MONSTER [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

Pumpkinhead

12-19-2003, 10:35 PM

It looks really good, and I'd like to see it, but...

Am I the only one who's sick of beautiful women being "uglified" for any role where the woman is required to be less than gorgeous? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Charlize is great in this, and I respect any actress who is willing to throw herself into a role like that, but (and here's a concept) couldn't Hollywood just cast an ugly woman as an ugly woman, for once? It just bothers me, because there are so many great roles out there for beautiful women, but then when a really interesting, really meaty role specifically designed for an unattractive woman comes along, they can't even hire a woman who isn't a raving beauty! It just goes to show you how obsessed with beauty Hollywood has become when it comes to women - they can't cast an ugly woman in a lead role, even when ugliness is required for the part!

But, like I said, I'd like to see it. The storyline intrigues me, and from what I've seen, the acting looks solid, but... (and here comes another mini-rant/bit of speculation)

I'm really getting the feeling that prosthetics, latex, and weight gain are too often fooling the critics into believing that certain performances are better than they really are. It's no secret that actors are pretty much guaranteed an oscar nomination when they drastically alter their appearance (Bridget Jones, Cast Away, Philadelphia, The Hours), but it just seems to be getting more and more extreme. I'm referring to Ebert's "one of the greatest performances in cinematic history" comment on his show the other week. Now I know what you're all going to say - I have no right to question the validity of this comment until I've seen the film, but a sweeping statement like that? I'm sure she's good, I'm sure she's very good...but that good? I don't know, I just can't help but wonder if he would be saying that if he had never seen Charlize the way she regulary looks - and if that's the case, he should be saying, "one of the greatest transformations in cinematic history". But like I said, I really shouldn't be making assumptions when I haven't seen the movie. I guess I'll just have to see the damn thing...but until I do, I'll remain highly skeptical.

Mike

12-19-2003, 11:11 PM

This has 13 FRESH reviews and only 1 ROTTEN at Rotten Tomatoes:

"Yes, the story is an ugly one, but the actresses command our attention and demand we confront this unrepentant 'monster' to examine her humanity."
-- Kirk Honeycutt, HOLLYWOOD REPORTER

"... an amazing piece of work."
-- Richard Roeper, EBERT & ROEPER

"Wuornos was a far more complex creature than most accounts of her will allow, and Patty Jenkins' tough and tender movie has caught the contradictions of a woman stranded between unwarranted hope and unavoidable despair."
-- Ella Taylor, L.A. WEEKLY

"Just give Theron the Oscar now. ... Rarely has an actor been given such an opportunity to play so far against type and rarely has she succeeded so well."
-- Steve Rhodes, STEVE RHODES' INTERNET REVIEWS

"Theron breaks through with a ferocious performance -- a real career-changer."
-- Peter Rainer, NEW YORK MAGAZINE

"It is Charlize Theron, much heavier than her normal weight, dispensing with the last shred of glamour and looking like a mirror image of Wuornos, who provides an Academy Award-caliber take on one of the most sorrowful women of our time."
-- Bruce Feld, FILM JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL

"A finely done film that engages an audience despite its despicable protagonist."
-- Donald J. Levit, REELTALK MOVIE REVIEWS

"Charlize Theron turns a Monster into a human being."
-- Scott Nash, THREE MOVIE BUFFS

"This transformation by Charlize Theron - though the term has been thrown around in Hollywood as of late - is truly the definition of a "brave performance"."
-- Emily Blunt, BLUNT REVIEW

"Fortunately, Saddam Hussein was unable to access Charlize's make-up people."
-- Harvey S. Karten, COMPUSERVE

"Charlize Theron delivers a bit of her soul within the bravest woman's role in years."
-- Emily Blunt, BLUNT REVIEW

"This unsettling drama, with Theron's character immersion, may not thrive at the boxoffice but it's done with enough integrity to merit a supportive audience."
-- Jules Brenner (FC), VARIAGATE.COM

"A brilliant, praise-hailing portrayal by Theron. One of the great performances of the past twenty years."
-- Victoria Alexander, FILMSINREVIEW.COM

sharkstank

12-24-2003, 12:53 AM

cant wait to see it. i've been amazed by the incredible response the movie and theron's been getting

WWWWHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Lynn Minmei

12-24-2003, 01:45 AM

I know that fellow schmoe Moviemuffin has seen this movie by means of a press screening, and she liked it a lot.

Fisting Ackbar

12-24-2003, 05:04 AM

Sweet, I found a screener of this online. If I'm able to download it I'll share my thoughts.

Gone in 60sec

12-24-2003, 04:07 PM

is it just me but i think she kinda looks like Jon Voight i dont no what do u guys think

Fisting Ackbar

12-27-2003, 07:06 PM

Quite a depressing movie, but well done in the end. I had a hard time finding sympathy for Charlize's character, mostly due to her constant negative attitude on everything. Yes, your life may be shit, but that doesn't justify your actions.

Nevertheless, I couldn't believe that that ugly homely skank was the lovely Charlize. Definitely the best female performance I've seen all year, and IMO the reason why I recommend it (cause let's be honest, this isn't to be watched for "entertainment").

Sad man

12-27-2003, 09:05 PM

Looks like a great movie. I can't wait to check it out. Charlize is a very good actress, finally she had a chance to prove it. She's not just boobs and ass! ;) The premise sounds really interesting, I liked the trailer (I don't know if it was the trailer, I think they were just clips) and I'm in love with Christina Ricci. I WILL see this.

Kastman

12-27-2003, 11:42 PM

So THIS is what she looks like without make up...

Grebdron has a chance now, theres no competition.

paul

12-28-2003, 03:28 PM

I went to Elmira and NYC this weekend, and I really wanted to see this so I did. I couldn't believe how sad and depressing it actually was. My mom really liked it too, and my cousin did as well. There wasn't a huge crowd there or anything, but hopefully when it expands it will do better. This is easily one of the best movies of the year!

9/10 (A-)

TheElephants

12-30-2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Moviefan1234
Looks pretty boring and uninteresting to me. I'll skip it.

Heh, you're just about the only person i've seen that DOESN'T want to see this movie. Hell, I want to just to see what the big hubbub is about.

BorderEevilIII

12-30-2003, 06:45 PM

http://imdb.com/Photos/Events/0781-rei/theronc6.arl
The trailer just made me go WHOA! Is that Charlize that I see under there?
The movie looks good. Christina Ricci looks VERY effective and so does Charlize. I predict Oscar for this. Where and whom remains a mystery for now.

HeavyK

12-30-2003, 07:34 PM

I want to see this but will have to wait until it comes out on DVD as there is no way in hell it would come to my shit town or anywhere within' the next 300 kilometers.

Moviefan1234

12-31-2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by TheElephants
Heh, you're just about the only person i've seen that DOESN'T want to see this movie. Hell, I want to just to see what the big hubbub is about.

Well, to me it looks about as interesting as an acorn. If anything, I'd like to see Theron's performance, but the movie itself looks boring.

LiquidSalt

01-02-2004, 11:01 AM

I've never seen Charlize Theron this ugly before. The poor woman doesn't deserve this treatment.

Mike

01-02-2004, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Gone in 60sec
is it just me but i think she kinda looks like Jon Voight i dont no what do u guys think

Yes, she does kind of look like Jon Voight. Maybe they could have just had him play Aileen Wuornos ;).

Gone in 60sec

01-03-2004, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Mike
Yes, she does kind of look like Jon Voight. Maybe they could have just had him play Aileen Wuornos ;).

Good Idea:D

Deckard_HR

01-04-2004, 06:22 PM

That was funny...but seriously, I want to see this movie really bad. Too bad, I heard the studio isn't planning on releasing it in too many sites. Hopefully if Charlize wins that Golden Globe and is nominated for an Oscar they will wake up and see that they have a great movie that more people want to see other than thoughs who live in New York of Los Angeles. I'm crossing my fingers...but not getting my hopes up. If someone does find a screener...and I have to come down to that, tell us where you downloaded it.

Fisting Ackbar

01-05-2004, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by Deckard_HR
If someone does find a screener...and I have to come down to that, tell us where you downloaded it.

I found one at www.suprnova.org, although most likely nobody is seeding it anymore.

RicochetShaw

01-06-2004, 07:03 PM

Woohoo! This opens in Dallas on the 9th, I'll probably go see this Friday or Saturday. This is one of my most anticipated films of 2003.

AppleHuntr

01-07-2004, 04:40 PM

My friend saw a private screening of this a week back and said it is now one of her fave movies-ever. It opens here in Minnesota on the 16th and Ill definitly check it out. Never been a big Theron fan but she looks fantastic here, and I love Ricci. Ebert's raves also got me psyched, Ive disagreed w/ his Best Film of the Year before (Almost Famous, blech, Monsters Ball, eh) but this looks way more promising.

Kim_EZ

01-08-2004, 05:52 PM

I'm gonna see this this weekend. Yay.

SteveSzyk

01-09-2004, 11:58 PM

Holy shit, Monster was flawless. Disturbing, sad, powerful, profound, thought-provoking and moving. Theron was absolutely unbelievable, the way she moves, speaks, it's incredible. The best performance of the year by far, and Ricci was also fantastic. A more understated and subtle performance, but a brilliant one that portrays naivety and vulnerability. See this movie and be amazed.

Probably a 10.

Nate6

01-10-2004, 07:35 PM

It looks SOOO good, I can't wait to see it.

Charlize, Oscar. Oscar, Charlize.

Lazy Boy

01-10-2004, 08:28 PM

Grade: 8/10

Heading in to see Monster, I had my reservations. Would this be another Lifetime movie of the week, a patchy excuse for a story? Or, would it be an incisive portrayal of a misunderstood soul?

My fears were put to rest. While I'm not gonna go ape over it (like some Chicago film critic did), I breathed a sigh of relief to find that this was a good film. Still, without the performance of Charlize Theron, this would be a decent film but nothing more. With her, it becomes something more.

Truth be told, I found her performance to be a little mannered and a bit exaggerated. Sure enough, I saw some clips of the real Aileen Wournos, and Theron does capture that blind bravado and slight close-minded arrogance, but she also captures the heart of the story and the character. Director Patty Jenkins doesn't excuse Wourno's behavior and her actions, but she doesn't condemn her to hell like most conservative fundamentalists would. As much as I got used to this brash mammoth of a person, I also gritted with agony and disgust to see her throw it all away. The fictionalized account even goes to far as to suggest that Aileen's lesbian lover Selby (played with quick-witten stupidity by Christina Ricci) quietly coerced Wournos into committing the murders in order to be financially resolute. A little of this goes a long way, though, and Selby does become a bit of a nuisance, to our ears and nerves. Enough with the whining!

This is Theron's film, above all else. When she gazes into Selby's eyes while Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" plays, you feel her need to be with someone, a real honest to goodness person. But, when she kills, again and again, you are terrified. Her soulless dark eyes will reach into your soul.

BakeTheMooCow

01-10-2004, 11:50 PM

Here's my review:

Charlize Theron's performance was everything I had heard and more. She really digs her nail into this character and completely embodies it until the closing credits roll. I am rarely impressed by actresses in film (the men always stand out), but this is possibly one of the best performances of all time. There is a moment you have to watch out for towards the end when Aileen is on the phone; it is really heart-wrenching and it moved me to tears. Christina Ricci is not even in the same vicinity in terms of talent as Charlize and this hurts the overall movie experience a little, but I really don't blame her because she's acting alongside someone who is absolutely phenomenal every second on screen. The voiceovers are used very effectively and the soundtrack is great - I expected some sinister serial killer music, but instead its a collection of awesome rock songs, the one used in the final scene being the best. This movie really does have to be seen to be believed, because no amount of reading reviews or watching trailers will prepare you for Charlize Theron's performance. I take back every negative thing I said about her in the past.

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
The fictionalized account even goes to far as to suggest that Aileen's lesbian lover Selby (played with quick-witten stupidity by Christina Ricci) quietly coerced Wournos into committing the murders in order to be financially resolute. A little of this goes a long way, though, and Selby does become a bit of a nuisance, to our ears and nerves. Enough with the whining!Save for the one murder where Selby tells her that she has to get another car (and in the process commit murder), I don't think there was any suggestion in the movie that Selby coerced Aileen. All the murders were Wuornos' own personal demons acting out. Christina Ricci was annoying though, but whenever she shared the screen with Charlize, I shut her out.

RicochetShaw

01-11-2004, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by SteveSzyk
Monster was flawless. Disturbing, sad, powerful, profound, thought-provoking and moving. Theron was absolutely unbelievable, the way she moves, speaks, it's incredible. The best performance of the year by far, and Ricci was also fantastic. A more understated and subtle performance, but a brilliant one that portrays naivety and vulnerability. See this movie and be amazed.

I pretty much agree with this. I don't think it was flawless, but definitely an amazing picture. I'm not exactly sure what to say, it feels like I've been hit with a train. What a powerful, powerful film.

Lazy Boy

01-11-2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by BakeTheMooCow
Save for the one murder where Selby tells her that she has to get another car (and in the process commit murder), I don't think there was any suggestion in the movie that Selby coerced Aileen. All the murders were Wuornos' own personal demons acting out. Christina Ricci was annoying though, but whenever she shared the screen with Charlize, I shut her out.

Well, from my personal view, every time Selby whined about their situation with the money problems and what not, I felt that she was subtly asking Aileen, "What are you gonna do about it?" In my opinion, she somewhat did push Wournos into killing those other men, even though she played dumb. I saw her as sort of like Lady Macbeth in a way, but maybe that's just me. Wournos was exorcising her personal demons, true, but Selby wasn't little miss innocent.

DaMovieMan

01-11-2004, 08:27 PM

Well, from my personal view, every time Selby whined about their situation with the money problems and what not, I felt that she was subtly asking Aileen, "What are you gonna do about it?" In my opinion, she somewhat did push Wournos into killing those other men, even though she played dumb. I saw her as sort of like Lady Macbeth in a way, but maybe that's just me. Wournos was exorcising her personal demons, true, but Selby wasn't little miss innocent.

Even if you theory stands true about Selby's whinning meaning 'what are you gonna do?' Lee didn't have to kill those men to get their money. She could of only fucked them.

