joao_mendes7839
Joined Jan 2014
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews55
joao_mendes7839's rating
After the controversial release of Longlegs, which served as a gateway to Oz Perkins' filmography for many, the director returns with The Monkey, a film that flirts with horror but doesn't decide between genres. Unlike its predecessor, this new project sees itself as a work of horror with touches of comedy, seeking to deliver a hybrid experience to the viewer. At the center of this story, Theo James takes center stage, marking his most prominent role since his participation in the series Crime Magnates. However, even with his dedicated performance, the actor doesn't have much material to work with, as his character gets lost in the middle of a disjointed script and poorly developed human relationships.
Oz Perkins, known for his peculiar aesthetic and attempts at innovation within the genre, once again takes a risk by experimenting with new approaches to horror. However, the lack of balance between the genres becomes a major problem. While Longlegs deceived the viewer by selling a pure horror proposal and delivering something much more introspective, The Monkey doesn't hide its mix with comedy from the outset. The problem is that, contrary to what you might expect, this fusion of tones doesn't work cohesively. The terror is lost, leaving only a few well-orchestrated death sequences that, although creative, aren't enough to sustain interest in the narrative.
The film's biggest problem is its tonal inconsistency. Perkins tries to balance humor and horror, but ends up damaging the experience by failing to dose these elements correctly. The result is a work that strives to seem innovative, but in practice can't make up its mind which way to go. The script, which already showed obvious flaws in Longlegs, sinks even lower here. What should be an original and invigorating horror is lost in a script that lacks cohesion and character development.
What's more, the relationships in The Monkey are so poorly constructed that many interactions sound artificial and uninteresting. The characters are one-dimensional and their dynamics lack depth, making it difficult for the audience to get emotionally involved. Even the moments that should have an emotional impact are lost due to performances that, although trying, are not supported by the script. Theo James even tries to add dramatic weight to his character, but runs up against the limitations of the material at hand, delivering a generic and forgettable performance. Not even his talented co-star manages to save the movie from its own disastrous fate.
In the end, The Monkey struggles to justify itself. The film fails to balance humour and terror, resulting in an experience that doesn't scare, entertain or revolutionize the genre, as Perkins seems to believe. Compared to Longlegs, there is a clear technical regression: even the setting and photography, points that used to stand out, seem to have been erased here. In the end, The Monkey fails to be innovative and ends up becoming a spectacle of creative fatalities that, although stylized, are not enough to sustain a film with such an inconsistent narrative. What could have been a new breath of fresh air for horror ends up feeling like a waste of potential.
Oz Perkins, known for his peculiar aesthetic and attempts at innovation within the genre, once again takes a risk by experimenting with new approaches to horror. However, the lack of balance between the genres becomes a major problem. While Longlegs deceived the viewer by selling a pure horror proposal and delivering something much more introspective, The Monkey doesn't hide its mix with comedy from the outset. The problem is that, contrary to what you might expect, this fusion of tones doesn't work cohesively. The terror is lost, leaving only a few well-orchestrated death sequences that, although creative, aren't enough to sustain interest in the narrative.
The film's biggest problem is its tonal inconsistency. Perkins tries to balance humor and horror, but ends up damaging the experience by failing to dose these elements correctly. The result is a work that strives to seem innovative, but in practice can't make up its mind which way to go. The script, which already showed obvious flaws in Longlegs, sinks even lower here. What should be an original and invigorating horror is lost in a script that lacks cohesion and character development.
What's more, the relationships in The Monkey are so poorly constructed that many interactions sound artificial and uninteresting. The characters are one-dimensional and their dynamics lack depth, making it difficult for the audience to get emotionally involved. Even the moments that should have an emotional impact are lost due to performances that, although trying, are not supported by the script. Theo James even tries to add dramatic weight to his character, but runs up against the limitations of the material at hand, delivering a generic and forgettable performance. Not even his talented co-star manages to save the movie from its own disastrous fate.
In the end, The Monkey struggles to justify itself. The film fails to balance humour and terror, resulting in an experience that doesn't scare, entertain or revolutionize the genre, as Perkins seems to believe. Compared to Longlegs, there is a clear technical regression: even the setting and photography, points that used to stand out, seem to have been erased here. In the end, The Monkey fails to be innovative and ends up becoming a spectacle of creative fatalities that, although stylized, are not enough to sustain a film with such an inconsistent narrative. What could have been a new breath of fresh air for horror ends up feeling like a waste of potential.
The movie doesn't disappoint. I thought it was fantastic! It's a perfect continuation of the first. Of course, it has its flaws and exaggerations, but let's not be perfectionists and just enjoy a good slasher movie.
I thought it was really spectacular. Mia Goth is once again perfect. There are heavy scenes and many of them are well-crafted. There are Tarantino-esque scenes. It couldn't be better. I really enjoyed it.
Slash and serial killers at their best, and it's very clever. It even has the part that horrifies me, which is the religious part. But I won't be a spoiler.
Anyone who says anything bad about it certainly doesn't have the whole story of the first one in mind. I even liked this one better than Pearl (the second movie).
I thought it was really spectacular. Mia Goth is once again perfect. There are heavy scenes and many of them are well-crafted. There are Tarantino-esque scenes. It couldn't be better. I really enjoyed it.
Slash and serial killers at their best, and it's very clever. It even has the part that horrifies me, which is the religious part. But I won't be a spoiler.
Anyone who says anything bad about it certainly doesn't have the whole story of the first one in mind. I even liked this one better than Pearl (the second movie).
Yeesh.... The first 7-10 minutes.... Sigh. God love Mel Gibson for trying to make this story believable, and sadly... it is a true story. A story worthy of a much more realistic, passionate representation. The rest of the cast, with a couple of exceptions, were mediocre at best. Cringe worthy, head shaking and WTH moments... I blame the director, whom I've never heard of. I know, I know, everyone's got to start somewhere. So many errors in blocking, lighting, and interpretation of the script. Hey writers, you're not getting out of this unscathed either. Did it not occur to you to step in and save your story?!! This was a train wreck...
Surround 2 or 3 good actors with a cast of absolutely terrible actors and this is what you get. It is hard to watch a times, especially when you watch a conversation with a capable actor performing their lines only for them to be followed up by 50 Cent's (or one of the many other horrible actors) terrible acting skills whose only accomplishment is to break any type of immersion that the movie might had going for it in the moment. Again, it's just this type of situation over and over again for just over 90 minutes.
Surround 2 or 3 good actors with a cast of absolutely terrible actors and this is what you get. It is hard to watch a times, especially when you watch a conversation with a capable actor performing their lines only for them to be followed up by 50 Cent's (or one of the many other horrible actors) terrible acting skills whose only accomplishment is to break any type of immersion that the movie might had going for it in the moment. Again, it's just this type of situation over and over again for just over 90 minutes.