“Monstrous” (2022) stars Christina Ricci as Laura, a single mom, who moves with her son, Cody (Santino Barnard), to an isolated lakeside California house. With mounting quotidian obstacles in the day, at night Laura must fend off a lake-dwelling monster and sudden damage to the house, who convinces Cody that she is a beautiful lady. Will Laura crack under the pressure and lose Cody?
I had zero interest in watching “Monstrous,” but I put on my team player hat and decided to accept the assignment. At least Ricci was a reason to watch, but the supernatural angle did not interest me, which is unusual. I saw it soon after a screening for “Men” (2022), which despite its issues, stands head and shoulders above this film in terms of examining issues of domestic abuse and healing. Both movies have similar themes, but differ in terms of quality and the focus of the protagonist’s grief. Both scores use women’s voices as instruments to signal unleashing of terror, and the music in this film works in setting the tone.
“Monstrous” had narrative structure issues. In the opening scenes, someone is looking up at Cody through water. Then the film jumps to Cody in bed and is startled when his mom wakes him. Laura and the lake monster share the same space relative to Cody, which makes the viewer suspicious of Laura, but also creates doubt regarding whether Cody and/or Laura are the protagonists. As the film progresses, the movie abandons trying to show Cody’s perspective and focuses exclusively on Laura. Cody exchanges places with Laura as being suspicious the moment that he no longer fears the monster. It did not work because Laura is the real protagonist, and by the denouement, it will be clear that it was a mistake.
“Monstrous” is overly reliant on Ricci to carry the whole movie. It makes sense why Ricci would be interested in working on this film. She has been the spokesperson for RAINN since April 25, 2007 and was allegedly a survivor of domestic abuse. Ricci’s performance is sympathetic to Laura’s plight, which she never loses sight of even as her character starts sticking up for herself or self-sabotages epically depending on a viewer’s perspective. As a lover of horror and supernatural films, I do not think that those elements moved the story forward, and maybe held it back. If more time had been devoted to Laura’s story instead of diluting it with the supernatural, then maybe the film would have been worthy of her performance. It may have worked better as an independent film with three-dimensional supporting characters.
“Monstrous” depicts Laura’s relationships as good, bad, or nonexistent except for Cody. For Cody to work as a character, a more versatile and nuanced actor needed the role. Cody’s performance as presented makes it seem as if he favors his daddy, and he seems better suited to appear in “Men” than this film. As depicted, he just alternates from mournful boy to creepy. A mother’s love is unconditional, but anyone else would have bid him adieu. All the men, aside from her ex, are sympathetic to her with no ulterior motives. There is stunt casting with Nick Vallelonga, screenwriter for the Oscar award winning “Green Book” (2018), appearing as unnamed Legionnaire. All her actions outside of Cody feel perfunctory.
While the overall concept behind “Monstrous” has merit, it feels underdeveloped
“Monstrous” has some early visual missteps. When Cody looks out of the car window, it feels like CGI. The view through the window feels muted compared to how bright the colors are when the camera shoots the landscape and the car together. Also the film shows too much of the monster too soon, which leaks the tension out of the majority of the story. After Ricci, the oneiric sequences mingled with the 1950s media work the best at communicating the heart of the story.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
Please correct me if any of the following is wrong. “Monstrous” is “The Village” (2004) meets “Last Night in Soho” (2021). Laura failed to rescue her son after her husband neglected Cody, and Cody drowned in the pool. She sees Cody’s spirit from the bottom of the pool, and the Cody that we see is dead; thus we never see him eat or make friends at school. He also says early that he “doesn’t feel right.” He damages the house whenever he gets emotional, and in one scene, without touching her, he shoves Laura against the wall. Her grandmother is the monster/the beautiful lady/ the woman in the photograph. Grandma has come to bring Cody into the afterlife. She initially appears ugly to them because of their fear of death. In retrospect, Cody is less of a weirdo than he presents for most of the film.
Laura is delusional and deceived herself into seeing everything through a 1950s rose-colored lens because she is nostalgic for her grandma’s era, and she can pretend that he is alive. Laura is an unreliable character. I enjoyed the flashback that showed Laura as a child hiding under the same blanket that Cody hid under during the beginning of the film. As her delusion breaks, the house deteriorates because the house is dilapidated. It makes more sense that Mrs. Langtree (Colleen Camp, who also served as an executive producer), the nightmare landlady, is annoyed with Laura, and it isn’t just an older lady being suspicious of the cute tenant trying to steal her man. Eagle-eyed viewers will notice moments when Ricci breaks character and uses a tone more fitting to a contemporary mother. Also she uses Wite-out, which was not invented during the 1950s. Eventually like Cody, Laura accepts reality, mentally returns to our era and is willing to let Cody go.
What prescription medicine do you stop taking that clears up your delusions? Do the delusions extend to the ghosts of her son and grandmother? Was her son, the ghost, really flinging her around the room and damaging the house? I think so based on the ending. If the latter, why does Laura get ghosts? Is there something special about her or them? Without the supernatural elements, viewers would devote less time to figuring out what is going on, and more time appreciating the performances, but then the filmmakers would be required to do more to develop the real world instead of hiding its flaws within the mystery of the delusional one. What is her deal with her mother because it seems as if her grandma had to take care of her as a child, and her adult relationship with her mom is barely functional. The entire movie needs to be interesting, not just the ending. When the end is revealed, “Monstrous” improves with a repeat viewing, but not by much because other than Ricci, the surrounding world and its characters are just an impression, not fleshed out. Films like “Hereditary” (2018) work as a delusion or reality. Maybe the filmmakers made a choice to be committed to Laura’s vision, but the opening scenes undermined that effort.
While “Monstrous” implies that Scott, Laura’s ex, was abusive, the reveal makes it seem like an accident, uncharacteristic of his behavior, which undercuts the film’s story summary. It makes sense that Laura would leave him since he made such an unforgiveable mistake, but it seems as if a lot of scenes were left on the cutting room floor that could have painted him as abusive.
