That Little Monster

Upon viewing THAT LITTLE MONSTER, I found that this movie is actually quite stylish, and better thought-out than most movies in theaters today. There are some true moments of black humor, mixed in well with some fun shocks and suspense. Ultimately, the movie is an affectionate nod to THE TWILIGHT ZONE series (the story is almost a direct lift of one specific episode), and particularly the underlying spooky humor that show was noted for.

Originally, this was written as an episode for TV's MONSTERS, but writer / director Paul Bunnell decided to expand the idea into a longer, artier version. The cast is mainly made up of a talented group of unknown starlets, but horror fans will be happy to see Reggie Bannister of the PHANTASM films here, in a small but significant role (just don't expect to see him running away from flying spheres, and you'll be happy). It was enjoyable to see Bannister again, this time playing Twelvetrees, the butler who warns the baby-sitter about that little monster.

Shot in 16mm for the bargain basement cost of $30,000, Bunnell spared no effort in trying to make this movie look as polished and professional as anything the big studios are putting out today. And his strive for perfectionism shows in many of the setups. One elaborate shot has the camera dollying up to a door, twisting around then going up the wall, then over the top of the room and down inside it. Most people would have been content with a dolly to the doorknob, then a dissolve to the inside. But not Bunnell. What looks like a robot dolly / crane is actually a specially-built room that rotates, and a Steadicam operator. Pretty impressive stuff. I was so blown away by this shot, I rewound the tape and watched it again. It's small touches like these that help set this movie above much of the competition. And it took them just three takes to get such an elaborate shot to Bunnell's satisfaction.

There's also a surprise guest star at the end of the film, one that will leave many of you scratching your heads wondering how Bunnell managed to wrangle this guy up.

My only complaints with the movie are small -- some of the staging is too theatrical, and I sense that Bunnell has his roots in community theatre. And the story has a tendency to drag in places, due to Bunnell's "artsy" touches. Luckily, these moments are few and far between. If you're a fan of humor at its darkest, you won't be disappointed with THAT LITTLE MONSTER!

I can not believe some of the positive comments I've read here. They misled me into seeing this piece of trash. I'm sure many freshman college students taking a 'Film-101' course could do a better job. The acting was poor, the story was predictable, the "little Monster" looked like a plastic doll, and the film dragged to the point you didn't really care anymore what happened as long as it was finally over.

If someone held a gun to my head and said "Say something Positive or you'll soon be as brainless as the director", I'd have to say that at the very least there were some pretty bizarre set pieces. It looked like a world where the Joker from the animated Batman series would feel right at home. Oh and it was nice to see that special cameo appearance at the end by one of Hollywoods all time greats. He must have lost a golf bet or something to end up making an appearance in this turkey.

Skip this one, life is too short.

It's pretty much a one-hour student art film version of 'Eraserhead' down to having the same opening scene and even a comparable production history given that the movie apparently took 3 1/2 years to shoot. It's equally trippy (for the lack of a better word) but unlike Lynch's film the plot actually is very straight forward. A father's anxiety (again, for the lack of a better word) over his newborn is replaced with a young babysitting woman's anxiety and incapability to deal with the baby of her new employers. "That little monster" refers to no other than to that baby. The movie ends with an amusing Twilight Zone-type twist which is only fitting because the title card basically used the Twilight Zone title card background. What should also be noted is the campy humor that reminded me of John Paizs' Canadian indie productions. Worth a look if you are a big 'Eraserhead' fan.

I finally saw this indescribable film tonight! What a splendiferous concoction of visual delights and laughs.

I most loved and appreciated the photography/lighting, the fantastic camera angles and all the imaginatives (the surreal scenes--this is a weak description for what I'm trying to describe).

Paul Bunnell has a good feel for the camera, and how what he sees in the camera will appear to the audience, and what effect if will have.

The humour in this black comedy reminded me of Joe Dante's

"Gremlins."

Of course, I see "Eraserhead" resemblances, from the industrial drone in the beginning, to the different use of time--painfully slow, detailed and bizarre--I love them all.

I liked the composed music (the last chord came to a "resolution," but with very disturbing notes in it). The two songs sung out of the blue by the father--is this what the DVD notes mean by a Gene Autry movie? And that 20's 78rpm record--I liked it.

Was there anything I didn't like? Let me think. Oh, I have more I liked. Forry Ackerman--beautiful lighting, macabre, his delivery was quite fitting. And I like the "heroine's" acting.

Even the length was good--a real "B" film length.

Isn't that funny? I can't think of any criticism. I'm serious. I'll leave it at that.

Apart from some interesting camerawork, there's little redeeming value to "That Little Monster"...a very amateurish film with very little to like about it.

This black & white film is about 50 minutes long and is just plain strange. It begins with an overture and then a weird introduction. What follows is very surreal...sort of like "Eraserhead" but supposedly a comedy. It consists of a babysitter trying to care for a child who clearly in some otherworldly monster. It's full of goo, blood and biting...and not much else.

As another reviewer pointed out, most of the reviews that give it 9s or 10s are by people who never reviewed any other movies...making them very suspicious. I cannot say this is the case, but many cheaper films have many such one off reviews and I can only assume they were done by people who made the film or their friends. After all, why register on IMDB to ONLY review this strange film...one that is really obscure!?

Overall, a movie with interesting cinematography and a story that is, at best, bad.

By the way, this is listed among Bob Hope's films but he only is shown in a couple archival clips from old movies...so it's clearly NOT one of his films.