Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Leofwine_draca MONSTER is very much a terrible picture, an extremely low rent monster movie from 1980. I love the genre and I love the era, but this indie was shot out in the desert in New Mexico and is of such a poor quality in every respect that it's difficult to sit through. A bunch of stale and ageing cast members do battle with a barely-seen creature that rises from the depth to take victims, but this sub-CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON has absolutely nothing to recommend it, even for B-movie lovers. John Carradine pops up as a priest, James Mitchum is the wooden, square-jawed hero, and Anthony Eisley must be wondering why his career never progressed beyond Z-grade features.

mark.waltz A South American town finds horror in their formerly beautiful lake where an American cement plant has helped to destroy the environment and allegedly create a man-eating monster. "One Life to Live's" own Asa Buchanan, the J.R. Ewing of daytime, is the J R. Ewing of the low budget horror movie, showing little empathy to the people of this once quaint fishing village, caring more about profits than people. James Mitchum is the plant manager who comes to believe in the monster legend, and along with American reporter Andrea Harford, tries to solve the mystery before the entire village becomes a midnight snack for this allegedly hideous creature. Anthony Eisley adds sleaze as a womanizing American factory worker. Deliciously bad, this poorly photographed horror/science fiction film is watchable, yet at times you find yourself either rolling your eyes to the point where you are seeing out your ears, or yelling at the screen for its obvious stupidity. Add in horror film veteran John Carradine as a sin obsessed priest, and you've got a candidate for the Golden Raspberry for worst horror film of the past 50 years. In his two scenes, Carey's obnoxious character either makes you want to see more of him (he is delightfully over the top) or see him as one of the creature's most pain-stakingly slow eaten meals. You can see how the North Americans become so hated by the South Americans because practically everything they say is insulting to all Hispanic cultures. There is no hesitation in referring to the Spanish speaking people as all backwards even though it is obvious that they were fine until the Gringos showed up. A subplot concerning the wife of the first victim being called a witch is disturbing. While the ending is left open for a possible sequel (which never happened), the fact is that a sequel might even have been better with the way that the plot was left open. You can also refer to this as probably the most racist (and sexist) horror film ever made.

Rainey Dawn Monster (1980) is aka Monstroid and aka The Toxic Horror. Whatever title you give it - it's still an awful movie. OK. I'll admit it... I watched maybe the first 15 or 20 minutes then I did my fast-forward and watch a bit, fast-forward again then watch a bit until the end of the film.... yes every thing I saw was just awful.So what part of this film is supposed to be a "true story"? I know, people lie make up bull-poop - that much is true and I guess that is the only "true story" part of the film. OK -- factories putting waste into rivers/streams and messing up the things is true too - but they don't create stupid looking monsters - just dead wildlife mainly. But that is about the only true thing I find in this film besides the fact people get drunk. Basically, factories pumping junk into good waters and messing them up, drunks and liars -- all true. Monsters, such as in this film, are false - NOT a "true story".The ONLY reason I'm giving this film a 1 is for John Carradine (He gets a point)... that's it!! The rest of the film is not even worth crumbling up to throw away.1/10

InjunNose Tough guys, sexy women, lots of swearing, and a most unconvincing monster that rises from the depths of a polluted lake. You'd think "Monster" would be fun...but it isn't, really. It does star Tony Eisley and John Carradine, however, and in my book that makes it worth viewing at least once. In an interview with "Fangoria" in 1987, Eisley recalled that Herbert Strock had directed the bulk of the film, but somehow Kenneth Hartford--who only directed the footage featuring his children Andrea and Glenn (portraying characters named Andrea and Glenn, in a particularly inventive turn)--received full credit. Considering how awful the end result was, Strock was probably glad that he hadn't been credited! "Monster" has the look and feel of a mid-to-late-'70s TV movie, which is why I like to leave it on in the background every so often. As entertainment it falls flat on its face, but as a reminder of another age and a vanished type of film-making, it's very effective. The only thing that's missing is a car chase.