MovieChat Forums > The Monster (2016) Discussion > Wasn't it even necessary for it to be a ...

Wasn't it even necessary for it to be a monster?


Literally anything could have been the antagonist, from a wild animal to some psycho.

Nothing was really added by making it some kind of supernatural mutant.

Due to the lack of moderators, trolls can ruin the IMDB message boards. Don't feed them.

reply

SPOILERS:

Well, the whole point of the movie is that addiction/alcoholism is a "monster." That's why they have it be a real monster in the film.

reply

As I mentioned, literally anything threatening could have been classified as a "monster" to a young girl.

"Alcoholism" didn't have to be HR Giger knock-off.

reply

No, it wasn't necessary. But the writer wanted it to be a real monster.

reply

Because the director wanted it to be. Plus it does make the metaphor a little easier to get across than a human killer or a wild animal. More to the point though, if it really bothers you, why take the time to ask about it on here?

Long Live Coulson!

reply

Because, unlike you, I don't crap my pants over other people's opinions.

reply

The director probably couldn't figure out a way to make the mother-daughter relationship sustain an entire film so he grabbed the nearest guy and put him in a rubber monster costume and said "get in there!".

reply