How to Make a Monster (TV Movie 2001) Poster

(2001 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Add a Review
56 Reviews
Sort by:
Fun B-movie for video game geeks
Leofwine_draca3 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
After sitting through four of these distinctly lacklustre 'Creature Feature' movie remakes that were made for television back in 2001, it pained me to watch the last, HOW TO MAKE A MONSTER. Each film has an interesting premise and plenty of potential, but these elements were usually wasted in favour of the mundane. HOW TO MAKE A MONSTER isn't a perfect film by any means but the key difference is that it's actually entertaining for once. From the word go, the story of computer nerds accidentally bringing a monster to life is a lot of fun, with plenty of larger-than-life characters and humour to keep things amusing; I went through a video game stage myself as a teenager (and have probably never really grown out of it) so much of the on-screen antics are also appealing.

Ironically, the first half, which is as usual the set-up, is the most interesting, before the second turns into a traditional monster-on-the-rampage flick. The low budget is evident in the use of one single set and the lack of any CGI effects, but the monster itself is a fantastic-looking beast that manages to scare. It assimilates body parts in a similar way to the Jamie Lee Curtis-starrer VIRUS and looks horrendous, which is the point. I loved the sword-and-sorcery edge the film has to it with the use of swords and axes rather than the weaponry which the usual clichéd soldiers-vs-aliens flicks have. The climax plays out as you might imagine, with a moral epilogue of a twist as well, and I sat through it all and found it amiable enough.

The cast is fairly interesting and wide-reaching for what is, in essence, a B-movie. Clea Duvall, who I found intensely irritating in the likes of THE FACULTY, is actually passable here; Steven Culp is the established actor of the piece but makes little impact. The three guys playing the nerds are having a lot of fun and are all fine in their parts, with particular note going to Tyler Mane, he of the massive build; Mane later went on to play the hulking hero Ajax in TROY and Michael Myers in Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN remake. There's also a topless cameo from scream queen Julie Strain, which is the closest this film gets to modern-day B-movies. It's no masterpiece, but I think it achieves what it set out to achieve, which was to create a B-movie for our times with similarities to '50s flicks with added here-and-now updates.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
So bad it's good.
nightbreed3037 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
If you're a geek, you'll be laughing your batman socks off watching this. It's great to watch for the old skool gear (green screen palm pilot anyone?)and horror genre references (thumbs up for the 'tales from the crypt' pinball machine).

Much of the dialog involves faux techie jargon - guaranteed hilarity for the most part. For instance;the intern character trying to impress her boss by asking how she can compress 9 gig of video data. I can only guess that she had a bootleg copy of LoTR she wanted to upload.

The plot premise is a delightful hotch-potch of elements from 'Tron', 'Weird Science', 'Hardware', 'Lawnmower Man' and references various other sci-fi films such as 'Wargames' ('It's learning all my moves').

Probably one of the worst films ever made, but that's if you expect a serious sci-fi film. If you're bored of on-line hack 'n' slash for the night and want a film that's unintentionally hilarious to wind down with, this is one.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great for What It Is - A real life version of a video game cut-scene
dhaz27 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, first off, I'd like to say that all the negative reviews that think they're being funny by tearing into a low budget sci-fi horror movie are like the bullies who pick on the fat retarded kid. Sure, we all snicker a little bit, but nobody's impressed with your rapier wit dissecting the flaws of someone less fortunate than you.

That said, they do serve a purpose...they let you know what kind of film this is. By having a few amateur Ebert's out there talking about how this is the worst movie, ever, you know you're not looking for a truly serious movie. Otherwise, even if it was bad, they would not have bothered to show up and try to be internet wise-guys.

I really enjoy this movie and will stop and watch it whenever it is playing on TV. It's a cheap, funny, wildly inaccurate movie about a video game company that accidentally makes a monster when a lightning strike causes a motion capture suit become imbued with the AI of what would surely be a controversial game lambasted by the media for it's violence and gore.

