CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
6.2/10
13 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Un hombre tetrapléjico tiene un mono entrenado que le ayuda con su parálisis, hasta que el monito empieza a desarrollar sentimientos y rabia contra su nuevo amo.Un hombre tetrapléjico tiene un mono entrenado que le ayuda con su parálisis, hasta que el monito empieza a desarrollar sentimientos y rabia contra su nuevo amo.Un hombre tetrapléjico tiene un mono entrenado que le ayuda con su parálisis, hasta que el monito empieza a desarrollar sentimientos y rabia contra su nuevo amo.
- Premios
- 7 premios ganados y 2 nominaciones en total
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Argumento
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThis was the first film role for Stephen Root, then a stage actor. According to Root, he had been instructed by his agent not to let the casting directors know that he was inexperienced with film as an actor. Root's official debut was Cocodrilo Dundee II (1988), which had been released in theaters a month before this film, despite being shot a month after it.
- ErroresFisher incorrectly refers to performing an "autopsy" on Ella. An autopsy is performed on human remains. The correct term for examining animal remains postmortem is "necropsy". This is a common mistake for most people, one that Fisher would not make, given his profession.
- Citas
Geoffrey Fisher: You're a clinical cunt.
- Créditos curiosos"Introducing Boo as Ella"
- Versiones alternativasEarlier versions of Monkey Shines allegedly contained a bizarre brain surgery scene, as well as several abusive scenes involving the small monkey, Ellie. Although the scenes were all staged and no animals were harmed in the making of the movie, the filmmakers decided it would be better to simply leave them out to avoid conflicts.
- ConexionesFeatured in Document of the Dead (1980)
Opinión destacada
If you're looking for body count, blood, or bogeymen, this film is not for you. It is more of a psychological thriller than a horror film, though it was billed as horror, likely because of the pseudo-science gimmick that provides the basis for the conflict in the plot.
While the film tends to wander a bit (i.e. a sub-plot involving the research head that gets dropped 3/4 of the way through) it stays fairly well focused on the main character and his problems. Aside from the lead, the most effective acting was done by the monkey(s), but the "real" actors do a pretty good job of carrying their own. It gives you a little insight into what it's like to be quadriplegic. For a late 80's movie, the style of filming was well done, there is very little cheese, and the special effects didn't overreach.
The premise seems a bit farfetched to our currently more sophisticated and informed sense of what's possible on the genetic engineering front. After all, this movie was made 15 years ago. If Romero had gone with either a supernatural cause or a plain animal jealousy angle, it might be less dated, but then again it might have been a little less believable to begin with.
Not very horrific, not startling or scary, but worth seeing if you don't mind a slightly slow-paced thriller. I gave it a higher than average score (6 out of 10) just because it didn't make me say "oh, please!" too many times unlike other movies from that time--particularly horror films--are prone to do. For example, the pivotal moment is fully supported by plausible input earlier in the film, it's not one of those miraculous developments pulled out of nowhere in the last few seconds before the climax.
While the film tends to wander a bit (i.e. a sub-plot involving the research head that gets dropped 3/4 of the way through) it stays fairly well focused on the main character and his problems. Aside from the lead, the most effective acting was done by the monkey(s), but the "real" actors do a pretty good job of carrying their own. It gives you a little insight into what it's like to be quadriplegic. For a late 80's movie, the style of filming was well done, there is very little cheese, and the special effects didn't overreach.
The premise seems a bit farfetched to our currently more sophisticated and informed sense of what's possible on the genetic engineering front. After all, this movie was made 15 years ago. If Romero had gone with either a supernatural cause or a plain animal jealousy angle, it might be less dated, but then again it might have been a little less believable to begin with.
Not very horrific, not startling or scary, but worth seeing if you don't mind a slightly slow-paced thriller. I gave it a higher than average score (6 out of 10) just because it didn't make me say "oh, please!" too many times unlike other movies from that time--particularly horror films--are prone to do. For example, the pivotal moment is fully supported by plausible input earlier in the film, it's not one of those miraculous developments pulled out of nowhere in the last few seconds before the climax.
- Sleel
- 18 sep 2003
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Atracción diabólica
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productora
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 7,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 5,344,577
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 1,902,024
- 31 jul 1988
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 5,344,577
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was Monerías diabólicas (1988) officially released in India in English?
Responda