This movie was really really great and it is all becuase Patty Jenkins' surprising choice of actress to play this vital, vital role was, again, surprisingly right on. Theron really deserves all the awards she is going to get or already got (Critic's Choice) and if she wins the oscar it will really kind of respect the academy a bit more becuase finally they give an award for just sheer and pure talent. Theron was, quite simply, perfect.
Ricci who can't be compared to Theron was also good especially in some scenes (the argument in the bathroom is a good example) and the whole movie apart from the two actress was very very good. Kudos to Jenkins on her debut feature. Wonderful soundtrack (I loved the song from Natural Born Killers), great pace and use of V.O. and a wonderful ending. This movie was gut renching emotion in every scene and that's why it kinda reminded me of 21 Grams.

Wonderful.
8/10

DMM

Grebdron

01-16-2004, 05:48 PM

This was quite possibly the finest female performance...ever. I can't think of a better one. Charlize was breathtaking.

The movie wasn't flawless. But I was captivated the entire running time. It's definitely a high nine.

Mike

01-17-2004, 11:51 PM

I saw Charlize on Leno last night. She seems really nice, especially for being drop dead gorgeous. She was funny. I enjoyed her story about getting kicked out of the restraunt for eating too much food and then about a guy that plays one of her "johns" in the movie having a buddy that said to him "Man, that Charlize Theron is hot" and him saying "Dude, I worked with her and trust me, she ain't that good looking." ;)

Anyway, since THE COOLER came to my theater this weekend and I think that's on less than 400 screens, I think there's a chance MONSTER could come next weekend since it might be on around that. I pray that it does. If so, I want to see it and WIN A DATE WITH TAD HAMILTON. I think I'll go with my parents. I must sound really lame and like I see everything with my parents (we have been seeing quite a bit lately, well, the last few times I've went have mostly been with them), but it's just that I do like to see the more mature movies with them, since none of my friends are into them as much.

It couldn't be more obvious Charlize is going to get that BEST ACTRESS Oscar. She may as well be polishing off a spot for it right now.

RicochetShaw

01-18-2004, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Mike
It couldn't be more obvious Charlize is going to get that BEST ACTRESS Oscar. She may as well be polishing off a spot for it right now.

She had better get it. I agree with Greb when I say this is possibly the greatest female performance I've ever seen.

Mike

01-18-2004, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by RicochetShaw
She had better get it. I agree with Greb when I say this is possibly the greatest female performance I've ever seen.

I don't think there's anything to worry about. It couldn't be more obvious at this point that she will.

God, I hope this comes to my theater next weekend. I want to see it so bad. It's in over 200 right now, so you'd think it would probably go to 400 or better next weekend. If so, my theater might get it.

AppleHuntr

01-18-2004, 03:03 PM

Monster 8/10

Any actress with Oscar buzz out there has absolutely nothing on Charlize Theron. (note: Angela Bettis does NOT have any Oscar Buzz, she ties with Theron in my eyes:cool: ). Jennifer Connelly and Naomi Watts gave great performances, but Theron has the whole transformation thing on her side, along with an utterly fantastic performance. She makes MONSTER unforgettable.

The film has a few flaws, but nothing that hinders the film. It got maybe a tad melodramatic at parts, but nothing too noticable in my eyes. Christina Ricci has been getting dogged for her performance, which I thought was great. Roger Ebert defended her as well, saying Selby is supposed to be a bit annoying because she never is being herself, she acts how she thinks someone would act in her situation. She is naive to what is really going on, no matter how much information she is given.

I've had to change some of my Golden Schmoe nomiations after seeing MONSTER. One notable one is Best Music, Journey's "don't stop beleivin" is used perfectly. It's sweet but not too sweet because the film never lets Aileen and Selby's relationship put you at ease, there is always something a bit off. Patty Jenkins handles everything superbly.

Highly recommended.

The Other

01-19-2004, 01:44 AM

In short:

Theron's great, the movie was mediocre, you can tell it's been made by an amatuer director. Theron's the only reason to see it. One of the best of the year (not THE best however) and certainly not one of the best performances of all-time.

Movie: 5 or 6/10

Reigh Kaufman

01-22-2004, 05:42 AM

It might be the best female performance this year, but not ever. I watched this yesterday and was completely underwhelmed. I also cannot help but think that the recent trend of uglifying actresses is about as superficial as Cremola Foam, and definitely onlyhalf as fun. Only Burstyn has ever passably carried off the 'uglifying' schtick whilst actually, you know, performing at the top of her game. Meanwhile, the direction of the film reminded me - horribly - of the spate of DTV Serial Killer movies (Bundy, Dahmer, Ed Gein....well, maybe not THAT bad), when I was hoping for something akin to Kimberley Pierce style grittiness. Wuornos is someone my mother used to talk about when she was studying at University...I was looking forward to the movie, but apart from Theron making herself unrecognisable, Ricci trying vainly to deflate her ingenue talents by turning herself into Anna Faris without the laughs, and a strangely affecting score, the movie is a glorious failure.

6/10

scottish-movie-freak

01-23-2004, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Reigh Kaufman
It might be the best female performance this year, but not ever. I watched this yesterday and was completely underwhelmed. I also cannot help but think that the recent trend of uglifying actresses is about as superficial as Cremola Foam, and definitely onlyhalf as fun. Only Burstyn has ever passably carried off the 'uglifying' schtick whilst actually, you know, performing at the top of her game. Meanwhile, the direction of the film reminded me - horribly - of the spate of DTV Serial Killer movies (Bundy, Dahmer, Ed Gein....well, maybe not THAT bad), when I was hoping for something akin to Kimberley Pierce style grittiness. Wuornos is someone my mother used to talk about when she was studying at University...I was looking forward to the movie, but apart from Theron making herself unrecognisable, Ricci trying vainly to deflate her ingenue talents by turning herself into Anna Faris without the laughs, and a strangely affecting score, the movie is a glorious failure.

6/10

How on earth did you get to watch it?! We're Scottish- we're not allowed to watch these movies for at least 5 months after they've been released in the States! :p

Despite your slightly negative review, I still really wanna see this movie. I am in love with Christina Ricci, she is my soul mate.

Reigh Kaufman

01-23-2004, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by scottish-movie-freak
How on earth did you get to watch it?! We're Scottish- we're not allowed to watch these movies for at least 5 months after they've been released in the States!.

I have millions of illicit sources, young man. I have in my manbag, right now, amongst others (my prized copy of Lost In Translation and Elephant), Monster, The Cooler (dreadful - 4/10), Kill Bill, The Last Samurai, Young Adam, Tokyo Story, Big Fish, Love Actually (dreadful - 3/10) and Paycheck all given to me by my 'special friend'. I do not condone this, but then again I don't particularly care if it means I get to see films free (and own the ones I want until they are available retail). I would never d/load stuff from the internet, but this guy is my buddy and sends them to me from Tampa! So, you know, I don't want to criticise him for breaking the law or anything, especially when he's helping me out. Heh-heh.

Mike

01-23-2004, 11:52 PM

ANavissi500

01-24-2004, 12:47 AM

I just saw this movie and I thought that Charlize Theron was amazing in it. I kept trying to see her face but I couldn't. I kept trying to hear her voice but I couldn't. She totally played Lee well, and I've seen pictures of the real Lee Wournos and Charlize looks on the money. I thought that aside from her amazing performance, the film was a little different from my usual tastes in film. I wasn't completely jiving with it. The movie made me go from non-chalance to actually jumping out of my chair...

spoilers

When she kills the man that just wanted to help her. That was so sad.

That being said, I liked the film, but I liked her in the film better. I'm still not 100% on her or Uma for best actress of the year, but it's very close.

7/10

paul

01-24-2004, 08:39 AM

I wonder if this will hold up. It's at 3 of my local theaters. So I will see it again, I just hope it holds up!!!

scottish-movie-freak

01-24-2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Reigh Kaufman
I have millions of illicit sources, young man. I have in my manbag, right now, amongst others (my prized copy of Lost In Translation and Elephant), Monster, The Cooler (dreadful - 4/10), Kill Bill, The Last Samurai, Young Adam, Tokyo Story, Big Fish, Love Actually (dreadful - 3/10) and Paycheck all given to me by my 'special friend'. I do not condone this, but then again I don't particularly care if it means I get to see films free (and own the ones I want until they are available retail). I would never d/load stuff from the internet, but this guy is my buddy and sends them to me from Tampa! So, you know, I don't want to criticise him for breaking the law or anything, especially when he's helping me out. Heh-heh.

Damn you and your secret friends! :p

How's Elephant? I desperately want to see this, I think it starts at The Cameo soon! :)

Tokyo Story sounds very very good, I'll be seeing it shortly (it's re-released at the cinema this month). The Last Samurai was decent (8/10), Lost In Translation is now officialy one of my favourite movies of all time (10/10). Kill Bill rocked (9/10). Love Actually was cute and fluffy (8.5/10). Big Fish looks stunning (I'm a Burton freak) and... yeah.

Oh, Young Adam was very good too! 9/10.

And now back to Monster talk...

Anyone know of a British release date?

KcMsterpce

01-25-2004, 05:17 PM

OK, so Theron gains 30 pounds, gets ugly makeup put on, and she goes against her usual typecast as 'The Love Interest'.
Her performance is competent, but it isn't powerful enough to justify the notoriety she's getting.

It's unfortunate that I didn't find any emotion for the characters in this character driven drama. Just because Theron is ugly, it doesn't mean that she pulls the best female performance in the history of film, like Ebert claims (but that's Ebert, so nevermind).

The story itself is not a new testament to storytelling, and it doesn't play out in any way that brings a new spin to the tale. So, we get some cheap laughs before she kills her first john, then we aren't laughing once the violence starts, because you're not supposed to. This is where 'the drama kicks in', and we no longer find the humor in being a prostitute. Her horrible experience - and first murder - happens right on cue with when you would expect it to. Just like everything else in this movie.

I love how every time she shoots someone, she fires all eight rounds into them, but the first three shots just hit the guy and makes him get a big look of surprise on his face. It's not until the fourth or fifth shot that they fall down, and then they die after bullet six is fired. Maybe. Even after all eight shots are fired, a couple of them are twitching in their death throes, and breathing their last breath in full realization of their last moment in life. Very dramatic. I felt it.

Christina Ricci is hot as hell, and I remember reading somewhere that she gets naked in Monster. She doesn't, but boy that sure woulda been great! I would get to see something real and exciting onscreen for once! She is a very pretty woman, but unfortunately she's grossly underused, and Selby's character is way too underdeveloped to be anything more than the whiny little girl that Wournos needs to fall in love with in the beginning so she doesn't kill herself that night.

The only reason one should watch this film is to see how different Charlize looks, and to realize that yes, she CAN act! She did a good job, but unfortunately the rest of this movie is no better than an episode of Falcon Crest. I respect Theron's efforts at carrying this film, but at the same time, there is no way that Monster could be anything more than mediocre.

5/10

Jon Lyrik

01-25-2004, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by The Other
In short:

Theron's great, the movie was mediocre, you can tell it's been made by an amatuer director. Theron's the only reason to see it. One of the best of the year (not THE best however) and certainly not one of the best performances of all-time.

Movie: 5 or 6/10

An amateur director? That's a bit of a misleading definition. Unless she wasn't payed to make this movie and it is her first shot in the business.

Mike

01-25-2004, 11:14 PM

YAY! MONSTER is going into 530+ theaters next weekend. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaasssse come to me! If it does, you bet your ass I'll be seeing MONSTER ;).

thompsoncory

01-26-2004, 12:03 AM

Congrats to Charlize Theron on her Golden Globe win! :D

MadsenOMC

01-27-2004, 03:25 PM

Theron is spectacular, no doubt about it. Not one of the best performances in the history of cinema, but she is pretty incredible. I think one great gauge of a person's performance in a role like this (where they undergo a physical transformation) is whether or not you forget who you are watching. And here I did. For some reason it reminds me of Robin Williams in One Hour Photo. That was a fairly significant transformation for him and again, I forgot who I was watching. A great performance. But like Theron, not one of the greatest in the history of cinema. She deserves the Oscar nomination though. However, I think the movie is mediocre. It tries too hard to get you to sympathize with the woman, and I agree that the directing isn't all that special. Reeks of an inexperienced person behind the camera. Screenplay is a little weak as well. Kind of all over the place, like the writer couldn't decide how much time to focus on the love story, on the victims and killings, on her downward spiral and what contributed to that. Should have been more effort to present her as she was, rather than work overtime to humanize her. The strain is felt and it weakens the film. Still, Theron's work goes a long way towards redeeming the whole thing.

6/10

Mystique963

01-27-2004, 03:44 PM

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that seeing Theron in a role like that made them slightly uncomfortable and I must say that I agree. *shudders* It's playing in Denver and I think that i'll just wait for it on video.

Agreed with the congratulations to her as well. She had some fantastic competition with it and any of them deserved it. But well done to her. Slightly off topic, but does anyone know if the awards get reshown at any point? I missed them. Thanks!

Sincerely,
Lauren

blankpage

01-27-2004, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
An amateur director? That's a bit of a misleading definition. Unless she wasn't payed to make this movie and it is her first shot in the business.

By amateur, I think he means 'not a lot of experience'. And I think you can say that it counts as an amateur. Her only other two films are 'Velocity Rules' and 'Just Drive'. Both of those were made in 2001, not too long ago. She hasn't been doing feature films much, and this is her first real big one.

And when you said 'first shot in the business' that's pretty much saying she's an amateur. I agree that she is amateur-ish, but did take on a big film.

SteveSzyk

01-27-2004, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by Mystique963
Agreed with the congratulations to her as well. She had some fantastic competition with it and any of them deserved it. But well done to her. Slightly off topic, but does anyone know if the awards get reshown at any point? I missed them. Thanks!

Sincerely,
Lauren

I heard them mention at the conclusion of the show they will be replayed on the Bravo network later this week, and on the channels website it's listed for Jan. 30 & 31.

Mike

01-27-2004, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by SteveSzyk
I heard them mention at the conclusion of the show they will be replayed on the Bravo network later this week, and on the channels website it's listed for Jan. 30 & 31.

Yes, I heard that too. So just keep your eyes peeled for them Mystique. And by the way, I'd go see MONSTER if I were you. I'm sure you'd end up liking it. You have the chance to see it, so I say go for it. We have to help out the smaller movies ;).

