Monster

Roger Ebert called “Monster” the best movie of 2003, and as usual he’s slightly off his rocker. This is a middling movie with a wonderful performance by Charlize Theron as serial killer Aileen Wuornos. That’s about it.

The biggest surprise of this movie was Theron – not that she did a fantastic job; I knew she would. But I laughed a lot before seeing the movie about a casting session where they said, “We need someone to play a aggressively plain down-on-her-luck serial-killing prostitute. Hmmmmm. How about the most beautiful woman in Hollywood!”

What I didn’t realize until seeing the movie is that Theron’s charisma, that quality that draws your eyes to her no matter what she’s doing or how she looks, is crucial for this role. A “normal” actress would have made this flat story almost disappear. But Theron pulls you in, especially in the first half of the movie. Without her, as Paul said, you’re left with an average Lifetime movie about an abused woman.

The biggest failure was the script’s inability to portray anyone other than Aileen as more than a cardboard cutout, a prop in her tragic fall. Christina Ricci is given little to do as Aileen’s girlfriend, who goes inexplicably from eye-batting innocent to a Lady Macbeth figure who urges Aileen to kill again so they can get a car. Blink and you’ll miss Bruce Dern as Aileen’s friend.

There are moments of brilliance, like a roller rink scene between Aileen and Selby, their eyes dancing with attraction. But those moments are few and far between.

“Monster” has been compared to “Boys Don’t Cry” with Hilary Swank – on the surface, they’re both about tragically abused women, and include graphic scenes of that abuse. Well, I know “Boys Don’t Cry,” and “Monster,” you’re no “Boys Don’t Cry.”