The characters are overblown, but they were written (rather well) to be so. The actors do a good job of portraying those characters in an exaggerated fashion. Tyler Mane (Hardcore - Sabertooth/Xmen, Ajax/Troy) is the muscular metal head, Karim Prince (Sol) is the cocky, geek-suave black guy, and Jason Marsden (Bug) is the geeky white guy. All fit some type of stereotype and play a 3 way foil to each other. Clea DuVall (Laura)is always welcome in this kind of role, the quiet, cute for a geek girl. Her abusive boyfriend is even played by Danny Masterson (Hyde, That 70's Show)They worked together before in The Faculty, where the size of their respective parts was about the same, I'm curious what the connection is.

Anyway. Like the title says, this movie is basically a film version of a video game cut-scene. The plot's not airtight, the characters aren't deep or dynamic, and the production value's not high. But we suspend disbelief because it makes the experience enjoyable. Many people have commented on the inaccuracy of 3 guys making a triple A title in a week or so, but that was not the case, they were modifying an existing engine, and in the beginning of computer game development, the biggest games were still made by small teams in short time-spans.

I don't know why I'm even trying to mend plot holes, because that's NOT the point. The point is, if you like old video games, cheap horror/sci fi movies, or better yet both, you will love this movie as much as I do. It reminds me all over of games like DOOM, Quake, Heretic, Hexen, basically the progenitors of games like Halo and Call of Duty (which have made video games more profitable than the movie and music industries) If you're too immature to appreciate the simplistic technology that made those games (and thus all games) possible, you probably won't enjoy this movie, either. So sit back, dig in, watch it while you download an emulator that will let you play all your favorite games from Middle and High school.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Slay me
ctomvelu124 November 2010
Very low budget TV movie about a group of game designers who are confronted by a killer demon that comes to life from a game they are developing. They are picked off one by one. Essentially a one-set flick, MONSTER has little to recommend it. It cops its title from a 1950s cornball monster flick, but otherwise has nothing to do with that long-forgotten film. The only recognizable name in the cast is Clea DuVall, who gives it her best. Tyler Mane, who played a villain in some of the X-MEN movies, here plays one of the developers. Unfortunately, he can't act to save his life. Some gore might have helped, considering this is a quasi-slasher flick. Alas, there is no gore to be found.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Terrible. Just terrible.
tom-171213 December 2008
This is one of the most terrible movies I have ever seen. Even for a TV-movie, it's bad. After throwing all shreds of realism out of the window (3 programmers creating a game in a matter of weeks?), they have a few short action sequences before bringing the movie to a close. It felt like some scenes has been cut out of the movie, as Laura immediately going back on her decision was unlikely, to say the least. Horrible acting, bad video game sequences (it felt like Doom or Quake by the graphics and gameplay, which was probably the idea), and a fundamentally flawed idea made this go from a bad movie to a terrible movie very quickly.

I wouldn't recommend it, in fact, I'd recommend just about anything else if you were to choose.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
How To Make a Monster
Scarecrow-889 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Creating the scariest game comes with a price..and we witness this when a group are put to work on "touching up" a video game which doesn't scare or thrill children who play it. Evilution, where skeletal armored creatures do battle, is supposed to go to market soon and it's up to Drummond(Steven Culp)to get the right associates on board to fix the numerous problems keeping the game from truly adhering to the addictive requirements associated with kids and their parents' dollars. Intern Laura(Clea DuVall), a naive, meek, sweet-natured chick who sees the world through rose-colored glasses, interviews three programming geniuses, all with their various short-comings..Hardcore(..the hulking Tyler Mane)a bit too intense/intimidating with an extensive knowledge of weaponry for "battle games", Sol(Karim Prince), a narcissist who loves the sound of his voice and enjoys informing others of how brilliant he is, and acne-faced, speed-speaking, stuttering nerd Bug(Jason Marsden)who is a whiz at producing sound effects. With a promise of a bonus(1 million dollars) to any of the assigned group who can create this game on time for market, the war begins with each individual often at odds with each other. But, their competitive nature will indeed be tested when an electrical current "brings to life"(..Bug has an explanation, but it's in "geek-speak", so I won't bother elaborating extensively)a telemetry suit used by actors for the game characters. The computer is controlling the suit, and the computer is playing the game so the cast are being targeted as if they were characters in the game. The suit actually uses body parts from a few of the victims to form a hybrid and those left try to escape the best they can throughout the well-secure building..but, thanks to Bug's mishap, the doors are slammed shut with limited means(..crawlspaces)of retreat as the creature hunts for them. Along the way, Laura learns a lesson on greed and the evils of the world. A twist yields a surprise regarding the back up disc, the remaining members are seeking, which contains the entire game.

