Disappointment.

Rating: Null/10 (1 February 2004)

I knew little about Monster, and the last Theron movie I saw was years ago and I didn't recall what she looked like. I heard good things about the movie and I went with open expectations. Hear me out.
1-Unless it's scifi there's no reason to slap gobs of latex on your face to portray a character. If you acting truly is skillful, it will convey the character. I don't think Streep would have used facial appliances.
2-Gestures, chainsmoking and frowning do not a performance make. The attempt to physically transform Theron was distracting.
Look ma, she looks and fidgets just like Wuarnos! See Cage in Adaptation. The story and acting was so convincing you forgot the 'twin' was fx trickery 5 minutes after his first appearance.
3-What was the new direction Monster took? Its still MovieMaking 101, writer/director must humanize the main characters so the audience will feel for her. Do you really believe she was this 'tortured' individual with her horrible childhood in most of the scenes when she killed? Do you really feel she was sobbing buckets when she murdered the last guy? That her gun, accidentally slipped from her bag, so she had no choice (poor thing) but to kill him? If you do, you've been as manipulated by the writer/director as cleverly as a cold-blooded killer can manipulate you into the secluded woods.
To portray Charlize as this insensitive, remorseless killer without makeup, now that would have been a good start to see how good her acting and story holds up.
PS after my viewing I did a little www.work on the real killer to see what liberties the writer took with the facts. I'd recommend you do the same.