Connect with us

Editorials

Not So Scary… Top Ten Worst Movie Monsters!

Published

on

So many bad movie monsters, so little time. Narrowing down a list of the best was hard enough, but narrowing down a list of the worst was even more difficult. There are just so many awful ones to choose from. To make it clear, the only criteria for the list was that to qualify for the worst, the monsters couldn’t have been utilized in service a tongue-in-cheek/knowingly campy film. Therefore – no “Gingerdead Man”, no “Hobgoblins”, no “The Stuff” (aka killer yogurt). You’d think that would narrow the choices down by a lot, but alas – there really is no limit to the number of abhorrent monster movies that take themselves completely seriously. Really though, we should be thanking the filmmakers of these debacles for their contributions to the world of cinema – I mean, when I’m stoned out of my mind and eating handfuls of Milano cookies, it’s not like I’m in the mood to watch an Ingmar Bergman movie. I learned the lesson a long time ago that existential angst just doesn’t mix well with mind-controlling substances.

10. Gor


Film: The Brain from Planet Arous (1957)

One of the worst/greatest things about z-grade drive-in cinema from the `50s and `60s is the fact that the monsters lack even the slightest amount of subtlety. Take, for example, Gor, the “Brain from Planet Arous”, who takes the form of…well, a giant flying brain. Gor also has glowing eyes, which he apparently uses to emit radiation and burn people. To really get the full effect of this monster’s ridiculousness though, you simply must see him in action – he’s about as menacing as a helium balloon at a three-year-old’s birthday party.

9. Demonically-Possessed Lamp


Film: Amityville 4: The Evil Escapes (1989)

The Amityville films were always ridiculous, but the fourth entry brought the franchise to a new low when the “evil” in the house was transported from Long Island to California in the form of a…um, a killer lamp. Yeah, that’s right. A fucking lamp. The film starts at a yard sale at the infamous Amityville house, where an old woman buys the lamp for her sister as a joke and ships it off to her home in California. Unfortunately for her sister, the demons from Amityville somehow escaped through a light socket (because demons apparently travel through electricity and appear as a moving lump through power cords) into the ugly, brass, vaguely human-shaped monstrosity to wreak havoc in their new location. Honestly, I could’ve come up with a better idea if I was seven years old and huffing paint fumes. Note: Writer/director Sandor Stern also wrote and directed “Pin”, one of the most underrated horror films of the 1980s. How he went from that to this, I’ll never know.

8. Giant Killer Rabbits


Film: Night of the Lepus (1972)

Based on the intentionally humorous and satiric novel The Year of the Angry Rabbit by Russell Braddon, Night of the Lepus unfortunately adopted the opposite approach by taking the premise completely seriously. First mistake. Second mistake was using real domesticated rabbits (the plump, cute and furry kind) to portray the “monsters” rampaging through an Arizona community. Third mistake was…oh Jesus, this could go on for hours. Let’s just say that the director of this abomination (William F. Claxton, who actually helmed a couple decent Twilight Zone episodes) didn’t get one goddamn thing right. Look, had he not been so lazy and actually hired a practical f/x guy to create some decent effects instead of filming real bunnies (who inexplicably run in slow motion and roar like dinosaurs) and if he hadn’t used dudes wearing bargain-basement rabbit suits for the close-up attack scenes, we might have had something that was at least a lot of (intentional) fun. As it stands, the scariest thing in the movie remains those hideous, fucked-up yellow-and-purple striped `70s pants the costume designer chose for Janet Leigh (who apparently took the role because the filming location was close to her house). Note: There’s also the whole issue of the rabbits suddenly developing carnivorous appetites, which the characters for some reason wholeheartedly accept with no reservation.

