasts.

Many such lessons.

The motivations for the characters? Well, some are motivated, and some are just kind of "lets just have this character do this thing here". Notably a stereotypical religious nut and the family from the beginning.

I'll be lax on the rating, because I do believe the panic in panic situations. That's the only thing going for this movie. People not acting calm and cool when huge dangerous beasts are maiming and tearing their bodies apart.

But it total?

I think it can all be summed up with:

Huh?

The CGI was really good, but the acting came out of a Cracker Jack Box. The facial expression you can tell the lead actress was trying too hard with extra long eyelashes. The kids had no emotion. I want my time back.