Didn't like the monster aspect

Hmm. Can you elaborate why? The twist of Christopher Lloyd being a supernatural beast is what made the movie transcendent to me. But I must admit, I also just have a weakness for heartfelt 'creature/monster' movies.

I sort of know what you mean, and I was surprised by that aspect as well. I'd expected a thriller and not a "monster movie".

But as I got used to it, I came to actually appreciate that element of the movie.

Consider how many shots there are in the movie of the characters consuming meat: the boys eating chicken in the cafeteria, the bird at Christmas, etc. I think that there's an interesting argument about what it means to be a monster. The killer takes lives in order to survive--how is that different than someone killing an animal to live? From what we see of the killer he does not torture his victims or even seem to take pleasure in killing them.

It also sets up a nice comparison between the killer and the character of John. John's interest is in murders that have no rhyme or reason: men who kill just for the pleasure of it. The killer's motivation is ultimately that he is in love with his wife--he does horrible things in order to be by her side through the end of her life. In choosing to be with her he is fighting his own nature (because surely his instinct would be to kill her).

I did kind of wish that they'd told more about the nature of the monster. Would he have to keep killing at that same rate (like, a person every other day?!), or once he'd replaced the different parts could he stop? He says at the end that he "stayed human" for so long--does that mean he had a choice to transform back? Would he still have to kill so much in his natural form?

It is based on a great book after all. Not that it should trivialize your feelings, but I do typically recommend people read the source material before seeing the movie adaptation. This one was pretty good, up to and including the monster. Because this was an adaptation of a book about a kid that needed to channel his darker tendencies into something positive, i.e. defeating the monster it couldn't really be about anything else. Of course, as with all adaptations, the book was ultimately better. I highly recommend the John Cleaver series by Dan Wells. It is available in most bookstores (I work for one 😉).

I was thinking the whole time it would be a Tyler Durden situation. Not that I like that twist as it's so over used, but in this film it would've been alright to find out he was the monster. It was obvious that want the fast after some scenes, but that or a simple "kill the regular serial killer, kill my own inner demons would've been fine too...just but the alien monster thing

On one hand, I agree. It seemed more than obvious that John was psychopathic. The moment he pulled the knife on his mom- I thought it was a done deal. "OK this kid is nuts. Hes been hallucinating". But then it just seemed like they went too far with the monster aspect. "Oh so theyre really sticking to that route huh..?'. I dont want to say it came off as cheesy, because it worked - but I think this film would have been much better as a character study/ psychological thriller (i get that contradicts source material". I almost felt like everything was coming together ... its all in his head type deal. he became very obsessed with serial killers. He played the organ with the "horror music" that was playing throughout the film. He is show filming his local streets with a super 8 camera. He got caught red handed removing organs. He beat the old lady. He told his friend he was losing it. but then it just ends up the old guy is a monster. Is there any shot this is actually supposed to be ambiguous. No... because the mom begins to go along with it. Also i must add that movie was a solid 10 up until the ice fishing scene. so yes i agree the monster aspect through me off.


On the other hand, I never read the source material so my opinion is flawed. From an objective point of view, this is a solid film that the horror genre has been in need of. A classic (almost retro) monster film. The CGI was OK- but the soundtrack made up for it. I put this over It Follows any day. Its way darker- has better acting- and doesnt take itself too seriously. By the ending I felt like I had just watched an 80s Stephen King/ John Carpenter film. I thought the photography was awesome and I actually would like to see what this director does next.

8/10. would and will recommend.

Hey guys just a question. Is it just a monster or is it a demon/spirit? I try to avoid stuff involving the occult (Sinister, Paranormal Activity, Omen) that kind of stuff. Serious question, thanks

A spoiler alert would have been nice. I saw it but had NO idea there was anything supernatural till the very end.