7. The Giant Claw


Film: The Giant Claw (1957)

This winged creature looks like a giant flying turkey with razor-sharp teeth, but in the movie it’s described as an extraterrestrial creature made up of antimatter, making it invulnerable to earthly weapons. Um, right. It still looks fucking stupid. The funniest thing about the “Giant Claw” is its awkwardness – sure it’s big and can bite an airplane in two, but it’s also the buzzard equivalent of the last kid picked for the soccer team in junior high. Clumsy, unattractive, oddly proportioned; all the thing needs is headgear and inch-thick glasses, and the military would likely be tempted to fire giant spitballs out of a cannon or build a giant toilet to dunk the monster’s head in. Bonus: Watch for the scene where the “Claw” appears to be using the Empire State Building as a giant dildo.

6. Ro-Man


Film: Robot Monster (1953)

What do you get when you put a space helmet on a gorilla? Ok, first of all, couldn’t the filmmakers at least have come up with a better name than “Ro-Man”? Even in the less-than-stellar canon of B-movie monsters, I doubt the level of stupidity required to settle on the moniker “Ro-Man” has ever been topped. Second, this dude killed 99.999999999999% of the humans on Earth using a “calcinator death ray” in one fell swoop, yet for the last eight survivors he has to personally hunt down and physically strangle each one of them? That’s right, people. Strangle. They couldn’t have even given him a decent weapon? A gun? A fucking spear? Something? Third, it’s a minor miracle Ro-Man is even able to catch up to any of these people to actually kill them, considering he walks with the speed of…well, an actor in a gigantic, cumbersome gorilla suit. Fuck, man. Just…fuck.

5. The Blood Beast


Film: Night of the Blood Beast (1958)

This sci-fi/horror turkey from the `50s does boast one interesting concept that would later be used in Ridley Scott’s classic 1979 film Alien — the idea of an alien creature impregnating a human being with its offspring. And that’s where the similarities end. See, Alien boasted an awesome, now-iconic monster that would go down in history as one of the greatest ever designed. And the “Blood Beast” – um, didn’t. No, the titular creature in this disaster looks like a human-sized parrot covered in feces. I’m not quite sure what the fuck the filmmakers were going for, but not only does the alien look ridiculous, it also speaks with the intonation of a movie trailer voice-over artist.

4. The Godmonster of Indian Flats


Film: Godmonster of Indian Flats (1973)

The monster in this 1970s “so-bad-it’s-good” cult classic looks sort of like a cross between Snuffleupagus (I stole that reference from another website, for the record) and a deformed camel. Indeed, one of the greatest scenes in this unbelievably bizarre creature flick suggests an episode of Sesame Street as directed by Ed Wood. A group of blonde, squeaky-clean children eat lunch on a picnic blanket (“mmm, these are good hot dogs!”) while the titular beast emerges from some foliage in the background and approaches with a lumbering gait, although for some reason the (special-needs?) kids don’t spot him until he’s right on top of their asses. They then run screaming in terror, their idyllic summer’s day (not to mention their childhoods) shattered forever. So what is the monster supposed to be, anyway? A giant mutant sheep, created by contaminated gases leaking from an ancient mine located nearby. Obviously!

3. The Creeping Terror


Film: The Creeping Terror (1964)

“Creeping Terror” is right. This fucker moves with the speed of a 90-year-old grandmother who just polished off a bottle of peach Schnapps. And yet people still get eaten somehow, seemingly by crawling inside the giant rug-monster’s vagina of their own accord. Ok, I get it – there are scores of classic movie monsters that move slowly and still manage to catch their prey (zombies, Jason Voorhees, et al.), but they also don’t look like a fucking shag carpet that was woven together by a mentally-deranged knitting circle. Apparently, the original creature designed for the movie was lost and director Vic Savage was forced to put together a new one on his own, without the help of a professional effects-man. Sadly, Savage (nee Arthur Nelson White) disappeared from the world of filmmaking after helming this, and ultimately died of liver failure at age 41. I feel for the guy, but really – what other option was there but to become an alcoholic after this? Carpet salesman?

