Monster a Go-Go

A space capsule crash-lands, and the astronaut aboard disappears. Is there a connection between the missing man and the monster roaming the area?

No bones about it, this is a terrible movie. Were it to be remade (heaven forbid) this might actually be alright, because the plot is not awful for a monster movie. But the execution! Oh, man! Poor editing, awful sound (many times conversations are hardly audible or are reverberating), nasty lighting that washes everything out (which is made worse by poor prints, no doubt). Widely considered one of the worst films ever made, it has earned that honor.

What makes it interesting, though, is that despite being a piece of garbage, it was actually made by two great independent filmmakers -- H. G. Lewis and Bill Rebane, the godfather of the Wisconsin film industry. Perhaps even more interesting is a man named Rick Paul who acts in a small role. After this, he apparently stayed out of movies for twenty years before resurfacing in "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" as a victim and the film's art director. Odd! (Though not that odd given the Chicago connection.)

None of this makes up for it being a terrible movie, though. Watch it at your own risk.

I'd be hard-pressed to find a more painful film. Nausea-inducing camera twists, seemingly random editing (try and find a scene that has anything to do with the one that preceded it), bad lighting, bad acting, nonexistent writing and a lack of *anything* that makes a good, or coherent film. Add to all that one of the lamest twist endings in cinema history, with out any sort of plot to justify it, and you have one infuriating film. It was so difficult to sit through, I was almost in tears by the end. One of those films you can't enjoy on any level, even as camp.

Ask many people what the worst film ever made is, and they will probably respond with either "Ishtar" or "Manos, The Hands of Fate". I, on the other hand, have seen those two and this one, and I have to tell you, this is the low point in my book. Several key points using "Manos" for comparison:

--Manos was in color. --Manos has better costumes. --Manos is at least unintentionally funny. --Manos has more of a surreal approach.

MONSTER, on the other hand, is a black and white sleeper of a film (and I mean sleeper in the sense that you will probably fall asleep waiting for something to happen). The badly paced dialogue cuts present in "Manos" are here, but sadly, they aren't interspersed with freaky costumes (not counting the odd go-go outfit) or for that matter, memorable dialogue. As an example of exactly how dull this film is, I showed it (admittedly, the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version) to some MST3K friends of mine who are avid collectors of bad/tacky cinema. OK, they had been drinking...a little. But regardless, they were both out in the first 20 minutes and did not wake up at all for the rest of the film. I don't think _I_ have ever sat through a viewing and remained awake.

Therefore, I would like to recommend this film as a fine sleep aid to anyone suffering from recurring insomnia. If you do decide to watch the film, and manage to remain awake to the conclusion, please refrain from damaging your video equipment if you find the ending...perplexing.

...but not much else goes together in this film. Very bad acting, you can often catch actors reading from cue cards. It's not really even directed, like the camera was just set up where it would fit, the actors would read their lines, "Cut and print." The story is an amazingly bad Twilight Zone episode dragged on to unbearable lengths, and the surprise ending is by far one of the worst plot-twists ever. The monster itself is a tall guy with bad acne, who just sort of meanders around throughout the duration of the movie. All in all, very hard to watch, even with Joel & the 'bots. Watch for the man doing his own sound effects! "Brrrrrrr!"

"Monster A Go-Go" was supposed to be the first feature film for Bill Rebane, who started filming this thing in 1961. His monster flick, originally called "Terror At Halfday", had a budget of 80.000 dollars, which was pretty much gone after a couple of days of filming. After he ran out of funding the film lay on the shelf for about four years, unfinished and with no hope (or desire) of actually being released.

Cue Herschell Gordon Lewis (of "Blood Feast" fame), always on the look-out for the cheapest way he could get a film released. So he bought the abandoned footage from "Terror At Halfday" and 'finished' the movie. To cut costs, he decided to only ask a couple of performers back, which did not include Henry Hite. I should point out Henry Hite played the monster. He finished this monster flick ... without the monster. That's one of the main reasons why this movie feels like such a blatantly cynical cash grab.

So Lewis only had a tiny little bit of footage shot with Henry Hite, and none of that footage could be edited to look like an actual ending. Lewis 'solved' that problem by creating one of the saddest anti-climaxes in the history of filmmaking. I honestly can't imagine how the people that paid to see this left the theatre after this screening. To quote Rich Hall: "It was so bad I wanted everyone's money back!". That was about a Bob Dylan concert, but it works equally well for this movie.

For what it's worth: Rebane actually did try to shoot a big climax for this, that's actually the main reason the budget ran out so quickly. Some of the ending scenes feature dozens of extras, so that's clearly Rebane's footage. Lewis really wouldn't bother to do any of that. In later interviews Rebane has stated he hates this movie even more than the audience does, and I can't blame him. Lewis didn't even put his name on it, Rebane is the only credited director. Did I mention he only sold his "Terror At Halfday" footage for 8.000 dollars, while it cost ten times as much to film? I guess he got a really quick course on how film business worked.