The Monster (2016)
Written and directed by Bryan Bertino

I am a total sucker for monster movies, otherwise known as “the creature feature.” People point to Creature From the Black Lagoon, The Wolfman, or Dracula. Me? I point to classics like Jaws, American Werewolf in London, Godzilla, or Night of the Living Dead.
But I also love the hot garbage they typically serve up on places like the SyFy channel: Sharktopus, Abominable, and everything in-between. Hence when I chose to start ventures in screenwriting, I wrote Snake-Bear, which is as literal as it sounds. It served as a parody with a purpose. And much like my beloved furry hissing friend, this movie, Bertino’s The Monster, is not just a monster movie; it’s a film with a pulse and purpose.
Sometime in the fall of 2016, I saw the trailer for The Monster. And it did not disappoint. The tense shots of terror, the impeccable lighting, and quick transitions all had me hooked. When I saw that it was being distributed by A24 Films, that was the final straw (spoiler alert: they’ve had a great year). I needed to see this movie.
Because this genre is right in my wheelhouse, I’ve grown accustomed to keeping a sort-of checklist in my head, one that allows me to discern whether or not the film is successful in it’s attempt to reinvigorate the genre. It looks vaguely something like this:
- Is the monster interesting?
- Does the monster appear to symbolize anything?
- Is that symbolism foreshadowed or set-up?
- Do we give a crap about the characters?
- Is the mood clear?
So, in using this checklist, let’s review this.
Overview
The Monster follows the story of Kathy (Zoe Kazan) and her daughter, Lizzy (Ella Ballentine), as they navigate the roadways of adulting and parenthood en route to bring Lizzy to her father’s house. Let’s just say the mother-daughter relationship here is…rocky. Verrrrrrry rocky. Like “scream ‘fuck you’ over and over and over and over again in a garage because daughter doesn’t want her shitty mother to go to the school play” rocky. Oof. (Symbolism? Check and check.)
As Kathy takes her daughter on the road, their conversations are sparse and frustrating, thinly-veiled apologies coupled with appropriately intermittent flashback sequences showing just how bad of a parent Kathy is. As a heavy rain descends upon their night-time trek, they hit a wolf in the road, thus sending this road trip into chaos. With every minute that transpires, they wait for help to arrive. While Lizzy has these premonitory ideas of the wolf being hit, the car being toast, and the wolf’s body being dragged away by something, Kathy does her best to put on her big-girl pants and parent her daughter into not fearing whatever may be out there.
Continuing the Checklist
Much like that of Spielberg’s Jaws, we only catch glimpses of the elusive monster, typically in silhouette or a specifically opaque shot of the monster in the background lurking. While the shark does not appear until nearly an hour into Jaws, the titular monster appears approximately 45 minutes in, which is certainly comparable time-wise, considering the 91 minute run-time of this film. When we do see it in its entirety, the thing is a hulking and wolfish monstrosity, with slick or charred black skin, whitish opaline eyes, and immense teeth, much like your classic “Little Red Riding Hood” nursery rhyme. This seems fitting because the film begins with a title card from an “unknown” child’s nursery rhyme. (More foreshadowing here.)
So is the monster cool? Yes and no. Yes in that the creature itself is not-so-typical. In the third act, Kathy realizes that the creature is resistant to light being cast on it. It’s not a silver bullet, but it demonstrates weakness and a connectedness to the overall symbolism behind the monster. When we look at the aforementioned dumpster fire relationship, there are so many instances where vices, like drinking, drugs, etc., are all valued more than that of the life of the child in the picture. In this case, as the metaphor suggests, the monster’s resistance to the light is much like that of the terrible things that Kathy has done to Lizzy “being brought to light.” It’s literal, but I’m cool with that. (Mood? Check.)
Where the monster fails at being cool lies within the very obvious influences it draws from to be a successful monster. For one, it bears a striking resemblance to the creatures found in the Feast film franchise. The difference here is that is not bipedal, but slinks around like a predator of the night. Another obvious influence would be that of Stephen King’s Cujo. There’s a distinct break from this film and Cujo, but the creature’s dog-like aspects make us begin to believe that its wolfishness is on purpose. Don’t forget the fact that much of the film takes place within the claustrophobic confines of an old car. At this point in the horror genre, it’s pretty hard to be original.
Strengths
1. Short cast lists are aesthetically pleasing.
The movie features only a handful of prominent actors that hold any value to the telling of the story. Kazan and Ballentine have the most screen time, where we also see a tow-truck driver and paramedics who arrive on scene who are only there as red shirts to be devoured by the monster. Scott Speedman (yes, that Scott Speedman) plays the deadbeat dad who is partially responsible for the detriment of the child’s younger years. He’s on-screen for about two minutes and that’s also fine by me. Kazan and Ballentine are dynamic throughout and really help this film in the telling of this story.
2. Lighting is everything.
I would be the last person to remark about lighting in films, mostly because my dominant focus is on things like shot composition, mise-en-scene, and angles. In this, the director’s choice to rely on minimal lighting exacerbates the tension and scare factor of the creature lurking in the shadows. Much of the light presented on screen during the second act comes from a flashlight, headlights from the car, and a single street light on the road. It fits, thematically, with the monster so well, and if anything, it helps foreshadow both its strength and its demise.
3. Flashbacks are used appropriately and effectively.
Not to beat a dead wolf, but this film heavily relies on flashbacks to relay its message and deeper meanings. The number of flashbacks average about one per act (if my memory serves me), and that seems kind of perfect given the circumstances. People will want to watch this movie because a big thing eats some people, but you have to give the people a reason to live and fight. These flashbacks give us everything we need to invest in this story. (Care about characters, aka just Lizzy? Check.)
Weaknesses
1. The third act is…too fast.
When a writer acts on their natural urge to “make their characters suffer,” it’s more helpful than not to give us time to breathe. Sure, the flashbacks offer some of that time for reflection and understanding, but the third act of this movie feels rushed and largely unfinished. The third act does accomplish most of the things it wants to: the mother realizes how much of a piece of shit she is, the creature is conquered and killed, and Lizzy gets her much-needed freedom. However, amidst the revelations Kathy has, she ultimately decides to sacrifice herself to the monster in an attempt to allow Lizzy to get away. Naturally, it doesn’t go as planned, the monster kills Kathy, they have a sad death gurgle scene together, and the responsibility falls on Lizzy’s shoulders. Had it not been overtly clear throughout that Lizzy is the only responsible character in the movie, we would question this. However, Lizzy uses fire to extinguish the beast and make it out alive just as dawn breaks.It doesn’t feel like a full act as the film closes. We are left with some unconscious need unmet. Where will she go? To be successful, did she need to let her mother die? Lizzy is really the only character in the whole movie we really care about. She is our eyes and ears. We are invested in her; we empathize with her and her struggle. Reasonably, I don’t think Kathy does enough to prove her love, her ability to be a parent, or earn the forgiveness of Lizzy or the audience. It definitely feels like a deal-breaker because it is.
Conclusion
I’m sure there are other weaknesses to be found in this film, but overall it was exactly what it needed to be and it met the expectations that I had set for it. As an indie horror flick, it sates one’s need to invest in a story that means something, especially one that fits the genre so well. It’s message is powerful and it resonates throughout, right down to the monster itself. It’s not the most ground-breaking monster movie ever made, but it’s one that I can safely recommend for those interested in the genre.
Score: Three partially eaten tow-truck drivers out of five.