2. Tabonga the Killer Tree Stump


Film: From Hell It Came (1957)

The Yoda-esque title From Hell It Came is pretty lofty for a movie about a “South Seas” prince who is wrongfully executed before returning as a walking tree to take out his revenge. Sure, the “killer tree” trope has been used in several other horror movies, from The Evil Dead to William Friedkin’s The Guardian to Poltergeist, but never has the embodiment of said enemy been so deliciously cheesy. It’s a horrible idea to base an entire movie around, but what puts this one over the top is the fact that “Tobonga” is literally portrayed by a man in a hilariously un-subtle tree-stump outfit that looks like it was purchased at a discount costume shop a couple hours before filming.

1. It, the Monster from Venus


Film: It Conquered the World (1956)

This Roger Corman-directed film was remade in 1966 and titled Zontar, the Thing From Venus, and while that version of the alien resembles a human-sized shit-monster with wings, the 1956 incarnation -a giant rubber vampire carrot on rollers – takes the cake. The (anti)climactic final confrontation with the alien is an awkwardly-staged laugh riot, particularly considering that the creature’s “arms” look like giant potato sprouts. And yet still the alien manages to lay waste to a battalion of soldiers sporting machine guns. Needless to say, this gets my vote for the worst movie monster of all time.

Honorary Mentions (it’s a long list)


The Alligator People, 1959 (killer…um, Alligator People); Death Bed: The Bed That Eats 1977 (swear to god, it’s a real movie); The Mangler 1995 (demonically-possessed laundry folding machine); Astounding She-Monster 1957 (aaahhh!! It’s a woman in a latex one-piece!); Navy vs. the Night Monsters 1966 (for all you The Happening haters, this killer-plant movie makes Shyamalamadingdong look like Orson Welles); Curse of the Swamp Creature 1966 (ping-pong balls for eyes – they’ll never notice!); Teenage Monster 1958 (more accurate title: Extremely Hairy 50-Year-Old Man); Rock `n’ Roll Nightmare 1987 (possibly the lamest depiction of Satan in the history of the modern world); Ocataman 1971 (how bad is it? Female star Pier Angeli killed herself immediately following the completion of principal photography); Killdozer 1974 (it’s a bulldozer – that kills!); Blood Freak 1972 (God-fearing/anti-drug serial killer with a giant turkey head); Day of the Triffids 1962 (not truffles, triffids!); Attack of the Eye Creatures 1965 (they weren’t kidding); The Brainiac 1962 (brain-sucking ant-eater man with a long rubber tongue); Attack of the Beast Creatures 1985 (aka Attack of the Killer-Doll-Throwing Off-Screen P.A.’s); The Horror of Party Beach 1964 (Cookie-Monster!! Hot dogs?); The Green Slime 1968 (we need more rubber tentacles over here!); Creature of Destruction 1967 (least convincing Black Lagoon rip-off ever); Sting of Death 1965 (run! It’s a…dude with a plastic bag over his head?); The Sea Serpent 1984 (Chinese New Year parade!).

Advertisement
2 Comments

Editorials

11 Years Later: The Horrific Cycles of Violence in ‘Only God Forgives’ Starring Ryan Gosling

Published

on

Traditionally, movie theater walkouts are usually associated with the horror genre, with infamous cases ranging from 1973’s The Exorcist (particularly during the crucifix masturbation scene) and even Lars Von Trier’s controversial serial killer memoir, The House That Jack Built.

That being said, there are exceptions to this rule, as some movies manage to terrorize audiences into leaving the theater regardless of genre. One memorable example of this is Nicolas Winding Refn’s 2013 revenge thriller Only God Forgives, a film so brutal and inaccessible that quite a few critics ended up treating it like a snuff film from hell back when it was first released. However, I’ve come to learn that horror fans have a knack for seeing beyond the blood and guts when judging the value of a story, and that’s why I’d like to make a case for Winding’s near-impenetrable experiment as an excellent horror-adjacent experience.

Refn originally came up with the idea for Only God Forgives immediately after completing 2009’s Valhalla Rising and becoming confused by feelings of anger and existential dread during his wife’s second pregnancy. It was during this time that he found himself imagining a literal fistfight with God, with this concept leading him to envision a fairy-tale western set in the far east that would deal with some of the same primal emotions present in his Viking revenge story.

