Spoiler Warning: This discussion has very few spoilers: some set up from the first act, a general idea of the narrative at hand.
"Good instincts are earned by making mistakes."
Love and Monsters is a film I’d usually never both with, appearing on the surface as a churned-out Netflix Original with maybe the most unimaginative title to grace a popular film in some time. However, to my surprise, the favourable reviews that emerged were not unfounded. I think this is an enjoyable, easily digestible, action-fantasy-comedy turnout.
Certainly, the opening is far more creative than that pesky title might suggest, with an exciting explanation for the total annihilation of the human race. The monster designs are all excellent and are realised with wonderful special effects; the set design of the bunkers, and by extension, the overgrown natural world are not only plausible but entertaining settings for action set pieces to take place. Dylan O’Brien is a strong lead, showing off some great comedic timing and acting almost entirely with a dog for the duration of the runtime. Indeed, it is he and the dog that keeps things on track for most of the second act. Without them, the predictability of the narrative may have lost some of the overall momentum.
The eventual downfall comes in the climax of the text. The narrative is traditional, hardly veering from the course of the next expected event. I wouldn’t mind so much if the last act had an ounce of the creativity that the previous two did. The entire narrative of the final thirty minutes feels tacked-on, like a part of a different film. So, from that, it makes much of the charming quest that O’Brien’s Joel undertakes fall flat in retrospect.
Nevertheless, Love and Monsters is an easy-going, affable little movie with some real integrity in its technical aspects. The direction is winning no awards; neither is the screenplay. However, I’m always down for a light action-comedy, and this nails it. Plus, it has a dog.
Connor Clarke Film 