Mike

01-28-2004, 04:29 PM

My fucking theater isn't even getting it this weekend. But they are getting that damn Master & Commander again. Grrr.... This blows. Hopefully they get it the following weekend, when it should be in even more theaters.

Mike

01-29-2004, 11:34 AM

MONSTER will be in 661 theaters this Friday. Which means that I should be able to (hopefully) get it next weekend when I'm sure even more theaters will be added.

idealdiscountdude

01-29-2004, 08:51 PM

Monster is one powerful film that probably wouldn't have worked without Charlize Theron's brilliant performance. In essence, SHE IS THE FILM. Not once did I ever see Charlize....I saw Aileen.......now that is what I call acting, something Tom Cruise needs to do in order for me to classify him as an actor.

iThe film itself is an up close and personal account of Aileen and Selby's (Christina Ricci) relationship. The film is not so much about Aileen the serial killer, but rather Aileen the human being, a woman who was given the shit end of the stick all of her life, a woman who in the end couldn't take it anymore and snapped, a woman who in the end only held herself together and barely mind you because of Selby.

I think one of the primary reasons that Monster works so well (other than Charlize) is the fact that the film centers on the realtionship between the two women. Selby is a lesbian, rejected by her father for her sexual orientation. Aileen is a woman treated like crap all of her life who makes a living as a hooker. With no skills and no home, hooking is Aileen's way of survival. Mind you I never saw Aileen as a lesbian.....she was a woman abused and treated like a rag by every man in her life and the only person who ever paid attention to her as a human being rather than a beating stick or a cheap lay was a woman, Selby.

Ive heard alot of people complain that the film itself is rather weak while Charlize is great. I beg to differ. Yes, Charlize is the film however I found the way the film was told was perfect. Rather than a drawn out hunt for her and long trial scenes we get just a coupla glimpses in the end. Rather the film aims to show Aileen not so much as a Monster, but as a human being who becomes a Monster.....without that the film would have not resonated well with me.

Charlize Theron, Charlize Theron. In my books you've always been underrated. You were amazing in 2 Days In The Valley and left me thoroughly impressed with your smaller roles in films such as That Thing You Do!, The Devil's Advocate, The Legend Of Bagger Vance, and Men of Honour. I knew you had it in you to give us a full fleshed wowzer of a performance and here you do just that. Charlize was Aileen in Monster. What a revelatory, mesmerizing, flawless performance. Come Oscar night I am rooting for you (although I would still be happy if Keisha won).

Now not many have talked much about Christina Ricci as Selby, but darn she too was superb. Her second best performance of her career after The Opposite of Sex and before Mermaids. Like Charlize, Christina became Selby. She held her own and gave a great turn as the only person who ever cared about Aileen the human being. Great job.

The film is unsettling, brutal, and yet touching. I couldn't help but feel for Aileen. She just snapped. She wasn't fully a monster, but a woman who became one. The scene in which she is raped and beaten was gut-wrenching.

The most effective scene in the film for me had to be Selby and Aileen's telephone conversation at the end of the film. It is here that the two actresses drove it home for me. It got to me.

The soundtrack as well was superb. Loved the song that played when Charlize deservedly won the Golden Globe. A perfect song for the film.

Monster is a very good film whose only flaws IMO are that a couple of the supporting actors, Bruce Dern and the woman whom Selby was staying with are not developed well. Yes they are only small characters in the film but yet do have important roles.
I would have liked a little more of them.

When all is said and done, Monster made me realize that everybody is human......it is the decisions that we make, no matter what our background and life experiences that create the TYPE of person we are. Aileen was human. A woman who got crapped on one too many times and snapped. Her decisions there after turned her into a serial killer.

A-

Mike

01-29-2004, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by idealdiscountdude
Monster is one powerful film that probably wouldn't have worked without Charlize Theron's brilliant performance. In essence, SHE IS THE FILM. Not once did I ever see Charlize....I saw Aileen.......now that is what I call acting, something Tom Cruise needs to do in order for me to classify him as an actor.

iThe film itself is an up close and personal account of Aileen and Selby's (Christina Ricci) relationship. The film is not so much about Aileen the serial killer, but rather Aileen the human being, a woman who was given the shit end of the stick all of her life, a woman who in the end couldn't take it anymore and snapped, a woman who in the end only held herself together and barely mind you because of Selby.

I think one of the primary reasons that Monster works so well (other than Charlize) is the fact that the film centers on the realtionship between the two women. Selby is a lesbian, rejected by her father for her sexual orientation. Aileen is a woman treated like crap all of her life who makes a living as a hooker. With no skills and no home, hooking is Aileen's way of survival. Mind you I never saw Aileen as a lesbian.....she was a woman abused and treated like a rag by every man in her life and the only person who ever paid attention to her as a human being rather than a beating stick or a cheap lay was a woman, Selby.

Ive heard alot of people complain that the film itself is rather weak while Charlize is great. I beg to differ. Yes, Charlize is the film however I found the way the film was told was perfect. Rather than a drawn out hunt for her and long trial scenes we get just a coupla glimpses in the end. Rather the film aims to show Aileen not so much as a Monster, but as a human being who becomes a Monster.....without that the film would have not resonated well with me.

Charlize Theron, Charlize Theron. In my books you've always been underrated. You were amazing in 2 Days In The Valley and left me thoroughly impressed with your smaller roles in films such as That Thing You Do!, The Devil's Advocate, The Legend Of Bagger Vance, and Men of Honour. I knew you had it in you to give us a full fleshed wowzer of a performance and here you do just that. Charlize was Aileen in Monster. What a revelatory, mesmerizing, flawless performance. Come Oscar night I am rooting for you (although I would still be happy if Keisha won).

Now not many have talked much about Christina Ricci as Selby, but darn she too was superb. Her second best performance of her career after The Opposite of Sex and before Mermaids. Like Charlize, Christina became Selby. She held her own and gave a great turn as the only person who ever cared about Aileen the human being. Great job.

The film is unsettling, brutal, and yet touching. I couldn't help but feel for Aileen. She just snapped. She wasn't fully a monster, but a woman who became one. The scene in which she is raped and beaten was gut-wrenching.

The most effective scene in the film for me had to be Selby and Aileen's telephone conversation at the end of the film. It is here that the two actresses drove it home for me. It got to me.

The soundtrack as well was superb. Loved the song that played when Charlize deservedly won the Golden Globe. A perfect song for the film.

Monster is a very good film whose only flaws IMO are that a couple of the supporting actors, Bruce Dern and the woman whom Selby was staying with are not developed well. Yes they are only small characters in the film but yet do have important roles.
I would have liked a little more of them.

When all is said and done, Monster made me realize that everybody is human......it is the decisions that we make, no matter what our background and life experiences that create the TYPE of person we are. Aileen was human. A woman who got crapped on one too many times and snapped. Her decisions there after turned her into a serial killer.

A-

Wow, VERY nice review Ideal! It makes me want to see it even more. Sounds GREAT!

I agree about her being a person first, but due to the circumstances of her life, she snapped and became a "monster." I'm sure I'll be able to feel some sympathy for her.

Also, even without seeing the movie, I did see a clip where Selby offered to buy Aileen a drink in a bar, which I guess is when they first meet, and Aileen says she's not gay. Yes, they do end up having a relationship, but I still don't consider Aileen to be a lesbian at all. She's been unfairly classified by some as a lesbian serial killer. Not that there's anything wrong with the lesbian part, it's just that it's not true, at least I don't think so. It would be different if she really was a lesbian. Like in the film MAY, I don't consider May to be a lesbian at all. It's just that she wants someone so bad, she wants someone to love her, which is why she doesn't turn down the advances of Polly. It doesn't make her a lesbian. I think it's a similar thing here. Aileen isn't really a lesbian, but it's just that Selby is the first person to treat her like an actual person.

Anyway, I want to go see this next weekend, when it should hopefully finally come near me. Can't wait!

idealdiscountdude

01-29-2004, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Mike
Wow, VERY nice review Ideal! It makes me want to see it even more. Sounds GREAT!

I agree about her being a person first, but due to the circumstances of her life, she snapped and became a "monster." I'm sure I'll be able to feel some sympathy for her.

Also, even without seeing the movie, I did see a clip where Selby offered to buy Aileen a drink in a bar, which I guess is when they first meet, and Aileen says she's not gay. Yes, they do end up having a relationship, but I still don't consider Aileen to be a lesbian at all. She's been unfairly classified by some as a lesbian serial killer. Not that there's anything wrong with the lesbian part, it's just that it's not true, at least I don't think so. It would be different if she really was a lesbian. Like in the film MAY, I don't consider May to be a lesbian at all. It's just that she wants someone so bad, she wants someone to love her, which is why she doesn't turn down the advances of Polly. It doesn't make her a lesbian. I think it's a similar thing here. Aileen isn't really a lesbian, but it's just that Selby is the first person to treat her like an actual person.

Anyway, I want to go see this next weekend, when it should hopefully finally come near me. Can't wait!

Thanks Mike!

I have a feeling that you will really like the film.....if you don't I would be EXTREMELY shocked! :eek:

Mike

01-30-2004, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by idealdiscountdude
Thanks Mike!

I have a feeling that you will really like the film.....if you don't I would be EXTREMELY shocked! :eek:

You know, people seem to get mad when someone is really excited about a certain movie and is sure they'll love it, because they don't think you should judge it before seeing it. Well, I think that's a bunch of bullshit, because some movies you just KNOW you will love. I know my taste, and I'm pretty much always right with the ones I think I'll love. I was very excited about KISSING JESSICA STEIN, MAY, THIRTEEN, etc... and I ended up LOVING every single one of them. This is one that I just KNOW I'll love. If I were to dislike it, like you, I would be EXTREMELY shocked. I think I know myself pretty well when it comes to what movies I will love, or even which ones I won't like. The reason I usually don't end up seeing movies I hate in theaters is because most of the time I only go to the ones that I know I'll like, and I'm pretty much always right. This is one that's practically a sure bet for me to love, and I know it would be worth every penny to see and I doubt I would be disappointed.

Horror whore

01-30-2004, 06:36 AM

This opens at the theatre I always go to today. I'll try to see it if I go to the movies this weekend, but I can't make any promises.....

MadsenOMC

01-30-2004, 10:32 AM

SPOILERS

In my opinion, it is to the film's detriment that so many people are sympathizing with her and feeling sorry for her. I'm sorry, but she is a monster. That is the title for a good reason. She had a terrible life, no question, and went through some terrible shit. But so do a lot of people. And they do not become cold-blooded killers. Have you sat and thought about what she did? How many human beings she killed? What about the men who didn't beat and/or rape her? She still murdered them. The one man even tried to help her and bring her home. But by then she was too far gone, too evil. I think movies that closely examine someone like Aileen are compelling. But I want to see them as they are. I don't want the filmmakers working overtime to try and get me to like them and sympathize with them. In the end Aileen was not a victim anymore. She was a killer. If you sympathize too much with her, then I believe that is a major flaw in the film.

Mike

01-30-2004, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Horror whore
This opens at the theatre I always go to today. I'll try to see it if I go to the movies this weekend, but I can't make any promises.....

If you go, definitely check it out. I would love to hear what you think of it. If you don't go this weekend, see it the next time you go. Just see it! ;)

Grebdron

01-30-2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Mike
Also, even without seeing the movie, I did see a clip where Selby offered to buy Aileen a drink in a bar, which I guess is when they first meet, and Aileen says she's not gay. Yes, they do end up having a relationship, but I still don't consider Aileen to be a lesbian at all. She's been unfairly classified by some as a lesbian serial killer. Not that there's anything wrong with the lesbian part, it's just that it's not true, at least I don't think so. It would be different if she really was a lesbian. Like in the film MAY, I don't consider May to be a lesbian at all. It's just that she wants someone so bad, she wants someone to love her, which is why she doesn't turn down the advances of Polly. It doesn't make her a lesbian. I think it's a similar thing here. Aileen isn't really a lesbian, but it's just that Selby is the first person to treat her like an actual person.

Just curious, Mike.

Would you say the same thing about a guy who hooked up with another guy? Or are guys that are together automatically gay, while women can "choose" to swing that way?

BakeTheMooCow

01-30-2004, 04:08 PM

I think the reason she initially recoiled from Selby's advances was because she thought Selby was another person who just wanted to use her like everyone else in her life. She was most definitely a lesbian, as shown clearly in the film. Selby was the only person she ever loved. In fact, she didn't get pleasure out of having sex with men but only did it for the money.

Like Grebdron says, you don't choose to be gay.

No offense, Mike, but you should watch the film first before making a statement like that, wholly without merit.

The Delfonics

01-30-2004, 05:05 PM

MONSTER

I caught monster today and wasnt overly pleased. It was a solid little flick but nothing close to great. All I have to say is Theron definately is Oscar worthy. How the hell did she get so ugly like that? That is the best damn makeup job ever!

7/10

Hannibal21

01-30-2004, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Mike
I know my taste, and I'm pretty much always right with the ones I think I'll love. I was very excited about KISSING JESSICA STEIN, MAY, THIRTEEN, etc... and I ended up LOVING every single one of them. This is one that I just KNOW I'll love. If I were to dislike it, like you, I would be EXTREMELY shocked. I think I know myself pretty well when it comes to what movies I will love, or even which ones I won't like. The reason I usually don't end up seeing movies I hate in theaters is because most of the time I only go to the ones that I know I'll like, and I'm pretty much always right. This is one that's practically a sure bet for me to love, and I know it would be worth every penny to see and I doubt I would be disappointed.

But there have been times when you were disappointed or pleasantly surprised by a certain film, right? Sure, there have been films that met all your expectations, but what about those times when you have been really excited about a film, and they turned out to be very disappointing for you (and vise versa)? It's cool that you know your tastes and the movies you like, but making statements when you haven't seen the movie? It sometimes feels as if you have already seen the film and is giving opinions about certain aspects of it that you yourself have not fully experienced yet. No offense.

I don't visit this forum often but since I am here, I'll keep it brief. I loved MONSTER, and the main reason why I loved it is that of Charlize. I never cared for her as an actress before this film but she really is the heart and soul of it. What could've been just a regular, average crime story was turned into a heartbreaking, gut wrenching tale due to her gutsy performance as serial killer Aileen Wuornos. She created a character that you hated but had deep sympathy for at the same time; it's easy to see through her make up and discover that she's performing with all her heart and soul, it was a very realistic, powerful performance in a brutal and somewhat depressing movie. She pulled it off flawlessly, without even the slightest hint of Charlize Theron in sight. It wasn't just the make up, it was her, giving one of the most honest performance I have ever seen in my lifetime. All I can say is OSCAR for CHARLIZE. :) 8.5/10 (if it wasn't for Charlize, it would probably be a 6)

blankpage

01-30-2004, 07:01 PM

I saw this on Tuesday and here are my thoughts....

