Connect with us

Editorials

‘Monster Hunter’ – Why It’s One of the Most Entertaining Monster Movies in Recent Years

Published

on

Monster Hunter movie

While I’m glad that there’s been a recent boom in entertaining video game adaptations (like Peacock’s surprisingly fun Twisted Metal show), there has always been a curious discrepancy between games with impressive narratives that would benefit from the blockbuster treatment and games that are actually popular enough to warrant the investment of adapting them into other media.

This is why we often see more gameplay-driven titles reach the big screen (like Super Mario Bros and Resident Evil) before narrative-heavy franchises like Sanitarium or even Metal Gear Solid. It could be argued that this is a good thing, as there’s no point in adapting a story that already feels like a movie while you’re playing it, but it also means that filmmakers sometimes get free reign to do whatever they want in a picture so long as it generally ties into the larger world established by whatever video game they happen to be adapting.

One entertaining example of this odd trend is Paul W.S. Anderson’s 2020 adaptation of Capcom’s Monster Hunter, an unapologetically silly creature feature that leans into the franchise’s focus on spectacle over story while still working as a mostly solid monster movie. As a long-time Monster Hunter fan, I actually didn’t have high hopes when this picture was first announced, as I’ve always enjoyed these games as intense grind-fests while I listened to music or podcasts in the background instead of paying attention to any real story elements.

Funnily enough, Anderson would get around these game-y limitations by borrowing from a crossover event where the cast of Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker found themselves using military ordinance to face off against iconic antagonists from the Monster Hunter series. This is why the finished film decides to pull a reverse Masters of the Universe – with Milla Jovovich playing a Ranger Captain from our world who gets accidentally transported to a fantastical land populated by enormous man-eating beasts and primitive monster slayers (who are often accompanied by feline companions). She then teams up with a nameless hunter (Tony Jaa) in order to face the increasingly dangerous wildlife of this brave new world.

Unfortunately, the Monster Hunter movie was released in the middle of pandemic, an ill-advised move that resulted in the film not even making back its own budget at the box office. Not only that, but most critics dismissed the flick as an inexplicably expensive B-movie with a less-than-satisfying finale – with that last detail being something that I happen to agree with.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Monster Hunter movie jovovich

In all honesty, Monster Hunter really is a glorified B-movie on a blockbuster budget, borrowing from the same familiar tropes as cheesy Roger Corman productions and not really caring about frivolous things like “physics” during its action scenes. However, that’s precisely why I think the end product is so much fun. While Anderson is a self-professed Monster Hunter fan, it’s quite clear that he’s just using the franchise’s basic elements as an excuse to play around in a massive filmmaking playground.

In fact, I actually think that the first half of the flick works on its own as one of Anderson’s best-directed projects, with Jovovich’s Artemis having to learn to cooperate with a complete stranger who doesn’t even speak the same language as her in what feels like a heartfelt throwback to classics like Enemy Mine.

Not only does this setup make for a legitimately thrilling survival thriller as these warriors from different worlds are forced to team up against a larger threat (namely the horned dragon Diablos, a recurring enemy from the games), but it’s also a chance for Jovovich and Jaa to show off their natural charisma in lieu of scripted dialogue. Naturally, the cast expands later on with the addition of Ron Perlman as a surprisingly game-accurate Admiral and his band of hunters and humorous Palicos, but this initial portion of the movie is still the highlight of the experience.

In a media landscape dominated by world-ending threats and what has become pejoratively known as “Marvel dialogue,” I actually think it’s kind of refreshing that Monster Hunter chose to take the road less travelled when it comes to keeping its story and characters as simple as possible. Unfortunately, this doesn’t extend to the film’s so-called “ending,” with the story taking a baffling detour instead of properly concluding and turning into a trailer for a sequel that will probably never come.

I guess you can’t win them all…


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Monster Hunter movie dragons

With a title as self-explanatory as Monster Hunter, I’m glad to announce that the film does in fact contain plenty of monsters and quite a bit of hunting. While the PG-13 rating and the overall nature of the source material means that it’s not as brutal as the director’s previous genre work, Anderson still managed to keep these spiders and wyverns as intimidating as possible.

And while these monsters are incredibly true to the games, with their designs often looking like high-resolution glow-ups of the exact same models developed by Capcom, the way they’re shot feels directly lifted from the very best kaiju films. That being said, there’s something strangely compelling about watching a gigantic dragon take on mere humans armed only with primitive weapons crafted from the scraps of other monsters.

Large-scale creature features usually content themselves with heavy vehicle-based artillery or even giant robot battles, so it’s fun to see a film dial all of that down and focus on our most primal dragon-slaying fantasies. Sure, it’s a shame that these memorable beasts are almost entirely brought to life by CGI, but there’s a lot of fun to be had in watching Jovovich slay fearsome beasts that aren’t exactly undead.

The Monster Hunter movie is by no means a classic, eschewing proper storytelling in favor of CGI-heavy set-pieces while also suffering from a poorly structured final act, but I still think it’s one of the better monster movies in recent memory. From that compelling first half to the undeniable charisma of its leads, I’d recommend this one to any genre fan looking for a giant monster film where the main characters learn to fight back in increasingly ludicrous ways.


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Born Brazilian, raised Canadian, Luiz is a writer and Film student that spends most of his time watching movies and subsequently complaining about them.

Editorials

What’s Wrong with My Baby!? Larry Cohen’s ‘It’s Alive’ at 50

Published

on

Netflix It's Alive

Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.

Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.

Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.

It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.

At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.

It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.

As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.

Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.

Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.

Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.

I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.

Continue Reading