A little while ago I was talking about a film called Animal and super-generic horror movie titles. And shortly thereafter, I came across this appropriately-titled film on Amazon Prime. So I got queued up, and finally checked it out today. But while Animal had the decency to prominently feature an animal, the same cannot be said about Monster. I mean, the titular monster is the motivating force behind the plot, but until the very end there is precious little monster action.
The opening title card tells us the "story you are about to see is based on fact. The incident occurred in June 1971 in Columbia." There is no corroborating evidence to support this, but whatever. There was no internet in 1978, so maybe some people would buy it. An American-owned factory has been built in a small town in Columbia. There are many, many problems surrounding the factory; the locals are upset about its impact on the environment, a rebel named Sanchez is stirring up anti-American sentiment, a nosy American reporter is rooting around in company business, and a couple people have mysteriously gone missing. Plus, there is a rumor going around about a monster in the nearby lake (where the factory presumably dumps their waste). The company bigwigs think it's total hogwash, but what if there were some truth to the rumors? The American executives send down a Guy Who Means Business to check it out. He gets a lot more than he bargained for...
Because there *is* a monster there! But that's about it. Other than that, there is shockingly little intrigue in the film. For most of the runtime, Monster tries to make a variety of things interesting to pad out the film - local politics, the exotic locale, the romantic lives of the factory owners, the anti-corporate shenanigans of Sanchez (whose story ends awesomely)... but it's never done in a way that is the least bit interesting. The characters are mostly boring, it's blandly shot, and the film plods along kind of aimlessly. Just get to the monster! But once the monster does show up in full force, it's pretty underwhelming. So the whole thing is just kind of a drag.
So what are the redeeming qualities? There is an intriguing feel to the film regarding its politics. In some ways, it's kind of progressive (its environmental, anti-corporate message), but in others, it's definitely not (the ass-grabbing executives, the gross old men sleeping with young women). It exists in this weird middle ground, where being politically correct is sort of in its infancy. So it's interesting in that respect.
John Carradine is in it too. When you hear that he plays a priest, you might get excited, but sadly there just isn't much to his role. To be fair though, some of it is on him - he doesn't really try to do anything interesting with the character. He wears a funny hat, and that's about it.
I dug James Mitchum as Travis, the Guy Who Means Business. He plays a very macho but reasonable character, and makes him a likable enough guy to cheer for. Plus, I liked his mustache and his hat. (With Monster, you've got to take what you can get.) It's too bad the script doesn't really give him anything interesting to do. But he did fine with what the script gave him - he's pretty charismatic and is fun to watch.
But otherwise there just isn't anything to get excited about. Monster looks and sounds very cheap and doesn't have really any thrills or (intentional) humor to offer. The titular Monster looks cheap too, but it approaches charming - think Gorgo re-imagined as a lake monster. The attack scenes (both of them) are pretty lifeless and there isn't any gore that I can think of. The best part? (SPOILER of a movie I think you should avoid.) The American company gets their rebel-Sanchez problem taken care of when he accidentally blows himself up trying to sabotage the bridge. It's the only part of the movie where I felt much of anything (in this case, I laughed out loud).
Oh, and there's a dog in it:
 |
| you get a good idea of the overall quality of the picture here |
Name: Takei (?)
Breed: German Shepard
Function: To pad out the film. According to some guy on imdb, most of the film was shot in the early 70's and sat unfinished for nearly a decade. Then they shot some extra footage with a couple of kids and this pup. (I like this pup more than the kids, although they aren't as bad as some other movie children). I guess he also provides a *little* tension, as you may think he'd be a good snack for the lake monster. Also, he's an integral part of the "shocking" finale.
Fate: He makes it. Although he does prompt a little monster egg to hatch when he nuzzles it along the ground and rolls it down a hill. What a rascal!
Overall, there's just nothing here. Monster isn't worth your time, even if you are a fan of simple movie titles.
I would not recommend this film.
No comments:
Post a Comment