Monster: A mediocre beast. (The REM Album was better)

Rating: 5/10 (14 January 2004)

***POSSIBLE MILD SPOILERS***
What a dog of a movie. Monster barely raises above the level of a cheap made for TV movie (which it should have been). at least half an hour could be cleaved off the middle of this monster and you wouldn't notice.
Don't buy the Oscar hype. Charlize Theron's performance is awkward and over the top. If there was an Oscar for overacting, it'd be hers. Aileen's paranoia comes across a little, but her hate for men really does seem cartoonish, and when she is trying to seem conflicted (like when she kills a family man who was just giving her a lift) she's just downright unconvincing. The other thing that was weird were her breasts - absurdly large when clothed, and none too large when not! (no, Im not a pervert, but it was that silly it stood out!)
The biggest crime Monster commits is it reliance on the shock of the true story (which it tones down nicely) to add depth, instead of actually capturing solid characterisations (cmon, they could have had a cardboard cut-out in place of Ricci and you wouldn't have noticed the difference - and it's not her fault. Her character is so absurdly one dimensional it must be embarrassing for her) and developing realistic situations. The writer/director, Patty Jenkins, is the greatest criminal in this whole mess.