That Little Monster

Enjoyed the camera work especially. The close-ups and odd angles, along with the B&W format made it all the more surealistic. One of those movies where you think you might know what is going on but it turns out - not really. Nothing was overdone - but all was done well.

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 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.

Wow what a weird coincidence! Every single 9-10 review here is from an account that has only reviewed this movie and no other. Sorry, no that's not quite true. There's one who has only reviewed every thing done by this same director. Hmm. And they all make the exact same comparisons to the Twilight Zone and Eraserhead. HOW ODD.

Spoiler alert: this "movie" is hot garbage. Any tiny shred of respect I might have had for what they were trying to do here (which already wasn't much for a project that's simply inept and unpleasant mimicry of the styles of various famous directors) evaporated when I saw their friends, family, and paid shills propping up the review scores (and wow that's actually especially weird when this movie came out in 1994)

The premise was intriguing but much too shallow to support even a short full length feature. The characters were shallow and uninteresting, as well. The scenes were fractured and added nothing to assist the viewer in understanding the plot or the point of the picture.

The technical aspects of the film, on the other hand, were noteworthy. While some of the cinematography, especially in the opening scenes, was avant garde, those same techniques became blasé' from constant overuse by the end of the feature. While Paul Bunnell shows he has the unique technical ability to make a watch-worthy movie, the lack of any substantial plot, very plastic actors, and disjointed imagery do not so add up to an enjoyable event. Ed Wood, while a most technologically deficient film maker, at least produced somewhat interesting movies. I found this to be the most disappointing movie I have seen since "Weekend at Bernie's."