Monster (6/10)

I really didn't care for this movie. The reason why this film didn't collapse and crash was, you guessed it, Charlize Theron. Holy shit, was she amazing in this film. Was she as good as all of the talk? I think so. Her narrative alone had be sold. There were many solid scenes that would've been total crap if it weren't for her. She had the ability to make me sympathize with her, but at the same time...hate her. The ending was pretty heartbreaking, mostly due to Charlize. But, I think many have overlooked Christina Ricci. Damn, she was brilliant. I couldn't get over how amazing she was. While Charlize is slightly better than her, I think Christina is almost up to par with Charlize. She also made the ending heartbreaking. The two leads, no doubt...amazing. I may even raise my grade to a 7 for the sole purpose of these two. But, if it weren't for the two of them, this would've been like 'The Life of David Gale'. The film itself was quite sloppy. The director seemed to have little control over what was going. It did seem real, but that is mostly because of Charlize and Christina. The film seemed too short, although some scenes weren't pleasant to sit through, it made the story more. Many of those scenes were cut short. The ending happens so quickly, I was going from wow...someone was killed....to...what it's over? Of course, not literally, but it seemed a little too quick. Personally, I may check this film out again just to see if there are any 'deleted scenes' on the disc. An average serial killer/drama with two AMAZING leads.

Mike

01-30-2004, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Grebdron
Just curious, Mike.

Would you say the same thing about a guy who hooked up with another guy? Or are guys that are together automatically gay, while women can "choose" to swing that way?

Of course I'd say the same thing. Just because a person hooks up with someone of the same sex doesn't make them gay. They can be straight. A female friend of mine thinks that if two people of the same sex kiss or mess around, it means they're at least bisexual and not straight, but that's bull. If a straight person hooks up with someone of the same sex that doesn't make them gay. Just like if someone who was gay hooked up with someone of the opposite sex they're still gay.

You don't choose to be gay or straight, but you can choose to experiment, however that won't change you from your original sexual orientation.

Originally posted by BakeTheMooCow
No offense, Mike, but you should watch the film first before making a statement like that, wholly without merit.

Well, I may be wrong, but that's the impression that I got. I'll have to make my final decision after I see it.

Mike

01-30-2004, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Hannibal21
But there have been times when you were disappointed or pleasantly surprised by a certain film, right? Sure, there have been films that met all your expectations, but what about those times when you have been really excited about a film, and they turned out to be very disappointing for you (and vise versa)? It's cool that you know your tastes and the movies you like, but making statements when you haven't seen the movie? It sometimes feels as if you have already seen the film and is giving opinions about certain aspects of it that you yourself have not fully experienced yet. No offense.

Yes, there's been times where I've been either disappointed or surprised by a movie. However, when I think I'm really, really going to LOVE a movie, I usually always do, or at the very least I end up liking it. Sometimes I think I'll really "like" a movie, but not LOVE it, and I'll end up disappointed, but the select ones that I think I'll just LOVE the fuck out of, I pretty much always end up loving the fuck out of.

Mike

02-01-2004, 10:58 AM

I'm wondering what trailers will be shown in front of this at my theater. Some I've heard of that have been shown in front of this at other theaters are Passion of the Christ, Dawn of The Dead, Dogville, The Ladykillers, and The Dreamers. But it all depends on the theater. Mine should be getting this movie next weekend. They better.

idealdiscountdude

02-01-2004, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Mike
I'm wondering what trailers will be shown in front of this at my theater. Some I've heard of that have been shown in front of this at other theaters are Passion of the Christ, Dawn of The Dead, Dogville, The Ladykillers, and The Dreamers. But it all depends on the theater. Mine should be getting this movie next weekend. They better.

When I saw Monster they showed the trailer for High Crimes no I mean Double Jeopardy, no Kiss The Girls, no Twisted with Ashley Judd. The full trailer for the excellent looking The Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, the cool looking Les Triplettes de Belleville , and Dawn Of The Dead.

Nate6

02-01-2004, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by idealdiscountdude
High Crimes no I mean Double Jeopardy, no Kiss The Girls, no Twisted with Ashley Judd.

LOL

Mike

02-01-2004, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by idealdiscountdude
they showed the trailer for High Crimes no I mean Double Jeopardy, no Kiss The Girls, no Twisted with Ashley Judd.

LOL! Yes, it does seem similar to those. She always makes the same kinds of movies, yet I've still liked them all. I've already seen the trailer though, and it's nothing special, so I hope they don't show it when I go see it. I'd rather see the trailer to a movie I haven't seen yet. I've seen the Eternal Sunshine one, but I could go for seeing that again I suppose. It looks cool and trippy.

bob

02-01-2004, 12:48 PM

I'll give Monster a D on merit of Charlize Theron's performance.

Besides that, Monster is one of the most disgusting, morally bereft films ever made. The fact that the director goes to so many lengths to give Aileen excuses for her actions made me physically nauseous. No heartless serial killer should be portrayed as a heroine like Wuornos is. On grounds of content and filmmaking, I give this film an F.

Mike

02-01-2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by bob
No heartless serial killer should be portrayed as a heroine like Wuornos is.

They're already portrayed as heartless killers on the news, you don't hear anything good about them. But there's more to people than that. Like if you knew and really cared about someone, whether it be a family member or a friend, and they ended up killing someone. On the news they would make them out to be horrible, and not mention anything good about them. But you would know different, you maybe don't like what they did, but that doesn't mean that they didn't have anything good about them. I know if a friend or family member that I really cared about ended up killing someone, or more than one person, I can't say that I would stop loving/caring about them. I don't think there's anything wrong with a movie showing the good things about someone that did some things that weren't so good. It doesn't mean that the whole package is horrible. You hear enough about the bad things on the news, not the good things.

I don't think there's anything wrong with finding yourself sympathizing with a serial killer, because they're people too. It doesn't mean that you're going to start killing people just because you can in some ways relate to them.

MadsenOMC

02-01-2004, 01:07 PM

Mike, of course you are entitled to your opinion. But you haven't seen this movie, and so I think it's difficult for you to make comments about its content. I agree with Bob on this one. It tries too hard to make you sympathize with her. She is a cold-blooded killer. What about the victim's families? What about the wives and children of the men she killed? Some of them had tried to help her, and she killed them anyway. This should not be ignored or forgotten, and Monster does ignore it, entirely focusing on Aileen. Yes, she had a horrible life that you wouldn't wish on anyone. But does that excuse her actions? I sure as hell hope not. Not everyone with a horrible life becomes a serial killer. It's appalling to me that some would shrug off what she did just because she had a tough life. This movie is too one-sided. And if you haven't seen it, you really can't accurately comment on that aspect of it.

kirkman316

02-01-2004, 04:54 PM

Unfortunately, Ashley Judd can never carry a movie by herself. She has to drag Tommy Lee Jones or Morgan Freeman down with her.

Twisted looks horrible.

Mike

02-01-2004, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Mike, of course you are entitled to your opinion. But you haven't seen this movie, and so I think it's difficult for you to make comments about its content. I agree with Bob on this one. It tries too hard to make you sympathize with her. She is a cold-blooded killer. What about the victim's families? What about the wives and children of the men she killed? Some of them had tried to help her, and she killed them anyway. This should not be ignored or forgotten, and Monster does ignore it, entirely focusing on Aileen. Yes, she had a horrible life that you wouldn't wish on anyone. But does that excuse her actions? I sure as hell hope not. Not everyone with a horrible life becomes a serial killer. It's appalling to me that some would shrug off what she did just because she had a tough life. This movie is too one-sided. And if you haven't seen it, you really can't accurately comment on that aspect of it.

I'm not saying that it's not one-sided, since I haven't seen it. And her having a horrible life won't make what she did ok. But I'm fine with the movie showing that she's not all bad, since even if she did kill some people, it doesn't mean there was nothing good about her. If other people are finding themselves caring about her, then I know I will, since I usually don't end up hating these kinds of characters/people. It doesn't mean I don't have a problem with the things they do, but I won't judge them completely on that.

Mike

02-01-2004, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by kirkman316
Unfortunately, Ashley Judd can never carry a movie by herself. She has to drag Tommy Lee Jones or Morgan Freeman down with her.

Twisted looks horrible.

I think she does fine carrying movies on her own. She's usually the best thing about them. This one doesn't have Tommy Lee or Morgan Freeman, it has Sam Jackson, but all three of them don't have a problem with making bad movies, so they aren't perfect either. I prefer the sexy and talented Ashley Judd over all of them.

MadsenOMC

02-01-2004, 05:12 PM

But I'm fine with the movie showing that she's not all bad, since even if she did kill some people, it doesn't mean there was nothing good about her.

This sentence makes it seem like murdering people isn't that big of a deal. My political views are pretty liberal, and I'm no moralist. But killing innocent people is a pretty big deal, and kind of negates any goodness a person may have, as it should. Once you cross that line and become a murderer, it really doesn't matter what kind of person you were, good, bad or whatever. I find movies about serial killers and murderers extremely compelling. Seven, Dead Man Walking and Silence of the Lambs, to name a few, are classics in my book. But Monster pales in comparison. It sides with Aileen too quickly and easily and tries way too hard to humanize her and make the viewer sympathize with her. It should have been more objective. It's very biased in her favor, in my opinion.

bob

02-01-2004, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
It sides with Aileen too quickly and easily and tries way too hard to humanize her and make the viewer sympathize with her. It should have been more objective. It's very biased in her favor, in my opinion.

Exactly. I think those few sentences basically sum up the entire flaw in the film.

dillhead005

02-01-2004, 07:44 PM

This movie was above the bar of your average good movie. It wans't amazing, but it was too good to be just good. Follow me now!! Charlize Theron definatly deserves best actress and successfully completly transforms herself into an ugly, sickening person. Hard to imagine from such a beatiful lady. Christina Ricci wasn't too shabby either. She really has grown from a child star from an independent film star to a full A-list actress. The film itself starts off as a lesbo falls in love film (cool stuff) and then it goes on to disturb, suprise, and totally fuck with your emotions. Another "disturbing flick" out right now, Butterfly Effect, has no substance other than its horribly disturbing terror violence scenes. This film has violence and is disturbing, but dosn't use that as its prime fuel. The movie wont stick out years from now but Theron's performance will be remembered. Writter/Director Patty Jenkins gives us a low-key directing job was some beautiful traking shots and an overall good looking film.

FINAL ANALYSIS: A 7/10 screenplay with 9/10 acting brings this baby to a solid 8/10. It was great an should be seen by all looking to up their opinion of an already great actress.

dillhead005

02-01-2004, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
It sides with Aileen too quickly and easily and tries way too hard to humanize her and make the viewer sympathize with her. It should have been more objective. It's very biased in her favor, in my opinion.

I would also agree. Although I liked the film allot I couldn't help but feel this was a glorification of what she did.

HHH123007

02-02-2004, 08:36 PM

Monster - **** or (8/10)

A great film with terrific acting. It wasn't as dramatic as I thought it would be(which is good because it would have been overkill), and even had a couple huge laugh moments. My only issue with it, and it's a small one, was the fact that I didn't get how the audience was supposed to feel about the main character....I went through the whole spectrum of feelings about her and didn't think it was supposed to be that way.

Tweek

02-02-2004, 09:11 PM

I haven't seen the movie (not playing near me.)

But from what I've read and heard in interviews with Charlize they weren't trying to sympathize.

I would think that one would be cold-hearted not to sympathize with how aileen grew up and the shit she went through. I can sympathize with her in those respects. I can even understand her killing her rapist.

She commited six unprovoked, unfounded murders. That I don't have pity for.

AppleHuntr

02-04-2004, 01:49 AM

I thought the film didnt try to make you sympathize with her because Aileen is presented as an ignorant, quick tempered women. She did go through a hard life that was briefly covered in the movie but that was more for background than motive. I do not sympathize because what she does in the film is horrible, but the film doesnt want you to sympathize as much as just understand what Aileen is thinking, how she is justifying this to herself. I thought it was all mesmerizing and nicely handled by first time writer/director Patty Jenkins.

Mike, I was up near St. Cloud this weekend where if Im not mistaken you see movies at and Monster was playing! My friends didnt wanna pay for it so we didnt go but hopefully thats good news for you, youll most likely love it.

Mike

02-04-2004, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by AppleHuntr
Mike, I was up near St. Cloud this weekend where if Im not mistaken you see movies at and Monster was playing! My friends didnt wanna pay for it so we didnt go but hopefully thats good news for you, youll most likely love it.

I go to Parkwood 18, but in doesn't show that it's playing in the listings. I'm hoping it comes this weekend though. I think I'll love it.

Mike

02-04-2004, 10:40 PM

YESSSSSS!!! My theater has it coming Friday. :)

notchreturns

02-05-2004, 02:49 PM

Charlize is excellent, definitely the performance of the year, male or female. Ricci is very good, too, in an underrated performance. It had a great moment or two, but not once did I think I was seeing a great movie. A great performance, yes.

SteveSzyk

02-05-2004, 05:21 PM

This is slowly become vastly underrated. Ebert seems to be the only critic with it in his top ten, and look at all these negative responses!! I love Monster and saw little bias in the presentation of the facts. The facts are she killed these people, but for a reason. No, you can't accept or justify her actions, but you can understand them while still realizing the horrific nature of her crimes. I see no sides to choose in this film, instead I see only the reasoning behind actions that are not being lessened or shown as unimportant. The way the Jenkin's created victims was one of the films strong points; these were all human beings who we could feel for. These men, who we may normally see as filthy pigs, are shown to also have a story and to also have some sort of reasoning. And of course the filthy pigs are shown too, and the truth is these exist. The film tears me apart because of the mixed emotions presented and the nature of the situations. A woman I felt for killing other people, many of whom i could also feel for. Aileen Wuornos was a person who made critical mistakes, who led a backwards life and created a criminal of herself, yet to neglect her story and simply see murder is unfair. This film portrays her life, her struggles without saying "hey, Aileen was innocent!" without making a bold stance to say her execution was wrong. And that's what I love about Monster. It's ability to evoke emotion after emotion, to create a serial killer drama with a human side; the love (or rather dependence) story here is fantastic, and the character is brilliant. Monster doesn't make me neglect her victims; instead it makes me angered to see such a tortured soul succumb to the wrong path.