Yes, this is as wacky as the premise sounds, but if you can somehow look past this there's some fun to be had here. I thought the cast did what they could under the circumstances, playing it as straight as they possibly could. Still, the film has a grim view of human nature, leaving us with a transformation of Laura when it's all said and done that's kind of a bummer. There's some truth to her logic regarding the dog-eat-dog world we live in, that she learns from her boss, Drummond. The monster suit is a wild concoction of metal, wires, and body parts. Not overly gory, but some heads are removed and blood splatter. The computer effects are rather underwhelming. I think the casting of DuVall succeeds..she's the normal eyes of what is transpiring, but her battle with the creature at the end is hard to take serious, even if you cut your brain off. Food for thought..perhaps the title has a two fold meeting regarding Laura's metamorphosis?
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
dudes accidentally create real monster when an electric surge gives life to their game AI
ZeroXTML119 April 2008
It's a low budget b movie with lots of holes in the realism. Right off the bat you can spot lots of things wrong with the main logic of the whole movie. i.e. guys having only 4 weeks to complete a game (a ridiculously short deadline), the "computer suit" that goes on a killing rampage and has the ability to move despite the lack of any stable structure, the entire idea than an electrical surge can endow something with free thought "just because". But you can basically look at the movie box and figure out this is a movie that you shouldn't take too seriously.

It's a low budget, corny fairly predictable movie filled with bad acting, but it is fairly entertaining, and that's what matters afterall
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A cheesy good time
slayrrr66617 September 2007
"How to Make a Monster" is a fun and really entertaining cheesy creature feature.


Desperate to fix a new video game, Peter Drummond, (Steven Culp) assigns intern Laura Wheeler, (Clea DuVall) to fix the game's problems. Rounding up renegade programmers Hardcore, (Tyler Mane) Bug, (Jason Marsden) and Sol, (Karim Prince) to fix the game and are given a month to do so. Several weeks of attempts later, they all have ideas for improving the game only for their feelings for each other and their egos to get the better of them. As they near completion, they attempt a go-round to determine what final changes need to be made. Trying to get it finished, they take off for the night and come back the next morning to find one of the group members is dead. Carrying on in the need for money, the remaining members find that the death is the result of the monster created for the game coming to life through a power-surge and is killing the group. Forced into a struggle to get out alive, they turn to different strategies to defeat the monster.

The Good News: This one's not all that bad. Considering the source material, this here manages to get a lot of mileage from it. From the constant video-game play-through to the images achieved through the game and all the background into the business, there's a lot of it and it makes for an interesting viewing. Another great aspect is the interesting monster created. This has a unique back-story, however contrived, and uses a pretty good creepy look to great effect. This one even gets a decent transformation sequence where it manages to acquire more parts and weapons to make it even more frightening. With the spiked horn, shoulder spikes, large frame and huge blades, this one is quite impressive and frightening at times, and with the real scary face, this one scores some great scenes from it's appearance. It's even quite creepy without the monster, as there's some really great stalking scenes early on to be had, due to a plethora of off-screen noises and crashes to get some jumps in. The deaths, though not at all that elaborate, do feature enough blood and gore to satisfy. The last half-hour is the film's best part, as it features a lot of action, some big chasing and stalking and is it's most watchable part. That's the best part of the film, and alone is worth the watch.

