[Mini-Review] Monster

Movies & Sex

Moderators: AArdvark, Ice Cream Jonsey

User avatar
pinback
Posts: 18055
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 3:00 pm
Contact:

[Mini-Review] Monster

Post by pinback »

Question: So "Charlize" (what kind of name is that, anyway?) won an academy award, because she uglied herself all up and played a skanky chainsmoking hooker.

Answer: That's not a question.

Question: The question was implied, then... would it have been such a good performance (assuming it was a good performance) if she had been born that ugly, and didn't need to sit through six hours of makeup every day to get into character?

Answer: Yes.

So, then question asked, "Was it really, as Roger Ebert said, one of the best performances in film history?"

That's hard to answer. There're about 500 movies I haven't seen for every movie I have seen, although once you count out all the Friday the 13th movies and obvious pieces of garbage and MST3K fodder, I've probably seen a healthy (or at least, breathing) percentage of the "good" films, as understood by "film folk", that shadowy clique of pasty-faced geeks lurking around every corner to dispute the relative merits of 4:3 vs. 16:9 as it pertains to this and that. Whatever. But here's the answer:

Umm. Yes?

I couldn't pick (the pretty version of) Charlize Theron out of a lineup, because, well, there's too many hot chicks around to keep track of, and they'll likely never go out with me anyway, and if they did, I'd probably be all nervous and spill the bleu-cheese dressing they ordered on the side all over their frilly pink frocks, but that serves 'em right for ordering their goddamn dressing on the side in the first place. But I was aware that Charlize Theron was a "hot chick", in the parlance of our times. And yes, they uglied her up good for this one. But I never stopped the tape to look at her face, to figure out where the hot chick was behind that.

I never stopped the tape to figure out how she was doing it, or to wonder how many times the cameramen insisted they film the "Theron making out with Ricci" scene just one more time. In fact, I never stopped the tape at all, even though I wanted to on many an occasion...

Because "Monster" is, perhaps, the most abjectly, thoroughly depressing movie I've ever seen. You want to love it, and it wants you to love it, and then it punishes you for loving it.

Yeah, street hooker has it in for men so she starts poppin' 'em. Great. Big deal.

Huge deal. Sundering deal. Destructive deal. I can't fucking go to sleep and it's almost 2 AM deal. Phenomenal.

The best film I've seen this year. (And as you know if you've been reading this base, I've seen at least five this year.)

(Though, two of them were Matrixes, so keep that in mind.)

Four and a half out of five stars. Torrential.

Julie

Post by Julie »

I'm currently watching Monster.

I'm pretty grossed out by it. I'd like to turn it off but because of the fact she won some award, and it's the 'best movie,' I'd figure the 'best' part comes at the end.

Anyway so far... I'm just grossed out.

Debaser
Posts: 878
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 9:55 pm
Location: Aurora, IL

Post by Debaser »

Julie wrote:I'm just grossed out.
Great movie on the artistic level, but, if someone had told me a year ago a flick that featured Charlize Theron and Christina Ricci tonguing eachother at regular intervals would be the movie that nearly kiledl lesbianism for me I wouldn't have believed them. Yikes.

Sous

Stuttering John

Post by Sous »

For a moment, I thought that the stuttering "John" would turn into John Cusack and kill her. Or something like that...

In any event, great flick. Well worth a couple of hours of your life.

Post Reply