I think my favorite scene was Aileen looking into the mirror, smiling and telling herself "I look good." That line struck me hard, and may be the most memorable scene of the year.

Charlize Theron deserves the Oscar, and deserves her place in history.

Grebdron

02-06-2004, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by SteveSzyk
This is slowly become vastly underrated. Ebert seems to be the only critic with it in his top ten, and look at all these negative responses!! I love Monster and saw little bias in the presentation of the facts. The facts are she killed these people, but for a reason. No, you can't accept or justify her actions, but you can understand them while still realizing the horrific nature of her crimes. I see no sides to choose in this film, instead I see only the reasoning behind actions that are not being lessened or shown as unimportant. The way the Jenkin's created victims was one of the films strong points; these were all human beings who we could feel for. These men, who we may normally see as filthy pigs, are shown to also have a story and to also have some sort of reasoning. And of course the filthy pigs are shown too, and the truth is these exist. The film tears me apart because of the mixed emotions presented and the nature of the situations. A woman I felt for killing other people, many of whom i could also feel for. Aileen Wuornos was a person who made critical mistakes, who led a backwards life and created a criminal of herself, yet to neglect her story and simply see murder is unfair. This film portrays her life, her struggles without saying "hey, Aileen was innocent!" without making a bold stance to say her execution was wrong. And that's what I love about Monster. It's ability to evoke emotion after emotion, to create a serial killer drama with a human side; the love (or rather dependence) story here is fantastic, and the character is brilliant. Monster doesn't make me neglect her victims; instead it makes me angered to see such a tortured soul succumb to the wrong path.

I think my favorite scene was Aileen looking into the mirror, smiling and telling herself "I look good." That line struck me hard, and may be the most memorable scene of the year.

Charlize Theron deserves the Oscar, and deserves her place in history.

Thank you, Steve. Very well said.

My only difference is that my favorite scene was Aileen breaking down at the bus stop.

SteveSzyk

02-06-2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Grebdron
My only difference is that my favorite scene was Aileen breaking down at the bus stop.

There are so many mesmerizing scenes. Like that one, so much power. Also loves the intensity of Aileen's speech justifying her murders.

"You can't kill people."
"SAYS WHO!"

ahhh...

Mike

02-06-2004, 07:28 PM

I plan on seeing this baby tomorrow night.

blacksnake

02-06-2004, 11:30 PM

Monster, is based on the true story of Aileen Wuornos, who was a prostitute who ended up killing several men. The film is set in the 80's and starts off with Aileen, going into a homosexual bar where she meets a lesbian named Selby, who takes a shine to Aileen, who soon Aileen, starts to like Selby. The night they meet Selby, lets Aileen, stay with her at the home of the people she is staying with and they soon become good friends after and Aileen, invites Selby, to go live with her and Selby agrees. They are soon living together in a motel and Aileen (who has previously made a living by being a prostitute) tries to get a job but can not get one. To make money for herself and Selby, Aileen goes back to being a prostitute. One night after being raped and beaten by a man, Aileen kills him and takes his money and his car. Aileen, then soon starts to prostitute more and all the men who pick her up she kills and takes their money. This soon starts to bother Selby, when she finds out and bothers her even more when all this is announced on the news. Although we do not see too much of Aileen's life as a child we do find out about her and her brother being abandoned by their mother and having to live with their grandparents and at the age of 14 she became pregnant and was sent to a home for unwed mothers. When she finally gave birth the baby was adopted. Selby, was also thought to have been involved in Aileen's serial killings. Aileen, was in jail for 12 years before given a lethal injection. Winner of The BFCA Award for Best Actress (Charlize Theron, who plays Aileen Wuornos) at The Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards, The CFCA Award for Best Actress at The Chicago Film Critics Association Awards, The DFWFCA Award for Best Actress at The Dallas Fort Worth Critics Association Awards, The Golden Globe Award for Best Performance By An Actress In A Motion Picture Drama at The Golden Globe Awards, The Sierra Award for Best Actress at The Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards, The NBR Award for Best Breakthrough Performance By An Actress at The National Board Of Review, The NSFC Award for Best Actress at The National Society Of Film Critics Awards and The SFFCC Award for Best Actress at The San Francisco Film Critics Circle. Monster, has good direction, a good screenplay, a great performance by the unrecognizable Charlize Theron and a good performance by Christina Ricci as Selby, good original music, good cinematography, good film editing, good production design and good makeup design. Actress, Charlize Theron gained 30 pounds for the role and actress Christina Ricci gained 10 pounds. Monster, is brilliantly done, the film is a good portrait, the film is compelling, exhilarating, harrowing and overall an extremely well made film. This is the second best film I've seen of 2003.

MadsenOMC

02-07-2004, 11:04 AM

I think Theron's performance is starting to get overrated. You'd think she was the first person to gain 30 pounds and out on some ugly makeup for a role. It's impressive work and deserving of the Oscar nod. But it's hardly earth-shattering. I don't think it comes close to, say, Ellen Burstyn in Requiem For a Dream. Like I said before, I think it's similar to Robin Williams in One Hour Photo. A performer really becomes the character and all traces of them are gone. And it's great acting. But it doesn't bring a new definition to the craft or anything like that. And I still think the movie loses objectivity as it goes along. I felt manipulated. I don't think it's even-handed. How much do you see of these men? 30 seconds? And I understand that. It's about Aileen and not them. You couldn't get into their backgrounds without the movie being 4 hours long. But it goes to great lengths to humanize this woman. What she did is like an afterthought. It's like, hey, this woman had a life you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. She was raped, she's been treated like garbage her whole life, she's poor, she had to turn to prostitution, she finally fell in love, and, oh yeah, in her free time she brutally murdered some men. And they deserved it cause men are bad, even though some were nice to her and even tried to help her." Sorry, but that's manipulative.

bob

02-07-2004, 05:45 PM

Us Monster-haters seem to have only MadsenOMC to voice our opinion eloquently, so I'll just say again that I agree completely with everything Madsen's posted in this thread. I forgot about Monster the moment I left the theatre. Fantastic performances stick with you and, most of all, make the movie watchable no matter what the content/story is like. Charlize failed on both of those counts.

paul

02-07-2004, 07:03 PM

9/10 (A-)

Mike

02-08-2004, 05:31 AM

WOW! Just WOW! That's all I can say right now. I want to write a review, but I don't know where to even begin. Superb film! See it now! I'll hopefully write one sometime on Sunday.

MsMoviefan

02-08-2004, 08:43 PM

I disagree, Madsen, a good performance does not necessarily have to stay w you. Charlize did, IMO, a great piece of work. It wasn't her weight gain and foam patches and synthetic teeth-it was her bearing, her walk, gestures, expressions, attitude etc-her great performance. I thought so during the movie, but her performance did not stay w me, and neither did any other nominees.My reaction only. We see things differently.

MadsenOMC

02-08-2004, 11:01 PM

Theron's performance is great. But IMO, it is no better than Jennifer Connelly in House of Sand & Fog, Naomi Watts in 21 Grams, Scarlett Johansson in Lost In Translation or Samantha Morton in In America. Those all affected me as much as Theron, and in some cases even more. And the acting is at least as good. None of them is playing a part that requires them to be unrecognizable, but that does not make their acting any less than Theron's.

Mike

02-08-2004, 11:09 PM

I personally think Theron's performance was easily better than Scarlett's. While I like her, it seemed like her and Murray sleepwalked through the movie. Both gave decent, but overrated performances. I haven't seen House of Sand & Fog or 21 Grams yet, but Watts looks like she gives an amazing performance.

The make-up aside, I found Theron's performance to be amazing underneath it all. At least it wasn't a big joke like Nicole Kidman's in the overrated and pretentious piece of crap The Hours. Her performance was nothing special at all. Wow, she made herself look ugly with a fake nose, big deal. At least with Theron, I can say that she honestly gave a good performance and it wasn't just the make-up getting her recognition. I was amazed at the way she carried herself in the film, she became Aileen. The way she walked, talked, her mannerisms, everything, it was very impressive.

MadsenOMC

02-09-2004, 10:57 AM

You say Scarlett and Bill sleepwalk through the movie, but I disagree. Their performances fit the tone of the movie. It is a subdued and subtle movie, and the performances reflect that perfectly. And they compliment each other perfectly as well. I agree that Theron is better in Monster than Kidman is in The Hours. Theron does give a great performance. But those by Watts and Connelly have stuck with me much longer, as have their movies.

Mike

02-09-2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
You say Scarlett and Bill sleepwalk through the movie, but I disagree. Their performances fit the tone of the movie. It is a subdued and subtle movie, and the performances reflect that perfectly. And they compliment each other perfectly as well. I agree that Theron is better in Monster than Kidman is in The Hours. Theron does give a great performance. But those by Watts and Connelly have stuck with me much longer, as have their movies.

Yeah, I suppose you're right about Scarlett and Bill, yet I just didn't feel their performances were all that great, especially Scarlett's. Even if they do fit the tone of the movie, I still don't feel they had much to do or had to work real hard to give those performances. The one that looks like it will come closest to matching Theron's performance is Watt's, who looks brilliant in 21 Grams. I'm rooting for Theron to take home the Oscar though. She gave a great performance and had to make a lot of sacrifices for the movie, with its low budget and all. Of course, the thing that would entitle her to the Oscar is her performance, which I feel is very deserving.

Mike

02-09-2004, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Mystique963
Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that seeing Theron in a role like that made them slightly uncomfortable and I must say that I agree. *shudders* It's playing in Denver and I think that i'll just wait for it on video.

Agreed with the congratulations to her as well. She had some fantastic competition with it and any of them deserved it. But well done to her. Slightly off topic, but does anyone know if the awards get reshown at any point? I missed them. Thanks!

Sincerely,
Lauren

You need to see this film! Trust me, you'll either like or LOVE it.

MadsenOMC

02-09-2004, 04:26 PM

So what does it mean if you didn't like it or love it? And what sacrifices did Theron have to make? Give up her usual $3 million fee? Look ugly for two months? Please. These people are coddled and babied and catered to every single day, and they are rich beyond belief. There is no reason to feel sorry for her. Saying she made sacrifices is an insult to people working every day and raising a family, or putting themself through school, or doing something that actually requires making sacrifices. We should all be so lucky to be in Theron's position.

Mike

02-09-2004, 04:36 PM

MONSTER (2003)

Wow, this film blew me away. Absolutely amazing! Easily one of the very best films of the year! I liked how we got to see Aileen Wuornos as a person, not just a “monster.” They're already portrayed as heartless killers on the news; you don't hear anything good about them. But there's more to people than that. It’s like if you knew and really cared about someone, whether it be a family member or a friend, and they ended up killing someone. On the news they would make them out to be horrible, and not mention anything good about them. But you would know different, you maybe wouldn’t like what they did, but that doesn't mean that they didn't have anything good about them. I know if a friend or family member that I really cared about ended up killing someone, or more than one person, I can't say that I would stop loving/caring about them. Maybe they did do some things that were bad, but that doesn’t mean that the whole package is horrible. You hear enough about the bad things that they did on the news, you aren’t really given a chance to get inside their head. You can’t possibly know the whole story by listening to the news. It’s movies like this that give you the whole story. In all honesty, I can’t say I hated Aileen. I don't think there's anything wrong with finding yourself sympathizing with a serial killer, because they're people too. Anyone is capable of killing; it just all depends on the situation you’re in. Under different circumstances, you might do things that you couldn’t imagine yourself doing now.

Charlize Theron gives an astonishing performance as Aileen Wuornos. She had to undergo a complete transformation for this part, but it’s not the weight gain and tons of make-up that has her performance being hailed as one of the best of all time, it’s her acting alone that makes her performance so amazing. She really becomes Aileen Wuornos. The way she talks and carries herself is just perfect. A flawless performance! She deserves all of the praise she’s been getting. I also thought Christina Ricci was very good in a supporting role as Selby. Her performance is underrated, and despite what other people say, I didn’t find her character annoying. In fact, I liked her until ***SPOILERS***She betrayed Aileen in the end***END SPOILERS***. I still didn’t hate her, but I was really disappointed in her. A real friend wouldn’t do that.

The best scene in the movie and by far the best scene of the year is the scene with Aileen and Selby dancing in the roller rink while Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believin’” plays. It was incredibly sweet, magical, and I had a smile on my face the whole time. A great and memorable scene with a great song!

“Monster” is a great film with a great performance from Charlize Theron. It had great writing, directing, acting, and a great soundtrack. I can’t get the film out of my head and I highly recommend it. It’s not to be missed.

Grade: 9/10 (A-)

Mike

02-09-2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
So what does it mean if you didn't like it or love it? And what sacrifices did Theron have to make? Give up her usual $3 million fee? Look ugly for two months? Please. These people are coddled and babied and catered to every single day, and they are rich beyond belief. There is no reason to feel sorry for her. Saying she made sacrifices is an insult to people working every day and raising a family, or putting themself through school, or doing something that actually requires making sacrifices. We should all be so lucky to be in Theron's position.

If you didn't like it or love it, then you didn't like it or love it. It doesn't mean anything. I'm just saying that knowing some of the films that Mystique has loved, I'm pretty certain she'll love this one.

Theron had to work with an extremely low budget, and did a lot more than just "act." She had to work her ass off with this film. A lot was riding on her. There's scenes that she had to do in one take, and couldn't afford to fuck up. There was a lot of pressure. And it was a daring role that not just anyone would take on. But she did, and she pulled it off with flying colors. She deserves to be rewarded for her hard work.

MadsenOMC

02-09-2004, 04:59 PM

OK, but that reads differently from what you said earlier about making sacrifices. She worked hard, no doubt, and she delivered. But let's not get carried away here. And from what I understand, plenty of actresses wanted the part (knowing it had Oscar written all over it) and were willing to work just as hard as Theron. Listen, I understand that she gives a very good performance. But I wish people would stop acting like she cured cancer after 45 years of working tirelessly on finding a cure or gave up all her worldly possessions to work and live with poor people in Africa for the rest of her life. And she is no more deserving than anyone else nominated, save for Diane Keaton, who shouldn't have been nominated at all. Watts, Morton and the Whale Rider girl are just as deserving.

