That Little Monster

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)

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!

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."

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.

Paul Bunnell has concocted a wonderfully stylish and surreal movie. "That Little Monster" has tones of David Lynch, Tim Burton, Ed Wood, classic cinema, and the wonderful old Twilight Zones. This film echos the best of stunning Black and White photography. Ranging from the feel of the German Expressionist cinema to the mystery of "Eraserhead". Incredible lighting combines with fantastic framing and camera angles. It is a unique mix of styles, complete with the musical overture of bygone days. The masterful introduction sets the tone. And Bob Hope is a great addition. The world is familiar yet off, adding to the mystery. Absurd, hip, and fun. Paul Bunnell is a talent to watch.