The Bad News: There's not a whole lot wrong with this one. Most of this one's flaws result from one area, namely the cheapness of the film. Even though the film is filled with computer graphics, there's still plenty of really cheap graphics. It's nearly impossible for them to become fearful of the images generated from the creature, or even the simulated games. They look like computer games, which is great but they don't look good or convincing in an actual movie. It looks quite terrible, doesn't generate any scares or suspense and takes away a whole lot of whatever good it accumulated in the positives. The cheapness also extends to other areas, as the boring beginning, cramped location and lack of any big moments not done without using CGI all attest to. It does pick up considerably with it's great fight, but there's a real shortage of big moments in this one. There's even a real shortage of kills in here, as this one really doesn't have any real deaths on-screen. The number is incredibly low, making the lack of any real blood or gore a real shortcoming. Featuring bloody aftermath and blood splotches during the few kills done on-screen is nothing really spectacular and only serves to make them more noticeable. They are the real flaws in the film.

The Final Verdict: It's a clichéd, cheesy creature feature yet that doesn't mean that it won't entertain. Give it a shot if you're in for some harmless fun or have a particular love for these kinds are encouraged to give it a shot, while those who have a disdain for those types should stay away from it.

Rated R: Graphic Language, Graphic Violence and Nudity
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Some bad but entertaining pulp.
Boba_Fett113816 September 2007
This movie obviously doesn't take itself very serious, which is the reason why this movie still remains an entertaining one to watch. The movie is filled with some extreme stereotype characters (you know, the kind that's so over-the-top that it misses its mark and looses its effect) bad dialog and an of course silly concept and bad written story to begin with.

It's especially hilarious to see how more important the game, rather then their lives is to all of the characters involved. Even real freaks aren't that freaky! That's a serious and gruesome computer-monster that is killing them one by one in a horrible way but who cares when a game its development and a million dollar bonus is at stake...They just hide the bodies and go on with their work for as long as they can.

But to be honest, the ridicules concept isn't as poorly developed or handled as you would expect from a movie like this (even though of course the movie is obviously filled with some highly unlikely and ridicules events.) I liked how well the game-world translated into the real world. Yes, that really is how PC games looked like in 2001. Guess people will have a good laugh at it in 10 years from now. The in-game effects are certainly better looking than most movies ever normally try to bother to.Seems like they seriously did some research and were advised correctly and spend some real money on it. It's certainly refreshing and good to see after so many failed and just plain bad attempts from Hollywood to let video-games- and the computer world in general play key parts of the movie.

However big problem with the movie remains that's not scary or serious enough for a horror, not science-fiction/fantasy-full/original enough for a science-fiction movie and not bad and/or campy enough for successful cult-classic. It is also hard to tell what the movie actually tried to achieve and in which category it wanted to be put under. Because of that all, the gore also doesn't work out. I mean, the movie is pretty gory in parts, since it features more than 1 cut of limb or head but yet the movie just never strikes as a gross or gruesome one. For these reasons alone you just can't regard this movie as a successful- or great one.

Still amazing to see how many great actors are in the movie. It's however an uneven balance of actors who knew that they were cast for the B-movie value of the movie and actors who try to make the movie look as authentic and realistic as possible. Tyler Mane and Jason Marsden are great as the stereotype characters but it was quite sad to see Clea DuVall. I mean, I see this as an actress who will most likely win an Oscar within the next 7 years. Same goes to some extend also for Steven Culp. He's the guy who played Robert F. Kennedy in "Thirteen Days" for goodness sake!

The movie is definitely not a great one but nevertheless it remains an entertaining one to watch, since it obviously also didn't took itself very serious to begin with in the first place.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
How not to make a movie.
Son_of_Mansfield18 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Steven Culp portrays on of those money loving executives that would think Swimming with Sharks is a masterpiece of how to make it in the world. His opinion, that you have to knock other people out of the way to make it to the top and that making it to the top is the only reason to live, is also the thought of the movie. Since I disagree on both counts, the movie is not worth my time. Culp is good as the shark among guppies, but the high points end there. Clea DuVall and Jason Marsden are wasted in wussy roles while Tyler Mane is very tall and muscular. If you like girls with ungodly large breasts who aren't very attractive, Julie Strain obliges. To make matters worse, the f/x are laughable and the gore is blah. This is really only of interest to lovers of bad movies or people with warped world views.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
it didn't really do it for me
disdressed1225 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
this movie didn't really do it for me.i didn't find it very exciting,nor very gory.the killer,in my mind is not that original.there is some gratuitous nudity in 1 scene,but for me,that isn't enough reason to like the movie.the ending kinda surprised me,although it probably shouldn't have.most people who watch this movie will probably figure out the ending long before.if you're into hi tech things,like programing video games,and if you like playing interactive games,with blood and guts,you might like this movie.there is some gore alright,but it's computer gore,which doesn't do it for me.i thought the movie was watchable,but average.i won't give the plot,because i already sort of hinted at's not really original,but that doesn't really me,it's what's done with the material that's important.anyway,some people will love this game and others will hate it.some people like me,will be somewhere in the middle.i didn't love it or hate it.i just found it average.but that's just me.for me,"How to Make a Monster" is 5/10
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Wow, this is awful!
raypdaley18226 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
When a slight bit of nudity is the highlight of a whole film, you know it's dire.