Mike

02-09-2004, 06:53 PM

Oh god, don't even mention Keisha. Charlize is WAY more deserving. Keisha didn't do much. She was fine, but not much was asked of her for the role. One of the most overrated performances of the year, in my opinion. I think it would be a joke if she won over Charlize. But that's just my opinion.

MadsenOMC

02-09-2004, 07:02 PM

I think the movie is overrated, but I was quite impressed by her acting. I'm starting to feel like Theron's is becoming the most overrated performance of the year.

Mike

02-09-2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
I think the movie is overrated, but I was quite impressed by her acting. I'm starting to feel like Theron's is becoming the most overrated performance of the year.

I found both the movie and her acting overrated. As for Monster, I feel the movie is becoming underrated. A lot of the reviews in this thread are 5/10 and 6/10. I rather would have seen this get a Best Picture nom over movies like Lost In Translation, Master & Commander, and Seabiscuit... Also, it deserved Best Make-Up, Director, etc...

The Engraved

02-10-2004, 03:46 AM

I've read through this thread and it's interesting how so many people did not like the movie. This movie is not meant to be happy. It's not meant to make a person feel good once they come out of the theater. At most, it is a movie that makes you think and perhaps debate for a while(as we can see by the various sides that have arisen). I'll tell you in all honesty, that I did not want to see this movie. In fact, I resisted. The prospect of watching a movie about a real life serial killer did not interest me. I much rather preferred a make-believe villian to watch. Someone who could commit acts of violence on screen and I could simply enjoy watching without feeling distain for the fact that the killings were based on real accounts, on real people. But I saw the movie anyway. My brother really wanted to see it. He wanted to see if Theron really was the best choice for the Oscars. So, I went with my brother and sister to see this movie. Now, above all else, we know Aileen was a killer. I do not agree with some who say this movie sympathized too much with her. I honestly do not believe this movie portrays her as a saint. It portrays her as a person, a very messed up person. Yes she was a victim of certain circumstances beyond her control (when a child), but the movie does not say "because of this she had free-range on anyone." When Aileen and Selby have their famous scene about murder ("You cannot go around killing people."), the viewer sees how alien Aileen is to the rest of society. She's an outcast; unstable, alone. A person who has freely chosen to remain on her destructive path. She may be pitied, but never forgiven. She was a serial murderer and I think this movie shows that splendidly. Now, as far as whether or not I enjoyed this movie. It was a very good movie, but I still would have preferred House of Sand And Fog and/or 21 Grams to have gotten the nod for best picture. Theron did a very good job portraying Aileen (in fact, I saw a clip of the real Aileen and damn if she did not hit the target on the bullseye), but I just do not think it was the best performance out of those nominated. I think that nod should go to Watts. I also think Ricci did a very good job and feel bad that few in the media ever mention her performance. Thank you . :)

MadsenOMC

02-10-2004, 10:54 AM

I don't think anyone mentioned anything about the movie portraying Aileen as a saint. It's just clearly biased in her favor. It is not objective. And in my opinion that is a mistake. Had she never killed anyone after the first one, which was self-defense, it would be a different story. But once you cross that line and start murdering innocent people, pity and sympathy are mostly gone, as it should be. As for the directing, I would argue that it is the worst part of the movie and it definitely did not warrant a nomination. Painfully obvious that it's an inexperienced director at work.

Mike

02-10-2004, 01:02 PM

I've wondered something for awhile now, even before seeing the movie. How do they know that this is how each of the guys acted? I mean, the only people that would know is Aileen and the guy she killed, and obviously he can't explain what happened (and if they were able to, they'd obviously lie and try to make themselves look better). So unless Aileen told what happened with each of them, then there's no way of knowing. If they're just guessing how each guy was, then who knows, maybe they all had it coming. The only guy that I actually really cared about in the movie was the one that tried to help her ***spoilers***(well, and the harmless, chubby virgin, but she didn't kill him)***end spoilers***. But who knows if he really tried to help her in real life. That's like with the movie The Perfect Storm. It's based on a true story, yet how the hell are they supposed to know what happened on the boat? With no survivors to tell what happened, then the stuff that happened on the boat isn't necessarily true. So unless Aileen said what happened with each of the victims, there's no way of knowing if they didn't have it coming or not. Other than the first guy, they were probably made out to seem nicer than they were.

silentasylum

02-10-2004, 02:50 PM

Intense. A complex story that leaves no room for judgments. Takes a person like Aileen Wournos and forces us to see her as a human being. Groundbreaking work by Charlize Theron.

The movie is only based on a true story, which means they gathered all facts available to them and painted the most accurate picture they could. This includes interviews with the families of the victims. The guy she said raped her, had been in a psychiatric house for raping someone else.

I'm planning to watch nick broomfiled's documentary next. Interesting stuff.

max

02-10-2004, 03:43 PM

As serial killer movies go, MONSTER says nothing new or revelatory. Yes, Aileen Wuornos was repeatedly raped when she was young. But not everyone who's physically and mentally abused go on to become gay or serial killers or professional cocksuckers or professional cocksucking lesbian serial killers. Hey, I too had a rough time growing up. I didn't get my first blowjob until I was 16. I waited till I was 17 to lose my virginity. Now THAT was tough. Did I go around raping or killing people? But enough about me.

People who need people are the unluckiest people in the world. Especially ugly dykes. Even they need a hug. I never thought I'd care about two dykes in love until MONSTER. Beware. This movie has enough "Kodyke" moments to make the lesbian in all of us wet. Charlize Theron plays Aileen Wuornos. Ms. Theron is so convinced that Aileen Wuornos is worth knowing and understanding that she convinced me to start respecting every hooker I pick up. I might even give up hookers altogether.

Aileen wasn't always a lesbian and she wasn't always a serial killer. Then along came Selby (Christina Ricci). They meet cute in a dyke bar (trust me, in life as in movies, you can meet cute anywhere). For Selby, it's love at first sight of Aileen's yellow teeth, greasy hair, scabby face and towering flab. She just may be the hottest chick she's ever seen in a dyke bar. For Aileen, it's just a place to drink and rinse the cum off her mouth. Selby offers to buy her a drink. Aileen soon realizes that she's in a gay bar and that the people around her aren't male truckers. Aileen refuses the drink at first, but she's never felt this loved before. To make a long story short, Aileen turns gay. One day she shoots one of her johns to death after he violently rapes her. She's so pissed that she starts killing more johns. In the beginning, she keeps it a secret from Selby. After all, love means never having to say you're serial. But when Selby finds out, the cops soon find out too. The movie ends in betrayal, like most great love stories do. You see, MONSTER is about love actually.

The Engraved

02-10-2004, 06:12 PM

I apologize to MadsenOMC and anyone else for my poor choice of wording. What I was trying to say was that this movie showed she was human, not a soulless creature who kills out of the whim. Abviously this movie is not objective. No movie can ever fully be objective. When you focus on a main person (character) you dwell on their shortcomings, their biases. This makes it impossible to view the overall picture because you do not fully know the other characters in the background (not their full lives, their complete histories). I want to also apologize for saying that this movie was nominated for best pic (I'm glad it wasn't). House of Sand and Fog and 21 Grams was still better. Thank you.
:)

Mike

02-10-2004, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by max
As serial killer movies go, MONSTER says nothing new or revelatory. Yes, Aileen Wuornos was repeatedly raped when she was young. But not everyone who's physically and mentally abused go on to become gay or serial killers or professional cocksuckers or professional cocksucking lesbian serial killers. Hey, I too had a rough time growing up. I didn't get my first blowjob until I was 16. I waited till I was 17 to lose my virginity. Now THAT was tough. Did I go around raping or killing people? But enough about me.

People who need people are the unluckiest people in the world. Especially ugly dykes. Even they need a hug. I never thought I'd care about two dykes in love until MONSTER. Beware. This movie has enough "Kodyke" moments to make the lesbian in all of us wet. Charlize Theron plays Aileen Wuornos. Ms. Theron is so convinced that Aileen Wuornos is worth knowing and understanding that she convinced me to start respecting every hooker I pick up. I might even give up hookers altogether.

Aileen wasn't always a lesbian and she wasn't always a serial killer. Then along came Selby (Christina Ricci). They meet cute in a dyke bar (trust me, in life as in movies, you can meet cute anywhere). For Selby, it's love at first sight of Aileen's yellow teeth, greasy hair, scabby face and towering flab. She just may be the hottest chick she's ever seen in a dyke bar. For Aileen, it's just a place to drink and rinse the cum off her mouth. Selby offers to buy her a drink. Aileen soon realizes that she's in a gay bar and that the people around her aren't male truckers. Aileen refuses the drink at first, but she's never felt this loved before. To make a long story short, Aileen turns gay. One day she shoots one of her johns to death after he violently rapes her. She's so pissed that she starts killing more johns. In the beginning, she keeps it a secret from Selby. After all, love means never having to say you're serial. But when Selby finds out, the cops soon find out too. The movie ends in betrayal, like most great love stories do. You see, MONSTER is about love actually.

Do you have to use the word "dyke" so much? That's kind of harsh.

Also, I wouldn't say that Aileen "turned" gay. You don't exactly "turn" gay. When I heard about Aileen Wuornos when the news that the movie Monster was going to be made, I had heard that she wasn't really a lesbian, but that she had a relationship with a woman. That's what I read in pretty much everything I read about her/the movie. Then when the movie came out, I read things about it where people would call her a lesbian serial killer. But after hearing for quite awhile that she wasn't really a lesbian, and seeing a clip where Aileen first meets Selby in the bar and says that she's not gay, I assumed that she wasn't really a lesbian, but it was just that Selby was the first person to really care about her, so she entered in a relationship with her. But then people in this thread were saying that she really is a lesbian, and you have to see the movie in order to have an opinion on it. Well, then when seeing the movie, I figured "They're right, I'm sure she was really a lesbian, but the reason she said she wasn't gay at first was because she didn't trust anyone." Now, I'm confused and don't know what the fuck to think. Was she a lesbian or wasn't she a lesbian people? Everyone is saying different things.

BadCoverVersion

02-10-2004, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Mike
If they're just guessing how each guy was, then who knows, maybe they all had it coming.

I think I just coughed up a lung.

I firmly believe in the bitter and the sweet inside each and every one of us...but this statement reads like a crass attempt to condone multiple murder based of a wafer-thin theory.

How in JC's name could EVERY one of these men "have it coming"? What are the odds?

Mike, I understand that you favour societal reject's, but you're freaking me the fuck out here ;).

Mike

02-10-2004, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
I think I just coughed up a lung.

I firmly believe in the bitter and the sweet inside each and every one of us...but this statement reads like a crass attempt to condone multiple murder based of a wafer-thin theory.

How in JC's name could EVERY one of these men "have it coming"? What are the odds?

Mike, I understand that you favour societal reject's, but you're freaking me the fuck out here ;).

Well I highly doubt they were all innocent. I'm not saying what she did is right, but we don't know what really went on. Everyone keeps talking about "these poor men," but who knows if they even deserve our sympathy.

silentasylum

02-10-2004, 09:14 PM

in the movie it portrays her as a woman who loses control and begins to kill, the first one probably was self-defense but after that she snapped. The movie does a great job in showing how a person's life can come to a horrible conclusion. It doesn't ask us to over sympathize with her but simply gives us facts and lets decide, even if most may become confused about what to think of her after they see the movie.That only means the movie did its job.

BadCoverVersion

02-10-2004, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Mike
Everyone keeps talking about "these poor men," but who knows if they even deserve our sympathy.

Erm, she didn't give them a wag of the finger or a smack on the wrists Mike...she murdered them in cold blood; consequently delivering a 'gift' of grief to countless individuals.

Widowed wives, fatherless children...parents, siblings, friends and loved ones.

There is no evidence to suggest that these men deserved their despicable fate...and I just don't grasp how you can display such charged compassion towards a plain-as-day executioner, yet express obvious disregard for many men whom were massacred for no apparent reason.

I fully appreciate feelings of sympathy, understanding and the like...but I can't even begin to comprehend this sense of disregard and the "sweep it under the carpet" mentality.

Frankly, it DOES freak the living shit outta me, and I aint winking this time around.

MadsenOMC

02-10-2004, 09:45 PM

Come on Mike. Now you're starting to suggest that maybe the men deserved it!? And the more you post about this movie, the more you defend a cold-blooded killer. It's really getting sick, man. You are so biased in favor of Theron and her performance as this woman, that you're starting to wonder if maybe Aileen herself wasn't so unjustified in killing these people. Talk about not being able to separate reality from a movie. That's scary.

ANavissi500

02-10-2004, 09:59 PM

spoilers?
********

The last guy DEFINITELY did not have it coming. That was one of the saddest things I have ever seen. I physically jumped from my car.

BakeTheMooCow

02-10-2004, 10:56 PM

Actually, Mike, you bring up an excellent point that I didn't think about until now. We have no way of knowing what happened to provoke those murders, except from the perspective of Aileen herself. However, I don't see any reason for her to paint her victims as innocent if they weren't. The first one who raped her clearly had it coming, since she was acting in self-defense. When she spoke to authorities or however they got information about the rest of the deaths, she had no reason to lie about how the other Johns behaved. Its not like she was a vigilante, carrying out the will of the law or God - she was only exercising her personal demons.

Also, I'd like to add that even though I love the movie .. Naomi Watts and Samantha Morton were both equally great in their roles and both 21 Grams (10/10) and In America (9/10) were better overall than Monster (8.5/10). So, while I'll be happy if Charlize wins, I won't be any less happier if either of the other two walk away with the prize. Anyone but Diane Keaton, please..

MadsenOMC

02-10-2004, 11:00 PM

It's a good point until a line is crossed and it is suggested that maybe the guys had it coming, or maybe Aileen wasn't unjustified in killing them because maybe they weren't entirely innocent. That is so far beyond ludicrous.

Mike

02-10-2004, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
Widowed wives

Frankly, it DOES freak the living shit outta me, and I aint winking this time around.

Oh yeah, I'm sure those wives were so upset about their husband's deaths that were caused by a prostitute that they were cheating on them with.

