So I saw
Monsterman yesterday.
It was alright.
Hemitys summed up my thoughts on it pretty well at the end of his post:
Hemitys wrote:It's exceptionally interesting piece of entertainment. But IMO that was mostly because the subject, not because of the execution.
My thoughts exactly. While the film was definitely a good watch because it's a movie about Lordi and being a Lordi fan I'm going to be entertained regardless, as a movie I do feel it could've been executed a lot better than it was. Basically a lot of the problems I had with it seemed to go pretty much hand in hand with what Mr. Lordi says his problems are with it. My reasons however are probably a bit different from his seeing as how I'm merely a fan and he's the actual artist.
anushka wrote:Question is what kind of movie the director wanted to create. Movie for fans? I'm not sure.
The director Antti Haase has specifically stated that he didn't set out to create a movie specifically catered to Lordi fans but that he wanted to tell a more universal story that everyone could relate to. Now I can fully understand that and I don't have a problem at all with Haase picking an angle he finds interesting and telling a story from that point of view. But while I do completely understand his vision and his intentions, I think he could've done a much better job in terms of execution.
The film focuses pretty much solely on the period between the years 2011 and 2013, and I don't have a problem with that. This film is not the story of Lordi's entire history as a band, and it doesn't have to be. It's perfectly understandable for a movie to pick one specific period out of a larger whole because then you have the ability to tell as in depth as possible about this one specific period as opposed to just glancing over it and going over the most superficial aspects of it like you would if the movie was a story spanning several decades as opposed to just spanning three years. But that's just the thing - the movie doesn't give us an in-depth look into Lordi between the years 2011 and 2013. It basically tells us nothing at all about this period. It's like they made a that movie about Lordi's entire history, then picked the scenes focusing on 2011-2013 and then stretched those scenes out for an hour and a half with padding as opposed to adding in actual informative content. The fact that movie spends so much time dwelling on things without ever managing to go much below the surface is a paradox that baffles me.
This is my biggest problem with the film - as a documentary it's really not all that informative. The film basically cherry picks a few key moments from that three-year period and makes the entire thing about them when in the span of an hour and a half it could've and should've been able to tell us so much more than it does. A good example of this is the way the film introduces Otus into the picture. Basically we find out that Lordi has a drummer named Otus and then in the next scene he passes away. I of course care because I'm already a Lordi fan and I mourned Otus' passing when it happened along with all the other fans, but how much a casual viewer who knows nothing about Lordi would care is questionable since the film tells us next to nothing about who Otus was, what kind of person he was like and how much his contributions meant to the band. For how long the film spends dwelling on his death it actually tells us very little about him.
One of the best moments in the film however is regarding Otus' passing and I wish there would've been more scenes like it. There's a scene where OX is sitting by himself at the rehearsal loft playing his bass in front of Otus' drum kit. He says he wouldn't wanna change a thing or move the drums because Otus left them that way, followed by him saying it's hard to talk about it. I admit, I got a lump in my throat during that scene and I wish the film would've included more of Otus himself as well as band members talking about what he was like so we as viewers could've formed more of a connection to Otus and thus better connected with the grief Mr. Lordi and the rest of the band were feeling.
Then the other thing that the film makes a huge deal about is
Kuorosota. Basically the impression I got from the narrative of the film is that
Kuorosota was the single biggest mistake in the band's history and only through the salvation that was
To Beast Or Not To Beast could Lordi rise up and come back from the dead. This we know is of course not even remotely true. Of course it's a fact that entering the show was a mistake in Mr. Lordi's mind and the documentary is proof that it had its toll, but we fans know that entering that show wasn't a career move that damn near killed Lordi. We fans know that it was merely a bump in the road - not a deep dark pit. So the fact that the film makes such a huge deal out of something that we know wasn't nearly as big of a deal as the film makes it out to be, the main conflict of the film comes off as kind of awkward since it's so blatantly obvious how manufactured it actually is.
