Reviews

I saw this film in 2004, long after the Oscar buzz had died down. I suppose it's a victim of its own hype. I enjoyed the film, but it seemed somehow smaller than I expected. Frances McDormand's Oscar-winning performance seems so trivial, seen through the perspective of eight years. The story is okay, though I again wonder about the Oscar the Coens received. (The 1996 Oscars were a somewhat weak field.) I spent most of the movie wondering if people in Minnesota and the Dakotas really talk that way, or is "Fargo" as much a travesty of regional accents as most "southern" movies are? Overall, the whole film was a nicely filmed, tight little story with apparently overdone regional ironies.

I did not especially want to see this movie at first, but I did so because of my wife's interest and because of my curiosity about Charlize Theron's Oscar-winning performance. "Monster" pulls you into the story immediately and never breaks the spell. Patty Jenkins, the writer/director, shows you the world of serial killer Aileen Wuornos through Aileen's eyes. The storytelling is magnificently done, with every detail adding to the effect. All of the acting in the film is first-rate, with believable, realistic people. Charlize Theron, however, delivers one of the finest performances, male or female, ever captured on film. Before seeing the movie, I wondered if her Oscar might be Hollywood politics or just a "Wow" vote that someone so beautiful could be made to look so unattractive. Only minutes into the film, however, I completely lost any sense of Charlize Theron and lost any wonder at the artistry of the makeup person. Ms. Theron simply IS Aileen Wuornos. Her mannerisms, her voice -- everything! The effect is of watching a well-made documentary rather than a Hollywood movie. After the film was over, and I reflected on what I had just seen, I knew that Ms. Theron had given one of the finest performances ever. She "overcame" her beauty to create someone else who is a totally different person. This is acting at its finest. She is deserving of mention with the very best: Meryl Streep, Dustin Hoffman, Laurence Olivier, and just a few others. The excellent work of Christina Ricci, Bruce Dern, and the other actors should not be minimized, either. The entire film is most notable for the way that it tells its story seamlessly, without ever seeming to be anything other than a documentary of a real life. "Monster" is truly a masterpiece of cinema.

Interesting plot, but the screenplay is awful! I thought I was listening to a Hillary-for-President TV commercial. The wooden dialogue sounded so obviously like an Oliver Stone socialist diatribe that I wanted to barf! Nobody talks like that. No chemistry between Daryl Hannah and Charlie Sheen, either; only Oliver Stone could screw up a love scene with Daryl Hannah in it. Stick to the Karl Marx documentaries, Oliver, you and Michael Moore. Good work by Michael Douglas, but I am not sure he was better for the Best Actor Oscar than Robin Williams in "Good Morning, Vietnam!"

Spielberg has fallen below his usual high standard with this confused, muddy mess. He seems to have confused rapid cuts and blue-toned cinematography with visionary science fiction. The plot of this film has holes big enough to drive a truck through, once the viewer manages to piece together what is going on. Following the action is difficult, and hardly worth the trouble. What a waste of celluloid.