Most misunderstood film I've ever seen on IMDB *spoilers*

I enjoyed the film. I always like monster films. I think the acting was great, abit on the melodramatic side but whos to say how people would act in a real life monster attack! The director did a great job with what he had, you can tell it had a small budget. The cinematography and lighting really shined in this, as did the sound design. The editing is up in the air for me. I didnt really enjoy the flash backs, I feel like they took the easy way out of giving us more back story on the two leads. But I understood everything they wanted to convey. I just wish they went a different way about it.

People can come up with whatever literal or figurative explanation they want. They basically slapped us upside the head every chance they got to let us know how terrible addiction and abuse is. Than they just threw in a monster to show us the physicality of the addiction/monster.

Overall I enjoyed this little film. The beats, the suspense, and the subtext nailed everything down really well. Yes, we have scenes in which a normal person would never do. But its a film, you have to suspend disbelieve abit to fully enjoy it. And I for one fully enjoyed it. A solid 6.5/10 for me.

Oh and did anyone else notice the 'wings' spread out between the creatures front legs and back legs? Well I would call them more of membrane than wings. Seems very bat inspired to me. But I dont know how that huge thing would get up off the ground and fly. Im guessing it would glide more than fly. Anyway, cool creature design for sure.

[deleted]

Meh.

I like artsy films as much as the next cinema snob, but the "people just don't get it" argument doesn't always work.

You are right that the monster in this film is supposed to represent the little girls darker fears/emotions. She's a survivor of abuse. The film is at its core - about addiction, abuse, trauma, and the strained relationship between a daughter and her mother. So you are correct that people complaining that the flashbacks have no purpose are wrong.

But, the film does have a physical plot too. Meaning, while the monster is thematic and represents other things as a literary device, in the plot itself - it is a physical threat that actually exists. So it's totally fair for someone to criticize this element of the film. Just because the monster also serves as a thematic vessel, it still exists within the plot.

So I'll agree that some people don't get what the creator was going for. This isn't supposed to be a straightforward horror/ monster film. It's closer to a drama where the horror serves as a platform to tell the story.

I'm personally torn. As a drama, I was sold on the fantastic acting and chemistry between the mother and daughter. And all their relationship stuff was brutal and unflinching. So the monster and how their encounter plays out - and how that directly mirrors their relationship -- that worked for me. So I get why people like OP love it.

But I also see the other side of it, and think the monster was a tad bit underwhelming. Not just the monster itself, but the scenario with which he exists. Basically, the physical plot kind of felt vague and empty.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, while I think characters and themes are the most important aspects of storytelling, you also have to make sure the plot is fulfilling.

So basically, this film is quite good if you buy into the relationship. If you focus purely on that, and don't care about the actual monster itself (because dun dun dun, the monster is really the demons the little girl has within because of her relationship).

The Monster is real it's just a backdrop for the mother and daughters dysfunctional relationship.

I felt real deep empathy for both characters and was brought to tears on a number of occassions when watching their interactions.

The monster we see probably is the Jersey Devil, but I like how the film didn't belabor this and instead focused on the mother-daughter dysfunctional relationship.

Watch the making of the movie. The director did not use the monster as a metaphor, the monster was real. It was not created by the girl. The director wanted to make a dramatic monster movie. I think he suceeded. Everyone is putting WAY too much thought into the movie. It was a monster movie, period. The dramatic back story was there for the drama. So it's not just another monster movie.

The thing is, to be a movie needs to work on the both the metaphoric and the real world level. It's insufficient to say that Godzilla is a metaphor for nuclear weapons, though he is. You must also explain where he comes from on a strictly real basis.

Sure, the monster is a metaphor for addiction. But that's not enough. It also needs a real explanation.

The film is bad. The end.