Freak away. I don't care if it bothers you. It's my opinion. I'm not saying that they all deserved it, I'm just saying that you don't know the whole story. She said it was all self defense, and I'm not saying I believe her, but we don't know what happened for sure.

Originally posted by ANavissi500
spoilers?
********

The last guy DEFINITELY did not have it coming. That was one of the saddest things I have ever seen. I physically jumped from my car.

I know the character didn't. I felt really bad for him, and didn't want anything to happen to him. But who knows if that's what happened in real life?

You guys are taking what I said too seriously. I'm not taking either side. I just like to see the different sides of things instead of being too quick to judge like most people.

MadsenOMC

02-10-2004, 11:33 PM

No doubt, if there was any indication that those men (after the first one) had treated Aileen poorly in any way, shape or form, Jenkins would have jumped at the chance to get that onscreen and hopefully portray Aileen in an even more sympathetic light. There worst crime was soliciting a prostitute. Does the punishment fit the crime? I would hope that's an easy answer. In my mind this goes way beyond trying to remain objective and see both sides. She murdered innocent men who had done her no harm. It's really quite simple.

Mike

02-10-2004, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
In my mind this goes way beyond trying to remain objective and see both sides. She murdered innocent men who had done her no harm.

Really, you were there? You know for a fact that they did her no harm whatsoever? I don't think it goes beyond trying to see both sides. I'd just rather know all of the facts.

BakeTheMooCow

02-10-2004, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Mike
Really, you were there? You know for a fact that they did her no harm whatsoever? I don't think it goes beyond trying to see both sides. I'd just rather know all of the facts. Why would Aileen lie about how the other Johns treated her? She had no reason to make them look innocent.

MadsenOMC

02-10-2004, 11:50 PM

Mike, you conveniently ignore what I said prior to that. "No doubt, if there was any indication that those men (after the first one) had treated Aileen poorly in any way, shape or form, Jenkins would have jumped at the chance to get that onscreen and hopefully portray Aileen in an even more sympathetic light." Why would Jenkins sugarcoat the men? What purpose does that serve? Why would she want to portray them as something they were not? How does that benefit her movie? I have a really tough time buying that.

Mike

02-10-2004, 11:57 PM

Did she explain what happened with each of the men? That's what I asked in the first place. I asked how they knew how each of the guys acted, and if Aileen told them or what. But instead of answering that, people make a big deal out of one little sentence that I said, taking it way too literally. I didn't say that they had it coming, I said MAYBE they did, that was if nobody knew what actually happened except all of the dead people. I didn't know if Aileen explained to them what happened with every single one. That's why I was curious how they knew, if she told them, or if they made it up.

MadsenOMC

02-11-2004, 12:01 AM

I find no reason to assume that Aileen didn't pretty much truthfully explain what happened in each instance. Maybe the documentary provides more concrete answers concerning that.

BadCoverVersion

02-11-2004, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Mike
Oh yeah, I'm sure those wives were so upset about their husband's deaths that were caused by a prostitute that they were cheating on them with.

Freak away. I don't care if it bothers you. It's my opinion. I'm not saying that they all deserved it, I'm just saying that you don't know the whole story. She said it was all self defense, and I'm not saying I believe her, but we don't know what happened for sure.

No doubt they were utterly fucking devastated.

For a compassionate one you're remarkably quick to judge Mike.

Life aint straight lines and empty pathways, these men hired prostitutes for their own personal reasons...at least credit them with independant thought.

Erm, did Wuornos actually say "it was all self defence"?

max

02-11-2004, 09:43 AM

Do you have to use the word "dyke" so much? That's kind of harsh.

Sorry, bad dyke-itude.

Also, I wouldn't say that Aileen "turned" gay. You don't exactly "turn" gay. When I heard about Aileen Wuornos when the news that the movie Monster was going to be made, I had heard that she wasn't really a lesbian, but that she had a relationship with a woman. That's what I read in pretty much everything I read about her/the movie. Then when the movie came out, I read things about it where people would call her a lesbian serial killer. But after hearing for quite awhile that she wasn't really a lesbian, and seeing a clip where Aileen first meets Selby in the bar and says that she's not gay, I assumed that she wasn't really a lesbian, but it was just that Selby was the first person to really care about her, so she entered in a relationship with her. But then people in this thread were saying that she really is a lesbian, and you have to see the movie in order to have an opinion on it. Well, then when seeing the movie, I figured "They're right, I'm sure she was really a lesbian, but the reason she said she wasn't gay at first was because she didn't trust anyone." Now, I'm confused and don't know what the fuck to think. Was she a lesbian or wasn't she a lesbian people? Everyone is saying different things.

There's such a thing as "latent homosexuality." You could be straight all your life, then it just happens. I think we all have gay tendencies waiting to exhale. So, who knows, I may yet suck dick before I die.

Grebdron

02-11-2004, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by max
So, who knows, I may yet suck dick before I die.

818-555-1234

That's Reigh's home number. Give him a call.

Mike, try to stay rational here. The odds of all seven men brutalizing her are pretty astronomical. And as Bake and Madsen pointed out...she had precious little motivation to lie about the last 6.

badberry

02-11-2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Grebdron
The odds of all seven men brutalizing her are pretty astronomical. And as Bake and Madsen pointed out...she had precious little motivation to lie about the last 6.

My thoughts exactly. What are the chances of her having to kill someone in self defence 7 times in a relatively small time period?

badberry

02-11-2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Mike
Oh yeah, I'm sure those wives were so upset about their husband's deaths that were caused by a prostitute that they were cheating on them with.

Now that's just being rediculous.

max

02-11-2004, 02:30 PM

818-555-1234

That's Reigh's home number. Give him a call.

Thanks, Grebdron, but I already have a long list of dicks to suck if and when I turn gay. Word spreads fast, you know. I have no idea why everyone thinks I'd be potentially good at giving head.

Oh yeah, I'm sure those wives were so upset about their husband's deaths that were caused by a prostitute that they were cheating on them with.

You're kidding, right, MIke? Of course they were upset. I'm pretty sure there'd still be a lot of love left.

Mike

02-11-2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
I find no reason to assume that Aileen didn't pretty much truthfully explain what happened in each instance.

I'm sure she did, she had no reason to lie about it. But like I said before, I didn't know if Aileen told them what happened with each of them or not, which is what I wanted to know. If she did, then I'm sure she didn't lie.

Grebdron

02-11-2004, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Mike
I'm sure she did, she had no reason to lie about it. But like I said before, I didn't know if Aileen told them what happened with each of them or not, which is what I wanted to know. If she did, then I'm sure she didn't lie.

The way I understand it, she told them several different things, several different times. She was never consistent. Sometimes she claimed self-defense in every case, other times she admitted to just killing them for money.

I tend to believe the later, except in the first murder.

Mike

02-11-2004, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Grebdron
The way I understand it, she told them several different things, several different times. She was never consistent. Sometimes she claimed self-defense in every case, other times she admitted to just killing them for money.

I tend to believe the later, except in the first murder.

That's what I thought. I knew I had read that she said they were all self-defense. I've read all kinds of different things about it though. Other than the first case, the rest probably were just for the money. The first guy got off easy though, too bad she couldn't have tortured him like he did her. And no, I don't think it's wrong to say that. I believe that he deserved the very worst of treatment. He should have had to have suffered like she did.

silentasylum

02-11-2004, 09:09 PM

I heard in nick broomfield's documentary she says that she killed the men for the money but when she thought the cameras were turned off she says that she only said that because she wanted to die so desperately. She had so much anger in her and she was in such a screwed up situation that it's easy for me to see her getting to the point where all she wants is to die.

Mike

02-11-2004, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by silentasylum
I heard in nick broomfield's documentary she says that she killed the men for the money but when she thought the cameras were turned off she says that she only said that because she wanted to die so desperately. She had so much anger in her and she was in such a screwed up situation that it's easy for me to see her getting to the point where all she wants is to die.

Interesting. I definitely want to see the documentary that's out right now. I hope they release it on video when Monster comes to video.

AppleHuntr

02-13-2004, 12:52 AM

I think for the most part the cases of these men were fictional. They probably were based off an event that did happen, but the movie is just that, a movie and not a documentary. And in the documentaries Roger Ebert states that Aileen is most likely insane, and its hard to find the truth in what she says. Although it is doubtful that the majority of her killings were in self-defense, even the writer/director didnt believe that enough to put into the film.

semi-spoilerish
In fact I dont see how some people find the movie a feminist revenge drama. Besides for the one horrible john and a few pervs, one was there because his wife was disabled (she saw the pic of him with his wife in the wheelchair), one was a sad virgin and the other wasnt a john at all. This really isnt in response to the above argument but just a general thought.

Mike

02-13-2004, 01:12 AM

I saw Charlize on a rerun of The Ellen Show tonight, and damn, I just love her. She's so fucking GORGEOUS, and she seems so damn sweet, and it doesn't come off as fake at all. Also, she loves animals :).

I really want to see this baby again. Especially for the roller rink scene. It was magical I tell ya ;).

I really can't decide between Charlize Theron and Angela Bettis for Best Performance Of The Year. Both gave amazing performances with depth, and it's impossible for me to pick. I'm not just saying that I loved Angela's performance because I loved MAY, I'm saying it because I really do feel it was a great performance. She really became May, she had the whole "shy/feeling awkward" act down and it didn't seem like acting. But Charlize also really became Aileen, and she was perfect. I'd have to say that they are tied in my book, I thought both were equally great and I can't choose between the two. Although technically, Monster is the better film, I can't choose between the performances.

The Other

02-13-2004, 01:57 AM

Everyone I've talked to says how incredibly bad and campy that roller-skating scene is. And I agree it is.

MONSTER sucked. Amateur directing and writing, and Ricci was completely miscast.

Mike

02-13-2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by The Other
Everyone I've talked to says how incredibly bad and campy that roller-skating scene is. And I agree it is.

MONSTER sucked. Amateur directing and writing, and Ricci was completely miscast.

I disagree, I thought the roller rink scene was amazing and magical, and I'm sure there's many others that would agree with me. It was very sweet, and the best scene in a movie of 2003.

I thought the directing, writing, etc... were all great. I thought Lost in Translation was poorly directed. It was a mess. Monster should have the Best Directing nod over it.

MadsenOMC

02-13-2004, 12:01 PM

Best scene in a movie in all of 2003? That gave me a good laugh. Hilarious. Give me a break. I can think of 100 scenes that are better. Easily. And the directing is a mess. Sofia Copolla is a better director on a bad day than Jenkins will ever be. There is simply no comparison. Watch them back to back. Jenkins is clueless. Just not a good director.

Mike

02-13-2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Best scene in a movie in all of 2003? That gave me a good laugh. Hilarious. Give me a break. I can think of 100 scenes that are better. Easily. And the directing is a mess. Sofia Copolla is a better director on a bad day than Jenkins will ever be. There is simply no comparison. Watch them back to back. Jenkins is clueless. Just not a good director.

I disagree. I found it to be a great scene, the best of 2003, it was very powerful.

And Sofia did an excellent job with The Virgin Suicides, but LIT was a mess. It was all over the place. The directing in Monster wasn't. It's my opinion, and there's no right or wrong.

badberry

02-14-2004, 04:33 AM

Man....what a downer of a movie! I know it's supposed to be, but the whole thing was just so unrelenting and depressing. A girl I saw it with was totally bawling by half way through, and at the end said she felt like she had to vomit the whole movie. While my reaction wasn't that intense, it definately was not a "feel good" movie. I did think it was powerful and well made though and the performances were of course excellent. I'm gonna give it an 8/10. It's one of those movies that sticks with you long after you see it, ala Requiem for a Dream.

**SPOILER**:

The scene where she murders the last guy who was only trying to help her especially really got to me.

END SPOILER

All in all, good movie, but damn depressing. And man, does Charlize look nasty in this one. ..can't believe it's her there. That lesbian scene would have been a lot more enjoyable if she was looking her usual hot self ;)

MadsenOMC

02-15-2004, 04:51 PM

Taken from a John Stossel ABC news story. This is very telling and totally supports what detractors of the movie have been saying all along. The movie is completely biased.

"As Monster tells it, one john brutally beats and rapes Wuornos in some very disturbing scenes. When the attacker threatens to kill her, she shoots him in self-defense. When moviegoers see the graphic rape scene, many feel Wuornos is the victim. This has family members of the real victims unhappy.

Theron helped produce the film, and talks about the research she did while promoting the film. I would think the research would include talking to the prosecutor, John Tanner, who spent years investigating Wuornos and the seven men she killed. But he was not consulted. "You know, these men had wives. They have daughters, brothers, sons, friends," Tanner told ABCNEWS. "And anyone that sees that film is left with the impression that — at least some of the men that were murdered deserved to die and that she was acting in self-defense. It's a total lie."

Wuornos even admitted that her crimes, committed in Florida in the 1980s, were not "self-defense." During her trial, Wuornos took the stand and said she "robbed" the men and killed them "as cold as ice."

"And I'd do it again, too, I know I'd kill another person, 'cause I've hated humans for a long time," said Wuornos. She then continued to claim the men were innocent while in prison, after she said she found God.

"I want to come clean. There is no self-defense," said Wuornos. "And so I need to come clean, I need to tell the world that there is no self-defense in my cases."

Victims’ Families Ignored

When picking up her Golden Globe for her performance, Theron thanked lots of people, but she never once mentioned the families of the murdered men.

"I don't think they cared about the victims' families," said Linda Yates. Her mother was engaged to Gino Antonio, when Wuornos killed him. "[Wuornos] was just a vicious person," said Yates.

In fact, the filmmakers didn't talk to any of the victims families. Mike Humphreys' dad was also murdered. He has a problem with the way the movie was produced: "I don't think that they ought to do this to the victims out there," said Humphreys.

"This movie is portraying her as a victim," said Letha Prater. "She isn't. She was not a victim. My brother was a victim."

Most of the family members won't go to the movie.

The movie does acknowledge Wuornos killed one man who was trying to help her, but all the others are shown as johns. The families say that's cruel to them."

Nate6

02-15-2004, 06:52 PM

MONSTER

It's interesting that this movie rests almost entirely on the performances (however amazing) of Charlize Theron and Christina Ricci. So much so that in most points, I thought they were in a different film.