It was actually Ryan Gosling who convinced the director to tackle the more commercially viable Drive first, as he wanted to cement his partnership with the filmmaker in a more traditional movie before tackling a deeply strange project. This would pay off during the production of Only God Forgives, as the filmmaking duo was forced to use their notoriety to scrounge up money at a Thai film festival when local authorities began demanding bribes in order to allow shooting to continue.

In the finished film, Gosling plays Julian, an American ex-pat running a Muay-Thai boxing club alongside his sociopathic brother Billy (Tom Burke). When Billy gets himself killed after sexually assaulting and murdering a teenager, Julian is tasked by his disturbed mother (Kristin Scott Thomas) with tracking down those responsible for the death of her first-born child. What follows is a surreal dive into the seedy underbelly of Bangkok as the cycle of revenge escalates and violence leads to even more violence.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

There’s no right or wrong way to engage with art, but there are some films that clearly require more effort from the audience side in order to be effective. And while you can’t blame cinemagoers for just wanting to enjoy some passive entertainment, I think it’s always worth trying to meet a work of art on its own terms before judging it.

Despite being a huge fan of Drive, I avoided Only God Forgives for a long time because of its poor critical reception and excessively esoteric presentation. It was only years later that I gave the flick a chance when a friend of mine described the experience as “David Lynch on cocaine.” It was then that I realized that nearly everything critics had complained about in the film are precisely what made it so interesting.

If you can stomach the deliberate pacing, you’ll likely be fascinated by this stylish nightmare about morally questionable people becoming trapped in a needless cycle of violence and retaliation. Not only is the photography impeccable, turning the rain-slicked streets of Bangkok into a neo-noir playground, but the bizarre characters and performances also help to make this an undeniably memorable movie. And while Gosling deserves praise as the unhinged Julian, I’d argue that Vithaya Pansringarm steals the show here as “The Angel of Vengeance,” even if his untranslated dialogue is likely to be unintelligible for most viewers.

However, I think the lack of subtitles ends up enhancing the mood here (even though some editions of the film ended up including them against the director’s wishes), adding to the feeling that Julian is a stranger in a strange land while also allowing viewers to project their own motivations onto some of the “antagonists.”

And while Only God Forgives is frequently accused of burying its narrative underneath a pile of artsy excess, I think the heart of the film is rather straightforward despite its obtuse presentation. I mean, the moral here is basically “revenge isn’t fun,” which I think is made clear by the horrific use of violence (though we’ll discuss that further in the next section).

To be clear, I’m still not sure whether or not I enjoyed this movie, I just know that I’m glad I watched it.


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

There are two different kinds of gore effects. One of them is meant to entertain viewers with exaggerated wounds and excessive blood as you admire the craftsmanship behind the filmmaking. The other kind is simply a tool meant to simulate what actually happens when you injure a human body. Like I mentioned before, Only God Forgives isn’t trying to be “fun,” so you can guess what kind gore is in this one…

From realistic maimings to brutal fist fights that feel more painful than thrilling, the “action” label on this flick seems downright questionable when the majority of the experience has you wincing at genuinely scary acts of grisly violence. I mean, the story begins with an unmotivated rampage through the streets of late-night Bangkok and ends with the implication of even more pointless violence, so it’s pretty clear that you’re not really meant to root for an “action hero” here.

I can’t even say that the deaths resemble those from slasher flicks because the movie never attempts to sensationalize these horrific acts, with Refn preferring to depict them as straightforward consequences of violent people going through the motions – which is somehow even scarier than if this had just been yet another hyper-violent revenge movie.

Not only that, but the characters’ overall lack of moral principles makes this story even more disturbing, with the main antagonist being the closest thing to a decent person among the main cast despite also being a brutal vigilante.

Only God Forgives doesn’t care if you like it or not (and actually takes measures to make sure that the viewing experience is often unpleasant), but if you’re willing to step up to this cinematic challenge and engage with the narrative and visuals on their own terms, I think you’ll find an unforgettable nightmare waiting for you on the other side.


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.

Continue Reading