That's one of the biggest problems with the film, I feel - Haase probably found that the actual events he was capturing weren't dramatic enough for his liking so he then set out to make mountains out of molehills to create that drama he was looking for since he couldn't do that just by telling the truth as it is. But I mean I don't blame him for wanting drama, and as Mr. Lordi has said despite the film being a documentary it also needs to be entertaining, so obviously certain things are tweaked to make the film as entertaining as possible. I mean it's true that the film for example messes with the timeline a little bit, but then again so did
Anvil: The Story Of Anvil. The big gig Anvil plays at the end of that film actually happened before a lot of the events the film shows prior to the gig, but they needed an uplifting ending so they put that gig at the end of the movie. The same is the case in
Monsterman - by making it out like Lordi is basically dead for a few years it makes Mr. Lordi stepping out in front of the huge crowd at Hellfest all the more uplifting. But from a fan's point of view I think Haase didn't execute this properly because the conflict is so obviously manufactured. I mean sure Lordi barely had any gigs in Finland, but they were still playing big shows all over Europe like the ones shown at the end of the movie. And guess what -
Tour Beast Or Not Tour Beast didn't change the fact that Lordi had no gigs in Finland. So the film presents a conflict that it answers with something that doesn't actually resolve it which again makes it just seem awkward. The one real conflict the film does resolve however that made me feel good was that with the money Lordi made from
Tour Beast Or Not Tour Beast they were able to pay off the debts they had at the start of the film. So it's good to know that Lordi are no longer in debt and can move forward with a clean slate.
I don't fault the film for focusing on a specific period of the band's history, but I feel it should've been much more informative than it was. By showing more of the band's routine and giving a more versatile and accurate view of what went on during the years the film was filmed it could've been a convincing depiction of the day-to-day life of a band that despite adversity just keeps pushing forward and never gives up as opposed to what I feel it is now which is an overly melodramatic film that makes mountains out of molehills and shows conflict where there is none. I know it's naive to expect a documentary to be completely truthful but you don't have to make it so goddamn obvious that the documentary isn't. That and I feel the film would've benefited from hearing other members than just Mr. Lordi despite him being the focus of the documentary. For example when The Drummer is asked to leave the band, we hear Mr. Lordi breaking the news to him on the phone yet we don't hear what The Drummer answers. And when he plays his last gig, we see a shot of him sitting by himself as the rest of the band is saying farewell to Awa since it was her last gig as well. With The Drummer not getting a voice in those scenes the band's treatment of him comes off as a bit cold.
Then again this is me talking from a fan point of view. Maybe casual viewers who don't follow the band will be more convinced by the story since they won't be distracted by all the things that from a fan's point of view is inaccurate. But as a fan while the film was definitely a good watch, it didn't really tell me anything new that I didn't already know. The film sheds more light on Awa's reasons for leaving the band and why The Drummer's stay in the band was so short-lived, but other than that I don't feel I really gained any info that would've come off as any sort of grand revelation. Basically the film merely served to reinforce that which I already knew about Mr. Lordi, and all the reasons why after eight years of being a fan I still continue to respect and admire the man to this day - his impeccable good taste, his undying dedication and absolute determination, his unwavering belief in what he does...
Mr. Lordi is like that child in art class that is drawing pictures of astronauts because his dream is to one day become one. When you tell that child that what they're drawing is dumb and that they should draw something else, you're not just telling them that their drawings are dumb. You're telling them that their passions and their aspirations are dumb, and that they as a person are fundamentally worthless - that there is no place for them to exist as the kind of person that they want to be. For Mr. Lordi there is no way of not being Lordi. The only thing he knows and wants to do with his life is create - to make music, to draw and paint, to make costumes... To tell Mr. Lordi that he's finished and that his dream is dead is to tell him that he is dead. When most people give up and compromise their aspirations to be what others want them to be, and when most grow up and sacrifice that child inside them for the chance to fit in with the others, the existence of men like Mr. Lordi who still continue to be who they want to be and who continue to make their life what they want it to be despite it not always being the easiest road is more important than ever. And I have to say that one of the most sympathetic characters in the film is Mr. Lordi's mother. Her love for her son and the support she gives him when others won't to show him that there are still people who believe in him, who value what he does and who want him just the way he is is nothing short of heartwarming and touching.
