NOTE IMDb
6,2/10
13 k
MA NOTE
Un paraplégique est assisté par un petit singe dressé, jusqu'à ce que ce dernier commence à développer des sentiments, et de la colère, à l'encontre de son nouveau maître.Un paraplégique est assisté par un petit singe dressé, jusqu'à ce que ce dernier commence à développer des sentiments, et de la colère, à l'encontre de son nouveau maître.Un paraplégique est assisté par un petit singe dressé, jusqu'à ce que ce dernier commence à développer des sentiments, et de la colère, à l'encontre de son nouveau maître.
- Récompenses
- 7 victoires et 2 nominations au total
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThis 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 Crocodile Dundee II (1988), which had been released in theaters a month before this film, despite being shot a month after it.
- GaffesFisher 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.
- Citations
Geoffrey Fisher: You're a clinical cunt.
- Crédits fous"Introducing Boo as Ella"
- Versions alternativesEarlier 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.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Document of the Dead (1980)
Commentaire à la une
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.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 7 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 5 344 577 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 1 902 024 $US
- 31 juil. 1988
- Montant brut mondial
- 5 344 577 $US
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Incidents de parcours (1988) officially released in India in English?
Répondre