‘Monsters: Dark Continent’ Teaser Trailer: Monsters of the Middle-east

Published 2 years ago by , Updated March 21st, 2014 at 9:15 pm,

Director Gareth Edwards is currently helming the blockbuster Godzilla remake for Legendary Pictures, but he first burst onto the scene with a unique indie film called Monsters (read our review). The film was pretty divisive, as many detractors felt that the slow-burn romance story -and only brief appearances of actual monsters – made the title a gross misnomer.

However, while a lot of people were disappointed in the core story of Monsters, that disappointment was the byproduct of excitement for what was – and still is – an intriguing premise about a world where giant alien creatures have entered our ecosystems. In the trailer for the non-sequel (let’s call it an “expansion film”) Monsters: Dark Continent, we get a first taste of another beleaguered land: the desert terrains of the Middle-East.

Monsters Dark Continent Teaser Trailer Monsters: Dark Continent Teaser Trailer: Monsters of the Middle east

Dark Continent carries no connection to the first film other than that it is set in the same world; our protagonists this time look to be a team of soldiers doing a tour of duty in the region, and the petrified carcass of a monster being hauled away on a flatbed truck hints that we could be encountering a different sort of beast in this new film. A synopsis states the the story will center on a solider - Game of Thrones‘ Joe Dempsie (Gendry) – who ventures into an infected zone to save a comrade.

Replacing Edwards at the helm is newcomer feature-film director Tom Green (Misfits), who sat down to talk about the film in an exclusive interview with Empire:

As soon as I watched Monsters I completely identified with the idea of using real locations as a foundation on which to build a world of limitless scale,” says Green, by way of introducing this first look.

“From my first visit to the location shown [in the teaser], in Jordan, it was somewhere I felt was key to making Dark Continent work. The moonscape-like environment was the perfect basis for an ‘alien’ landscape. The quarry trucks you see here became ‘buggies’ to transport the remains of firebombed monster herds to be incinerated, with all the leading characters emerging from the dust to witness the scale of the death toll for the first time — and for one character maybe too many times…”

Monsters image gas mask Monsters: Dark Continent Teaser Trailer: Monsters of the Middle east

A scene from ‘Monsters’

I personally described the first Monsters as “Lost In Translation meets War of the Worlds,” which is true on a character level; but in my own interview with Gareth Edwards it was clear there was also a strong socio-political message at work as well. (The film takes place in a Mexico that has been walled-off from America in order to keep the monsters south of the border – you make the connections.) Dark Continent -with its setting and choice of protagonist – not to mention Green’s quotes and the synopsis above – will clearly be tackling the idea of continued strife and war in the Middle-east, and the tolls of such violence and death in the face of duty and brotherhood.

Here’s hoping non-fans also get what they didn’t get from the first film: a suitable amount monsters mayhem to go with the commentary and character study. Dark Continent stars Joe Dempsie (Game of Thrones), Johnny Harris (Snow White and the Huntsman), Nicholas Pinnock (Captain America) and Parker Sawyers (Zero Dark Thirty).


Monsters: Dark Continent will be out sometime in 2014.

Source: Empire

Follow Kofi Outlaw on Twitter @ppnkof
TAGS: Monsters
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. The first movie had as much character development as Transformers 2. Can’t wait to get disappointed again.

    • So make something better with the same budget…

      • @Cave-ish Man,
        or just make a movie about what the title is actually about.

        • Oh please, just because it’s called Monsters, you expect it to entertain you with a host of big cgi’d popcorn-action n monsters. It was a shoe string budget and it a lot deeper than just including the typical Hollywood bish-bash-bosh

          • +1

            • +2

              • +3

                • +4. And to that effect, “Monsters Ball” wasn’t about recovering a half of a Godzilla-type’s…humm…coconuts for scientific purpose(?) ;b

                  • +5

          • I also liked the fact they minimized the number of appearances from monsters. Makes it all the more exciting when they actually do show up. Similar to Jurassic Park.

            • +3

          • Exactly! why do people expect to see what the trailer led them to believe?!

        • You saw these monsters more than you saw the Cloverfield monster. I loved the way they looked and moved. They were just benevolent animals, not killing machines. The first film was amazing.

      • Cave-ish Man you forgot to leave your contact information so he could reach you. I assume you’re going to be funding his movie.

        Are you saying only people involved in making movies can comment on movies?

        Or are you saying that only people with enough money to make movies can comment on movies?

        Just curious because your comment has left me baffled and confused.

        Thanks ;)

        • Why would you find the first one disappointing?

          A lack of monsters on screen? Do you therefore hate Jaws for not showing enough shark?

          I swear, some people are pathetic and just want their entertainment spoon-fed to them.

          • “A lack of monsters on screen?”


            • I’m sorry how exactly does an obvious ending come out of nowhere. You just contradicted yourself.

              I’d say this movie had a great atmosphere of character development…and in no way did I see the ending coming. Except for the fact that the whole point of the story was that they were trying to cross the border. If you are referring to the fact that you knew that was going to happen bravo, you listened to the dialogue.

              It’s ridiculous attitudes like these that hamper creative genius like this. This is exactly why Donnie Darko did a million times better in the U.K. than it did in the U.S. Because over there they aren’t knuckle dragging idiots who can’t pay attention for more than five minutes if their aren’t a sufficient amount of boobs and explosions.

              You sir have no right to watch films like these.

          • The reason the first movie sucked wasn’t because of the lack of monsters, it was because of the terrible script, boring and predictable story that you knew how it was going to end (I’m not talking about the beginning of the movie, if you’re going to point that out), ridiculously written dialogue, awful characters with little to no development aside from the very obvious ending that pretty much came out of nowhere, a pacing that would make Somewhere look like Crank, and the ridiculously stupid way the director felt it would be smart to put a pyramid near the US border.

            The problem with the movie wasn’t that the movie didn’t show any monsters or anything like that. The problem was that it was a slow, boring movie that told pretty much the same thing that other hundreds of films have said before -and in a much better way, should I add- to the point in which it makes me wonder that the real reason why critics felt this movie was deeper than what it truly was it’s because it was boring. You know a film is terrible when the most memorable line is “I’ve got to pee.”

  2. Teaser looks interesting, nothing too special though. Loved the first film so I’m obviously going to check this out. I’m just going to wait for a full trailer to get a feel of what route this movie will take.

  3. it think the true ‘monsters’ are us cause … why are we killing them ….

    some one explain that to me ok :)

    • I think that’s why the original was called Monsters. The true monsters are us and the segregation is something that is completely inhumane, whether in movies or real life.

      • Thank you. Someone gets it.

        Monsters doesn’t necessarily have to be referring to the alien creatures. It could just be referring to people who are simply despicable.

        Ever hear of a movie called Monster, starring Charlize Theron?

    • They lower house prices.

  4. Hm. A bit ‘S. Darko’ to ‘Donnie Darko’ this, but I liked enough of the first movie to warrant a sit down with the sequel.

  5. If this wasn’t a sequel, I would think this is a tasteless allegory.

  6. Hmm. I recently saw Monsters and I thought it was fantastic. Very few monsters actually shown in the movie, but the relationship between the 2 leads carried the film, and their development was well-executed and very believable.

    I hope that this one also uses the human relationships to carry the movie, with the “monster” element being the backdrop, as well as a metaphor for pressing issues.

    • Jesus Christ. Seriously?

  7. need another trailer get a judgement call, this one was too cryptic to understand the plot.