VeteranLight
I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.
Stevecorp
Don't listen to the negative reviews
Mathilde the Guild
Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.
Leofwine_draca
MONSTER!, a low budget TV movie from 1999, is a film that's been written as a homage to and a pastiche of the classic 1950s B-movie monster flicks, in particular THE BLOB which it copies the plot of throughout. It's designed as a nostalgia piece, a throwback to the movies of yesteryear, although it's nowhere near on a level with Joe Dante's similarly-themed Matinée.Unfortunately this is pretty much a failure as a film; other than the in-jokes and references to previous movies, there just isn't much to write home about here. The scriptwriter throws in a lot of clichéd scenes, like the teens making out in a car and being attacked by the beast, and plays them for laughs, but they just aren't very funny. And don't get me started on the monster itself: this is one of the silliest CGI creations put on screen, and I'm glad it doesn't appear very much.The only actor of note in the whole thing is M. Emmet Walsh, an old-timer playing an actor from the original run of monster movies. Walsh gives an energetic, tongue-in-cheek performance that sadly isn't matched by the rest of the cast. No, despite the fun elements this is very much a forgettable outing, even for fans of the movies being referenced.
Peter Swanson
If the cast hadn't played this film absolutely seriously it wouldn't have worked, but they did, so it does. M. Emmet Walsh is the focus and anchor of the story, and is perfect in the role, as I'd expect from one of our greatest character actors. The premise -- that the movie monster created decades earlier by Walsh actually lives -- is ridiculous, but, like any good science fiction, is acceptable as long as we're led to it in a logical manner. Because the film is played straight, we're free both to accept and to laugh at it. I'm not sure I'm imparting how enjoyable this film is. Another reviewer referred to it as "snack food," and I agree. It's snack food with some substance however, like a big Snickers with protein from the peanuts, as opposed to Wal-Mart potato chips. I'd watch it again, if only for some of the quotable dialogue.
quantumcat
I like this movie; I always like bad creature features, so I rented this one. As it turns out to be, it's one of the better onces I've seenTo me it watches like an ode to the (early) 50's monster movies (e.g. the Blob, with Steve McQueen) so instead of having the cliché's dragging the movie down, the writer(s) turn(s) the effect of the clichés around, by putting them to good use; kind of like Wes Craven did in "Scream". SO in this case: the hero drives a Hot Rod and wears his school' Jock jacket and so...Next to that , the acting is good, the pace is fast, tension is built as tension should built, the special effects look great (given the age, the budget AND the fact that it's a TV movie). I'll be honest: it's not "predator" , it's not "the eye". it's a small flick with good acting, good story with a great pitch that makes it stand out from the rest. All you need as a good evening's entertainment!
colcam
So what if it isn't great art? Monster is fun (in a guilty way) and does not require too much thought... sometimes your intellect deserves a night off, and Monster is a good choice for that night. It is actually well written, beautifully acted, competently photographed, and properly edited, just devoid of serious content. If Monster was a junk food it would be a potato chip-- lovable, but afterwards? Who cares?