I recognised Jason Marsden from Eerie, Indiana (and yes, he still looked like Dash X) and Julie Strain before anyone even introduced her. I recognised Clea Duvall's Boyfriend from "That 70's Show" and I figured that I'd seen Hardcore possibly as a wrestler - he was Big Sky in WCW and also Sabretooth in X-men.

The film was incredibly predictable (apart from who'd stolen the back-up disk) and it was pretty obvious Clea Duvall was going to survive.

One thing I wasn't sure of, whose head she'd seen when she was thrown down the hole (I assume it was her boyfriend or Hardcore?).
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One Bad Ass Monster
This was a monster that was unbelievable to imagine and boy was a scary machine monster I have seen in t.v.This was a great monster movie that was only on t.v.,this had everything that this movie needed to make it the best...a B-Average film.It had gore and lots of blood,great comedy,action,and nudity,it was good.This monster came out of the game called Evilution and started to kill them all,he is now playing.First was Sam's which he took of his head,Hardcore's body,and Bug's smartness,together equals into one big monster that cannot be stopped.And later it took this guys head and showed his neck bones,a perfect death.And they finally killed the monster,all stopped by an intern who learns the secret of winning.There is got to be another part to this and I'll wait to see it and enjoy it.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
So bad it's entertaining
barryslisk-11 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not sure if the movie is meant as a serious horror movie or if it is some kind of joke.

The game looks cheesy as Hell. Only blind morons could produce such a lame game.

The publisher know the game sucks, so they hire 3 (THREE) guys for 3 weeks (as far as I remember) to fix "the monster". I guess the movie producers have no clue how long it takes to make a game these days. Nevermind the rest of the game, just fix the monster. If they get the job done they get $Million (again as far as I remember). Insane amount.

The scene where the "programmers" enter the company for the first time and the intern walks in the Heavy metal programmer dude thinks she is a spy. Why?? Whyyy?? - One guy is assigned to weapons, and has loads of weapons, like swords and stuff on his desk. HAHA, so lame.

The nerdy programmer is in charge of sound, and is actually not a programmer, but a sound guy. Oh well, almost the same thing right?? - A some point the company the security system kicks in and rooms a sealed off and the can't get out of the building. Must be expensive to install such a system, and.....whyyyy? - One of the programmers is doing an AI chip for the this chip is shipped with the CD-ROM? Will it fit in an ordinary PC?? :) Why does he need a special chip for AI? Will he be able to get a factory to produce this chip with 3 weeks??? I seriously doubt it.

The lightning makes the suit come alive. How does the suit move? It records movements when humans wear it, but has no servos or anything to make it move by itself. Arghh....!!! - The ending where the intern has gone evil, is just overdone. One of the worst cases of overacting I have ever witnessed.