Finally to comment on the biggest reason for controversy with this documentary which is the unmasking of Awa, I must say I side with Mr. Lordi. Either Haase was genuinely so ignorant that he didn't realize how much it meant to Mr. Lordi not to include that shot in the movie or then he just didn't care and deemed that one shot more important than staying on good terms with Mr. Lordi and did it anyway. In my mind that shot was completely unnecessary as it adds nothing to the scene it's in or the movie as a whole outside of shock factor. I can't pretend to know what Haase's intentions are, but if he knew Lordi would never approve of this shot, it just comes off as a giant middle finger to Mr. Lordi and the band. I mean sure Haase might've been ignorant about how much this all means to Mr. Lordi, but I have a hard time believing that. I mean even the dumbest person should've caught on by now that there's one thing Lordi is absolute about, so for Haase to then go against the band's wishes on that - former member or not - is unforgivable.
The fact that it's one shot that lasts maybe five seconds makes all this even more incredible. All Haase had to do was take that one five-second shot out and everything would've been fine. Did that shot really mean so much to him that he just had to have it in the film? Why not just shoot Awa walking out of the room and then zoom in on her mask on the table, conveying that she walks away from the character and moves on as the character stays with Lordi? That would've been much more powerful and much more respectful to Lordi. Of course you could also make the case that Mr. Lordi is the one making too big of a fuss about all this, but while it is only one shot it bares reminding that out of all of Mr. Lordi's wishes Haase decided to go against, he went for the big one. The one biggest condition Mr. Lordi set for things and Haase couldn't even respect that. If it were not for that shot, I doubt Mr. Lordi would've even made as big of a deal about all this as he has. He might've stated in interviews his problems with the film but he might not have made a big public statement. I mean after years of being misquoted and misrepresented in interviews I don't blame him for wanting to make sure his side of the story is heard too. So the fact that to avoid this controversy all Haase had to do was take out that one shot the exclusion of which meant so much to Mr. Lordi and yet he couldn't even do that shows how much respect he actually has for Mr. Lordi and the band. I'm sure both parties made compromises along the way and neither is completely innocent in all this, but still I sympathize with Mr. Lordi in terms of that scene.
Overall if I am to rate the movie though, on the IMDb scale of ten I'd give the film a seven out of ten. It's not the Lordi documentary I was waiting for, and even as the kind of film Antti Haase wanted to make it it still isn't without its problems, but regardless for a fan it's an interesting watch and it's satisfactory 'til the DVD comes out with all the footage we've been waiting for. That and
Scare Force One is only a month away, so we'll certainly have a lot to celebrate with Lordi in the coming months.
By the way, I spotted a few people from this forum in the movie so just a heads up.
korovnikovd wrote:Joni Master wrote:http://www.stara.fi/2014/09/27/lordi-avautuu-monsterimies-dokumentistaan/
He´s not angry?
I don't know, tell us.
I don't speak Finnish.
Well that's part one of an apparently two-part interview, so we'll have to wait and see what's said in the second part once it's out. But in that one they never get to discussing Mr. Lordi's dissatisfaction with the movie and if you were to just watch that interview you wouldn't even know there were any problems at all - Mr. L seems pretty chill about things. But of course we can't know exactly how he's feeling unless he tells us. All we know is that he disapproves of aspects of the documentary and that he is hurt and disappointed in the director's choices - primarily the unmasking of Awa. But we can't know whether he's just disappointed or actually furious. The media of course has built it up saying that Mr. L is furious and outraged but we know how the media is - just because they put a certain spin on something doesn't mean it's true.
by Isa » Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:32 am 
I do believe I also spotted MrKaarle and Anthalerero in the movie as well.