I start off my saying that Charlize Theron should win the Oscar. She was incredible. There is absolutely no way to overrate this performance because it's transcendant. It reaches into a person's soul in a way that hasn't been done in quite a while, and one does get the feeling that she's reaching for lost demons (we've all heard the stories of her troubled childhood by now). It's an absolutely marvelous piece of acting regardless of the other problems with the film. I also thought Ricci was impressive in her part. I don't think she was miscast, nor do I think she was too girly-girlish for it. It felt real to me.

But the rest of the movie? Good, but not so amazing. I must say, the sloppiness of the whole thing stuns me. I saw overhead boom mics for half the movie, for God's sake. I didn't realize that being an independent movie suddenly meant the seams could show. I also noticed WILD and annoying inconsistencies in Theron's makeup. She was a total ugmo in some parts...and Charlize Theron in others. Maybe I'm asking too much, but I don't think I am.

I did think it was fairly well-written, and personal, with good dialogue, and its plot did carry me along on a crushing, depressing ride full of highs and lows. I was engaged throughout, through the disturbing murders (though that got to be a bit much) and awkward sex scene and truly crushing moments of brilliant performance, and was often fascinated by the main character's journey. Damn it, Theron really made me care about that character. The writing did house times of complete, unfounded excess, though.

But I have to express, in a rather Maltinesque way, how in the end, I felt empty. While I was somewhat pleased, and knew that the performances would stay with me, I didn't feel like I had seen the earth-shaking masterpiece I had heard about. It just didn't quite seem to fit together correctly. I can't really explain it.

Engaging? Yes. Disturbing? Yes. Brilliant performances? Certainly. Excessive? Maybe a bit. Sloppy? Yes. Forgettable? Yes.

Theron's amazing 10/10 performance certainly belongs in a better-made film.

6.5/10

Mike

02-15-2004, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Taken from a John Stossel ABC news story. This is very telling and totally supports what detractors of the movie have been saying all along. The movie is completely biased.

"As Monster tells it, one john brutally beats and rapes Wuornos in some very disturbing scenes. When the attacker threatens to kill her, she shoots him in self-defense. When moviegoers see the graphic rape scene, many feel Wuornos is the victim. This has family members of the real victims unhappy.

Theron helped produce the film, and talks about the research she did while promoting the film. I would think the research would include talking to the prosecutor, John Tanner, who spent years investigating Wuornos and the seven men she killed. But he was not consulted. "You know, these men had wives. They have daughters, brothers, sons, friends," Tanner told ABCNEWS. "And anyone that sees that film is left with the impression that — at least some of the men that were murdered deserved to die and that she was acting in self-defense. It's a total lie."

Wuornos even admitted that her crimes, committed in Florida in the 1980s, were not "self-defense." During her trial, Wuornos took the stand and said she "robbed" the men and killed them "as cold as ice."

"And I'd do it again, too, I know I'd kill another person, 'cause I've hated humans for a long time," said Wuornos. She then continued to claim the men were innocent while in prison, after she said she found God.

"I want to come clean. There is no self-defense," said Wuornos. "And so I need to come clean, I need to tell the world that there is no self-defense in my cases."

Victims’ Families Ignored

When picking up her Golden Globe for her performance, Theron thanked lots of people, but she never once mentioned the families of the murdered men.

"I don't think they cared about the victims' families," said Linda Yates. Her mother was engaged to Gino Antonio, when Wuornos killed him. "[Wuornos] was just a vicious person," said Yates.

In fact, the filmmakers didn't talk to any of the victims families. Mike Humphreys' dad was also murdered. He has a problem with the way the movie was produced: "I don't think that they ought to do this to the victims out there," said Humphreys.

"This movie is portraying her as a victim," said Letha Prater. "She isn't. She was not a victim. My brother was a victim."

Most of the family members won't go to the movie.

The movie does acknowledge Wuornos killed one man who was trying to help her, but all the others are shown as johns. The families say that's cruel to them."

Well, it doesn't need their money, it's doing well enough anyway.

They didn't want anything to do with the movie, they could have shared their opinion on it then, but they didn't. I don't see why Theron should have thanked the families of the victims, when they didn't want anything to do with the movie.

Whatever though, I still loved the film and thought it was great.

Joemovie

02-26-2004, 12:41 AM

Finally went to see this today...here's my review...

Monster
*** (out of four)
Review written by Joseph Lopez

A few weeks ago, ABC’s ever-entertaining “news” series 20/20 aired a story suggesting that Patty Jenkins’ film “Monster” portrays convicted serial killer Aileen Wuornos in a positive light. Reporter John Stossel begged the filmmakers to give him a break. After seeing the movie, one has to wonder if Stossel or anybody working on this Friday night ABC mainstay actually bothered to watch the film before writing the story. Fact is, Aileen Wuornos is not made to look like a good person here. None of her crimes are justified or excused by the film. Instead, “Monster” simply works to bring out the human side of this undoubtedly callous individual. Really, the movie achieves something amazing in not turning Wuornos into a hero, but simply into a person just like you or me.

Charlize Theron stars as Wuornos, a hooker who falls in love with a young woman named Selby, played her by Christina Ricci. Aileen wants to give up hooking, but her inability to secure a regular job leaves little choice. When one john attempts to rape and murder Wuornos, she has no choice but to kill him out of self-defense. From there, Aileen grows paranoid of men in general and murders just about any guy who will pick her up. Why does Aileen do it? The same reason she eventually admits to the crimes, because of her love for Selby.

By now everybody has read plenty about Charlize Theron’s amazing performance in this film. Calling it a performance is probably an injustice to what Theron really does her. She isn’t acting. Theron encompasses the character, fully bringing her to life. Fact is, we aren’t watching Charlize Theron as Aileen Wuornos, instead we see Aileen Wuornos in the flesh on film. It really is a haunting film in that respect. Wuornos, as you may know, was executed back in October 2002. Yet here she is, alive and immortal on the silver screen.

That doesn’t mean Aileen is made to be a hero here, or even a victim. Her crimes are clearly shown as wrong. We are shocked when she murders and sad for the victims. Monster doesn’t try to validate anything Wuornos did, it simply shows us that writing her off as a completely insane cold-hearted killer is wrong. Wuornos was a human being. She had fears, weaknesses, and dreams. She made mistakes, but don’t we all? Aileen Wuornos was a serial killer, but a serial killer was not Aileen. You cannot classify her for one characteristic of her personality. Most people want to separate ourselves from the murderers and call girls of the world. Perhaps its just easier, or more comforting, to think of civilization being split into “us” and “them”. Hollywood does all it can to stay away from turning characters that fit these social taboos into anything even noticeably realistic. That’s a bad thing. A down right horrible thing. If we cannot accept that human beings are capable of both great goods and incredible evils, we will never fully come to terms with what being human is.

“Monster” isn’t a perfect movie, in fact there’s some real problems with the film. Christina Ricci’s character especially bothered me. Many times Selby appears to be a winy little girl who has her eyes closed to the real picture. Yes she is young and in love, but that doesn’t mean she has to throw a fit whenever she wants to go out. All too often, Selby feels unreal, exactly the opposite of how Aileen comes across. The story has a few slow moments, though the relationship between Aileen and Selby grows quite nicely. There’s no question about their love. It’s real. In many ways, it’s what leads to Aileen’s downfall. But that doesn’t excuse her actions or make her a victim.

John Stossel claims the film, which is tag lined as “based on a true story”, isn’t true at all since it treats Wuornos as a real person and not just a ruthless killer. Perhaps Stossel completely missed the point. Aileen Wuornos is a genuine individual, as ambitious and mistaken as any of us. Doesn’t that make this the truest story of all?

-Joe Lopez
Joemovie@aol.com

Damned Martian

03-07-2004, 04:32 PM

Monster - 7/10

I have mixed feelings about this. I'll explain: on one hand, i liked the film. But on the other, I felt it could have been better, and this feeling is oversized by some external facts. First, there's the dubbing. Don't get me wrong, i'm not going to start ranting about it. Although some time in the future I'll do a thread for it. Not necessarily a rant. I've got more like a love-hate relationship with it. And this is a perfect example of it. In Spain, all the films are dubbed (except in some theaters in big cities, which is not my city's case), and this has been like that for ages. That has allowed the dubbing industry in Spain to be the best in the world: we have better dubbing actors than real actors. And 90% of the times, the dubbing is accurate (in voice and in acting) to the source. Sometimes it's even better than the source acting (I find Keanu Reeves to be a great actor thanks to it ;)). But there are other cases, liek this, in which a performance is so crude, so emotional, that I can't help but think the dubbing hasn't been able to translate all that substance, that the dubbing acting, even being very good (as it is), must pale in comparison with the original. I can't help it. So I can't help but think I'm being robbed of some of the film's bigger qualities. Then, in second instance, there's my biasment. I've read and heard so many things about this film and Chaarlize's performance, I've been exposed so many times to Charlize's uglified mug, that I was no longer a pure mind about it when I saw it. And it's not that this spoiled me any of the plot, but it definitely was important for my involvement with the film. I had seen so many times the aileened Charlize i had time enough to find the real Charlize behind the make-up. And even though I've always found her a good and underrated actress, she had an already established image in my mind that, while watching the film, i wasn't totally able to excel. It was an obstacle in my way to appreciate her performance, and thus to appreciate the film's undoubtly soul. I'm not saying I didn't think Charlize was great, it's just that I was too externally influenced to lose myself into the performance, and by extension into the film. But it was a good film.
From the very beginning of the project, the film sounded to me like Boys Don't Cry. And it's the closest film to compare it with. But, luckily, Monster is one step beyond BDC's pros. BDC was, after all, just a telefilm, with all the virtues and flaws that this carry. It exposes just the surface of a crude real event, making a vague attempt of character developing that doesn't really get to much depth. The power of the story is enough to carry the film to a good end, but the film avoids any especulation about its messages and tries to diminish its thought-provoking nature by trying to show just the surface of the events. Fortunately, there's Hillary Swank. She gave the best female performance of the last 20 years, and add so much depth to her character that it sublimes the cliched nature of it to become something with its own life, almost independent from the film itself, that is never at her level. Well, Monster could have been more or less the same. But it's not, it manages to be something more, independently from Charlize's performance.
Now, I'm not saying the film is flawless. Neither the film nor Charlize's acting are. But they sure are at a high level. Let's start with her. She really gives a heartbreaking and intense performance that doesn't limit itself to the surface (i.e., the make-up), but gets in depth. The more intimate moments are proof of this, and they are the best of her acting, showing how much a person can tell without saying a word. But, on the other hand, it's not always like this. There are scenes in which Charlize overacts one bit too much. It's not that she shouldn't go a bit over the top, but certain times she goes too much. It's as if she wasn't completely sure that she was giving a good enough performance, and she just tried to force it one step beyond. One step too much. A good example of the good overacting would be the scene of the restaurant, where she suddenly has a rage explosion after being so kind and normal. But an example of the not-so-good overacting is when she goes all around her room talking to Christina (which is also excellent, and should have got much more praise that she got; too bad she was beside this eye-filling force of nature :() and making lots of fuss... which weren't needed to that extent. Now, i'm very happy for her Oscar, and think she really deserved it, and probably if I had seen it in its original version, I'd have liked it even more (I was lucky enough to see BDC undubbed, but that was an age that unfortunately lies in the past of Murcia :(). But Ebert was a tad exaggerated when he described her.
As for the film itself, it manages to combine the crude description of the real events with a nice character developing (helped with the actresses, of course), and still gets to make a really interesting point about the inevitability of tragedy, and the responsability of our society in the biulding of monsters that we tend to reject and to blame afterwards. It was also very emotional, even moving in some scenes. After all, it's a love story. A love story surrounded by tragedy and death, by rejection and incomprehension, by broken dreams and hopeless nightmares. Now, as for the film's ideology, it walks on a tightrope between self-indulgence and message. It's thisclose to fall from the explanation of Aileen's murders to the justification of them. And certain scenes really pass that limit. But the final balance is more inclined to the other side: the film tries to explain how Aileen became what she became, how any of us given the right (or wrong, you know) circumstances could end up in that bottomless pit of madness, need, unreality and despair that drove Aileen to the point of psychopathy. There are just glimpses thru all the film that point ot that "she did that because men are horrible" feminist crappy apology, but one punctual scene definitely ends with this tendence: a conversation between Christina and Charlize. If you've seen it, you know what it is. Quite explicit of the film's intended message, and the central point of what differences this from BDC: the thought-provoking will. It's true that Charlize isn't as good as Hillary, but both her character and her film had much more depth, they were better written and, even flawed (after all, even if the message if definitely established, it could still have been better delibered and the movie could have been better constructed in general), they were definitely worth a try.

thompsoncory

03-07-2004, 08:10 PM

MONSTER (2003)

Originally, I wasn't planning on seeing this movie. I thought it looked interesting, but I usually am not into movies of this genre. I thought that the violence (from what I read) sounded very brutal and disgusting, and I figured that I would probably just rent it eventually when it was released on DVD. But after it was recommended to me by a fellow schmoe, I decided to give Monster a shot. And I am very glad that I did.

Charlize Theron gives a powerhouse performance as serial-killer/prostitute Aileen Wurnous, and proves that she really deserved the Oscar that was awarded to her just one week ago. She played the character with a sense of superb realism. In some scenes, you sympathize with Aileen. In other scenes, you hate her. She is obviously a very troubled mind after years of abuse, and Theron shows this in her virtually flawless performance. Christina Ricci was very underrated as the young and naive Selby, Wurnous's lover. I actually thought her performance was very believable, and I found her character to be rather likable until the final scenes of the film. The two actresses create a rather offbeat love story that is the bright spot of the movie, but this love among other things causes Wurnous to do what she does. I actually found myself in a dilemma in one case when I felt sorry for both Wurnous and her victim.

As for the violence, it really isn't all that bad save one horrific rape scene that nearly made me cringe. The camerawork cuts before you see the full impact of the gunshots, so basically all you see is the dead bodies, not much else. And on another note, I thought that director Patty Jenkins did a great job in portraying Florida in the 1980's. It really looked realistic.

And while I believe that what Wurnous did makes her deserving of the punishment she eventually got, the end scene was very effective and sad. The music and dialogue in this scene was pitch perfect, and it was one of my favorite scenes in the movie.

Overall, I was very happy to find that Monster is a great film. Charlize Theron gives the performance of a lifetime and Christina Ricci is excellent as well. Highly reccomended.

9/10 (A-)