Even though it should earn a vote of 1 because on paper it should really really suck, I enjoyed it a little because it is so silly. It becomes a sport to spot the many flaws. I gave it 4.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
"You have to be mean if you want to make green." Awful horror film.
Paul Andrews17 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
How to Make a Monster starts with Faye Clayton (producer Colleen Camp) firing her team of software programmer's when the latest game called 'Evilution' that they are working on receives disastrous test previews & the search is on for a new team. This is where Peter Drummond (Steven Culp), Bug (Jason Marsden), Hardcore (Tyler Mane) & the obligatory black guy Sol (Karim prince) step in & take over. The brief is they need to turn 'Evilution' into a really scary game in one month, if they succeed they will earn a $1 million bonus, Clayton also gives them intern Laura Wheeler (Clea DuVall) as a general dogsbody. How to Make a Monster then cuts to 'Three Weeks Later' as the game nears completion, Hardcore has designed the weapons & monsters, Bug has developed the music & sound effects & Sol has programed a new form of artificial intelligence while Peter does what bosses do. One night a lightning strike causes a power overload which in turn makes a motion capture suit come to life & start acting out 'Evilution' as if it were real. Peter, Laura, Sol, Bug & Hardcore all become targets of the killer game & it's robotic suit...

Written & directed by George Huang I personally thought How to Make a Monster was a very poor attempt at horror. The script has no relation to the original How to Make a Monster (1958) apart form it's title, there are so many things fundamentally wrong with this film it's untrue. The whole concept sucks & Huang obviously doesn't know anything about technology as How to Make a Monster has no factual basis or notion of reality at all, motion capture suits coming to life? How can it walk & operate before it kills Sol? How can the mainframe computer control it with no visible wires? Radio control, I don't think so. Only three people to program one game? These days it takes dozens of talented programmer's to develop a good game & a hell of a lot longer than a month. I could go on, but I won't. The title How to make a Monster refers to the films hidden meaning, the moral message if you will. You see How to Make a Monster is all about people turning into monsters because of greed, jealousy & ambition. I bet Huang thought he was really clever coming up with that double meaning title. The characters are uniformly unlikable & clichéd, Sol & Bug in particular are highly irritating to endure. Technically How to Make a Monster isn't too bad considering it's TV limitations, director Huang fails to create any sort of tension or atmosphere which is what a good horror film is all about. The kills are all off screen & have no build up whatsoever, when at the end it finally looks as if we might get a decent sequence involving the monster the film keeps cutting to awful in game computer footage, maybe to save money? It breaks up & dilutes any sort of excitement the climatic fight might had, very poor. There are a few computer game/film references, an Evil Dead video game poster keeps turning up in the background, a Tales From the Crypt pinball machine & a scene where the monster rips someones head off complete with dangling spinal cord which obviously is meant to pay homage to Mortal Kombat & it's infamous gory 'Fatalities'. As a whole the violence is restrained with the aforementioned head & spinal cord ripping, another severed head & a cut off hand. The monster itself as it adds bits of human bodies to itself looks pretty cool but is barely used, it's past the 40 minute mark before it does anything. The acting is poor from all involved & watch out for actress Julie Strain who complains about having to go nude, again considering her other work I suppose director Huang thought this would be a funny in joke of some sort. It isn't. Overall there really isn't anything by which I can recommend How to Make a Monster & in actual fact I think it should be retitled to How to Make a Monstrosity of a Film. One to avoid.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I've Seen Better
Theo Robertson17 August 2005
I caught this on channel 4 very late , or very early considering how you think of 2.40 am and discovered that it was another Creature Feature movie production . I knew what to expect - Slightly corny and old fashioned B movie values but one that at the very least would be watchable , and I did enjoy the previous effort SHE CREATURE . After the credits rolled I did feel disappointed . HOW TO MAKE A MONSTER while not being a bad horror movie made for television it remains a ratherflawed one

The story suffers from a lack of originality and stereotypical characters . A trio of software designers are told there's a million dollars reward if they come up with the ultimate computer game . The trio are a funky black dude , an uber-geek and a sociopath . Since there's a danger of industrial espionage there's special security measures that causes a lock down on the software laboratories . Doesn't this sound contrived ? And I think you know where this is heading . So the trio , an intern and a company director find them selves trapped in a building in a plot that isn't a million miles removed from ALIEN , HARDWARE or THE LAWNMOWER MAN . Unforgivably it becomes very obvious early on who's going to die and who's going to survive meaning there's no surprises for the audience

