Monsters: Dark Continent

**Fighting terrorist in the midst of monsters invasion.** I am surprised for the production quality. It was comparable to those big productions, so no doubt the visuals played its part accurately. ... **Fighting terrorist in the midst of monsters invasion.** I am surprised for the production quality. It was comparable to those big productions, so no doubt the visuals played its part accurately. Then what makes this film bad? Well, the story is the biggest issue here. It is a confusion screenplay, not for the viewers, but seems for the writers. Looks they don't know how to develop and end it with their decent opening. It was more focused on the military operation than conflict between the man and the monsters. How come when monsters taking over the earth is not considered a threat, but fighting terrorism becomes the main preference. The same thing applies to the terrorists as well. No way near to the original. In fact, I don't know is it appropriate to tag it as a sequel to a film that earned a decent fame. The title says 'Dark Continent', but it takes place in the middle-east. Maybe it was the northern Africa, anyway, there's no clear picture about the location. This is the director's first feature film, but it was not a bad direction. The actors did decently as well and again, it is the story that bothered me. I feel it is an unnecessary sequel, so I say don't bother to watch it, because it is not worth, unless you can take a chance to find yourself how bad it is. _3.5/10_

This is a war movie... with a very minor subplot regarding monsters. For a war movie, it's a pretty good one. Reminds me of Blackhawk Down in its production values. BUT as a sequel to Monsters ... This is a war movie... with a very minor subplot regarding monsters. For a war movie, it's a pretty good one. Reminds me of Blackhawk Down in its production values. BUT as a sequel to Monsters (which I enjoyed) it is a dismal failure. And I wanted to see a sequel to Monsters, which I did not get.