Like most of the other movies by this company there is a comic book charm to the proceedings in that the gore doesn't overwhelm the story , I notice that several people have complained about the laughable make up and effects but surely this is done on purpose by the makers ? Despite having a TVM budget it's relatively well made , but would have been better if the script wasn't so predictable . As it stands if you're going to watch only one Creature Feature watch SHE CREATURE
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Terrible, How could Clea Duvall every agree to this?
jennyann19756 July 2005
I am a huge fan of B movies but this was absolutely terrible. I only rented it because I think Clea Duvall is a great actress. I think the movie is trying to make a point but the only one I got was that you need to be utterly ruthless to make it in the gaming world!?! ***SPOILER ALERT*** Basic plot is three game programmers, a manager, and an intern are locked in an office building with some electronic suit that comes to life because of electricity. It proceeds to kill everyone but the intern who all of a sudden develops sword fighting skills and kills the monster. Clea Duvall is the intern who starts out as a nice girl with an abusive boyfriend. But for some odd reason she turns into a money hungry software company boss. I think there is a plot somewhere but I got distracted by a wrestler trying to act like a computer geek. Anyway, the movie is a complete waste of time and even Clea Duvall's great acting can't save the movie. Oh and someone needs to tell Julie Strain she doesn't look good topless anymore.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
my god, what you think you are doing?
mr_facehead4 July 2005
that was unbelievable!

i was shocked at how bad this film was

i wish i could burn it, and everything that has anything to do with it.

i laughed once, when that guy beat up the monster thing, and that wasn't supposed to be funny.

if you have just bought this film, and haven't watched it yet... ... ha ha you are unlucky to stumble across this, i will give you some advice, don't even bother watching this film.

if anyone says this is good, please, don't believe them, because they may be trying to trick you, or they may have fell asleep half way through.

the kind of film you would even be annoyed if you bought it for 50p.
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Whomever wrote this obviously did so with a typewriter...
mentalcritic20 November 2004
...because it becomes obvious in a big hurry that they have never used a computer in their life. The cast assembled to play the programmers is funny enough, but what really gets this viewer laughing is how much arguing goes on about various aspects of the game they are programming. Or the deadline set by the money men. A team of three programmers will not be able to code a complete game, especially not one with all the advanced routines talked about, in a mere four weeks. If you have any doubts about this, check out the list of people responsible for putting together Doom, at the time of release considered the most advanced video game ever made. It took a lot longer than four weeks for that dozen-plus crew.

By far the most amusing part of the film is the scene with Julie Strain in a so-called motion capture suit. Anyone who has seen the spandex monstrosity that Andy Serkis wore during photography for The Two Towers will recognise this scene as utterly ridiculous. That Strain (the one depicted in the film) would not see this for the idiotic hustle that it is defies credibility. I find it difficult to believe that the other actors didn't read this script and absolutely balk at it.

There is also a reason that most films do not depict things involving a computer without fictionalising it. If one watches what the user does for any length of time, it becomes boring in a big hurry. The problem here is that none of the sequences filmed in order to compensate for this have been thought through. When Clea DuVall is sitting before a computer with VR goggles, trying to fight the game's monster, the number of times she takes them off and puts them back on again is ridiculous. Given that there is no connection between any of the computers and the ridiculous flesh-machine construct, exactly how this solution is meant to work defies belief. You can claim infra-red wireless networking until you are blue in the face. It wasn't in common usage even in 2001, and as anyone who has tried to use it can tell you, calling Wi-Fi networking unreliable is like calling Ed Wood slightly incompetent.

Given that the cast includes such B-level stars as Clea Duvall and Tyler Mane, I think the fault for the stupidity of this piece lies entirely with the screenwriters. The cardinal sin anyone can commit when writing a story that involves computers as a central basis for the plot is to overestimate the capabilities of the modern CPU. Giving the computer the ability to learn tactical points would require more storage space, and processing power, than even the most modern supercomputers are able to muster. Every single observation from experience would have to be stored as a programming note, and most home CPUs would turn into a steaming pool of goo trying to look them up.

Not to mention that it seems a modern malady that programmers mistake "more enjoyable" for meaning "more difficult". There gets to be a point where you can only do the same thing in a game so many times over before you want to rip the disc out and hit it with a hammer. The modern law, as I put it to game programmers, is that if you have a choice between making a shorter game or making one that feels impossible to win, make the shorter game. The scenes at the beginning with the children telling us how much this game sucks could really apply to any video game made in the past ten years, with few spectacular exceptions (Resident Evil comes to mind).

I gave How To Make A Monster a one out of ten. The reasons for this are numerous. It is poorly-researched, poorly-written, and poorly made. Mystery Science Theatre 3000 would have a field day with this turkey. When the highlight of a film is Julie Strain jumping up and down, well, I don't think I need to say more.
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
millerman18936 November 2004
Wow, I was brought back in time with this movie. It reminded me of so many early computer games. It had so many great parts played by some better than B-movie actors. Hardcore was hilarious and Bug was the perfect nerd. There were a few video game references in Bug's music and voice clips like "Fresh Meat" and "Come Get Some" that reminded me of some games I played back in Junior High. It's a little bit nostalgia and a little bit action. I guess you could say it had a good underlying message, which you'll see in the end... pretty predictable though. I also loved the Evil Dead poster on the wall... good "nerd" movie, and I can personally vouch for that. This movie is definitely worth seeing... for the acting AND the story.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Good Metaphor of the Real Business Life Wasted in a Silly Screenplay
Claudio Carvalho30 April 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Four web designers and a trainee are gathered in a computer company for a challenge: if they succeed in developing a scary game within a month, they will earn a bonus of US$ 1,000,000.00. The group does not have sense of teamwork and all of them are moved by greed only, generating an uncontrolled monster and being destroyed in the end. The trainee learns how to become a monster worst than the existing one, wins the prize and becomes a businesswoman. I believe the intention of the writer of this story was to create a metaphor of the real business life. The title `How to Make a Monster' has a double sense with the creature and the trainee. There are many messages between lines in some dialogs and situations. Unfortunately, although having reasonable special effects in the movie, the screenplay is very silly and is only recommended for killing time. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): `A Criação de um Monstro' (`The Creation of a Monster')
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
pretty bad
stanclimbfll20 March 2004
Wow! How bad was that? Really bad! I mean, all it was, was a bloody, swearing crap-fest where some how in the end the moral is "You have to turn into a cold sarcastic jerk to succeed!" Yay! What kind of crap is that? I watched this movie because I wanted to see a good slash-em-up horror film but what I got was a poorly-made piece of crap. The "monster" was cheesy and the violence was dull. There was no scary moments at all. And I think the characters' favorite words were "s***" and "f***". This is one of those "late-night-HBO-movies that they show because there's nothing else" kind of movies. Please, don't waste your time watching this crap-shoot. I did. And I'm sorry I wasted an hour and a half of my life. 0/10.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Nothing but fun
archerhatesyou27 January 2004
I only bought the film because Jason Marsden and Steven Culp are in it. I will admit, it was a terrible movie. But I was highly amused by it. I was laughing all the way through. I was doubled over by the company being named Clayton (and if you know things, you'll get why). And I absolutely love Jason. His hyper and insane antics in this film entertained me to the end. And had I known that a song by Poe was incorporated into the film, I would have sought it out sooner.

All the main actors were perfect and wonderful; The score was fun. I know it's supposed to be scary, but I can't help but call it a fun movie. I feel that if they had given more time and money into it, by using the same actors and script, it could have looked much better than it does. I think that's what people mostly have qualms with, the quality of it. Think; If it had been given the thought and care that, let's say, Thir13en Ghosts got, it would have been just as popular as that, and vice versa.

Now, I didn't think it was totally obvious at all. I wasn't surprised by the end, but I didn't predict it all, either. Maybe I'm just stupid, or maybe it was 1:00 in the morning, or maybe I just hate you, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. Good for a laugh - whether it be at the witty lines or the 'special effects' - no matter who you are.

So for the movie as a whole - 3/10. Sorry.

But as for the acting and the actors' execution of lines, 10/10.

Be amused.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
From Stan Winston and Cinemax
departed0715 November 2003
this was the only movie from the 5 episodes that was cool and spooky at the same time. This film is about computer software designers and an intern that face a monster that has come out of the video game and attacking the building. It is up to the company to fight the monster before they all die.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews