Blood Monkey (Video 2007) - Blood Monkey (Video 2007) - User Reviews - IMDb
Blood Monkey (Video 2007) Poster

(2007 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
31 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Blood maybe, monkeys not so much
gavin69422 December 2007
A group of students is summoned to assist a professor in exploring jungle regions never before touched by the human hand. But soon they learn about a whole new primate species that just might still be alive. After one of the students disappears, suspicions turn against the professor and the blood monkey begins his prowl.

Did you ever have a movie you just knew was going to be bad without giving it five minutes of a chance? This was one of those -- with a name like "Blood Monkey" and the fact it seems to be from the Sci-Fi Network, I had little hopes. Even the fact it's a "creature feature" is unfortunate, because those are so hard to make decent (I'm still recovering from "Prey"). And the selling point? It stars Oscar-winner F. Murray Abraham as Professor Hamilton.

Highlighting Abraham was a good idea, as he's really the only one in this film who has a real chance at another movie appearance. I'm just sad he had to sink this low to pay his rent. The only other character I really liked was student Sydney Maas (Laura Aikman), but this was more for her questionable attractiveness than any special talent.

As my title says, this film suffers from one big lack: the monkey. Every so often you'll get some blood and at one point there's an arm. But the monkeys are always in the distance, in the shadows and blurry, so they could be boars or lions or anything else. Even, perhaps, Dennis Franz. I really don't know. But have students get attacked by a creature, but never showing the creature attack, gets really old.

I don't know who would enjoy this film. I will say they paced the suspense out, so I never wanted to shut it off (which is more than I can say about a lot of movies). But others might not be so patient. With minimal action, minimal gore, no nudity... this is not the ideal horror film. Sometimes you can remedy that with solid writing ("The Beast Must Die!") but this film is a one sentence idea stretched to 90 minutes. You're better off watching reruns of "Murder, She Wrote".
18 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Only worth the viewing for F Murray Abraham
TheLittleSongbird24 July 2012
To be honest I wasn't expecting much from the production values or the story, but was expecting an actor of F Murray Abraham's calibre to maintain some interest. And actually, while the character and writing is beneath him( we are here talking about someone who in Amadeus gave one of the finest male performances I have seen on film), Abraham is by far the best thing about Blood Monkey, he does deserve credit for bringing some dignity to his performance. The other actors don't match him however, pretty-looking of course but they don't do anything beyond that, even being genuinely concerned about what was happening. They are not helped by their characters, which are not just stereotypical but made to do annoying things that you don't care for them one bit. The dialogue is very cheesy, while the story is increasingly dull and repetitive. The gore is minimal and pretty fake in look with the scenes they feature in unscary and suspense-less, while the effects are terrible and further cheapened by some of the most unfocused camera work and editing of any movies of this genre. Overall, other than Abraham Blood Monkey was an ugly, repetitive, annoying and very un-atmospheric mess. 2/10 Bethany Cox
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Another terrible 'Creature Feature'.
poolandrews3 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
BloodMonkey starts as five young promising students arrive at an isolated jungle location in the middle of nowhere, they are there at the request of scientist Conrad Hamilton (F. Murray Abraham) who has been exploring an untouched region of the forest, a large valley he has named 'Hamilton's Crater'. Despite a less than friendly atmosphere Hamilton convinces the teenage students to follow him into the uncharted jungle & valley where they are attacked by large Ape like creatures that have evolved independently by themselves isolated from the rest of the world in the valley. They are vicious predator's who don't seem to like human beings that much & like to kill us but Hamilton is determined to take a specimen back to civilisation & become famous & rich & all that sort of stuff, however the Apes have different ideas...

This straight-to-video/DVD Thai production was directed by Robert Young & as far as Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Features' go it's just as crap as most of the other's they see fit to subject the world to. The script takes ages to get going, in fact the first hour of BloodMonkey is total boredom as we follow these annoying American teenage students about & then there's the less than subtle ways in which Hamilton acts which just screams 'I'm the bad guy' (all he needed was a moustache to twirl) & the way that these dumb students still keep following him & trusting him. I thought these kids were meant to be clever? Eventually after what seems like an eternity the film kicks into gear & instead of seeing these annoying American teenagers walk around the jungle we get to see these annoying American teenagers run around the jungle! Wow, thanks guy's. The plot sucks too, it's dull, predictable & boring & if these killer Apes have never ventured beyond the valley why does that Chenne bird have to scare one away when the students first arrive? Also how does Hamilton expect to get one of those Ape things back to civilisation exactly? Why does Hamilton think he can capture one when these Ape things have killed everyone else who has gone anywhere near them? The character's are really annoying & it's a relief when they all get killed, you really will be rooting for the Monkey's here. To be fair I have no problem with feeding annoying teenagers to mutant Monkey's but this film proves it doesn't make for particularly good entertainment, sorry but it's true.

The entire film is set in the jungle & it gets a bit repetitive by the end. Unusually the monster in this 'Creature Feature' isn't shown until the very last scene in the film & to me just looked like a smaller King Kong than anything else, the rest of the time the makers hide it & it is not seen at all which either show's restraint on the makers part or the budget was so low they couldn't afford special effects. You decide. The film isn't scary or tense & there's not much of an atmosphere either, one could class BloodMonkey as much a thriller as horror I suppose. There's not much gore, there's some dead bodies, a bit of blood splatter, a bloody face, an impaling & a severed hand.

I am guessing the budget was pretty low & as such it looks unremarkable at best, shot in Krabi in Thailand probably at the same time as various other 'Creature Feature' films like The Hive (2008) about alien controlled killer Ant's. The acting isn't that good & I suspect Oscar winning actor F. Murray Abraham took the part for the free holiday in Thailand & why not?

BloodMonkey is yet another awful Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' that's just as bad as the rest of them, I have seen so many of these things they really are starting to get on my nerves. Don't waste your time or money on this, there is much better out there if you look.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Appalling found footage-style effort from the Sci Fi Channel
Leofwine_draca5 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
BLOOD MONKEY is yet another poor effort from the Sci-Fi Channel. I'm tired of watching all these crappy movies, but something propels me on – maybe I'm hoping to find another like the ONE decent effort I saw, which was AZTEC REX. BLOOD MONKEY isn't it; it's another film that's been made in the Thai jungle which is the sole redeeming feature of the production. Otherwise we're in extremely familiar territory as a group of youths are whittled down, one by one, by a mysterious, unseen killer in the jungle.

This film borrows heavily from the whole BLAIR WITCH PROJECT idea of using hand-held camera footage to enhance the immediacy of the horror. The problem is, this idea has literally been done to death now, so the twist ending isn't shocking but a rip-off and the hand held footage is just an over-laboured bore. The cast of nobodies are uniformly bad and don't get me started on the technical aspects; it's amateur night all around. F. Murray Abraham follows the tradition of once-great actors dragging their reputations through the mud and the monster is seen exactly once, in a single split second CGI shot at the end, where we find out it isn't a monkey at all but an ape. The scene in which the monkeys are urinating over the tents is one of the worst imaginable and even the gore effects amount to a single, albeit effective, makeup job. The rest is just noise and inanity, signifying nothing.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Another day another creature feature
filmnut111 August 2007
F. Murray Abraham pays the rent by lending his Oscar winning credibility to this routine creature feature. As a mad scientist type he joins an obligatory ensemble of bickering students as they wander around a forest in Thailand until its time for the creature to turn up. Its all very by-the-numbers and elderly film and TV veteran Robert Young keeps the quality reasonably high considering the limitations. Fans of the genre (a mainstay of the Sci-Fi Channel) will know what to expect, though this is of higher quality than many similar productions, but thats not saying much when a film displays not a single novel trait.
28 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Wanna See Multiple Scathing Reviews?
battyman128 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1. Look up whatever's next on Sci-Fi. (I use Zap2It, YMMV, it really doesn't matter.)

2. If it's not Stargate, and it is a movie, copy the title. If it's Stargate, or another TV program (not a movie), look down the schedule for the next movie and copy its title.

3. Go to IMDb and paste the aforementioned movie title into the search box (assuming you're too lazy to just type it. This also eliminates typos.)

4. (Maybe) pick the appropriate entry from a disambiguation list.

5. Scroll down to the bottom of the page where the review is, and hit the link that says: "More".

6. Presto. (No, slashdotters, there's no 'profit' step here. Move along.)

Really. Every movie I see on Sci-Fi is worse than the one before. In one, it's man-eating baboons. In this, it's man-eating - well, I'd say from the title monkeys, but it really could be just about anything, 'cause the production was _so_ cheap that we never got a decent look at it/them!

Oh, no, wait! There, we got _one_ good look, in the final second. OK. It _is_ a monkey. A big one.

Let's see if I can be more specific: the characters are a bunch of squealing twits whom we're glad to see die, the story is so formulaic it should have never been filmed, the cinematography is as bad and the special effects are about nonexistent. I mean one of the main ingredients of a creature feature is a creature, _some_ creature, preferably something scary. This is absent.

There. That's it.

Stupidest. Movie. Ever.

In fairness, there was _one_ good line: "My rappelling harness is riding up into... uh, someplace it _shouldn't_!"

I swear, they oughta call it the "Stupidity, Horror, and Sci-Fi Channel", because that's the order of their priorities.

PLEASE! CAN'T _SOMEONE_ MAKE THEM STOP?!

*** READ NO FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANNA SEE SPOILERS!!! YOU'VE BEEN WARNED! ***

It's apparently a gorilla with a brain far larger than a human's. Which means _nothing_, lots of animals have larger brains than people, it's brain / body size ratio that matters. Just one more technical detail they messed up. But this big brain supposedly makes it so smart that it easily hunts down and slaughters a pack of anthropology students. If it were _really_ so smart, it would have quit this stupid picture early on, much like the ape-man in MAD Magazine's parody of "2001". (Well, I guess that dates _me_, doesn't it?) In this case, slaughtering the students is no big thing, as they're all so ineffective that all they can do is scream a lot. In fairness to the script, it would be easy to suppose that this batch has been hand-picked by their Mad Professor as bait for a hunting expedition. The hunter, however, fares no better than the bait, despite being armed with a Kalashnikov. Neither does the Professor himself.

Amusing goofs:

Rappelling is about the easiest and funnest thing you can do in the mountains, other than, perhaps, sex with yer fellow hikers. Control is a no-brainer, and it's just not that scary. It's the climb _back_up_ that's a bummer.

When yer tent gets peed on by something with a stream the size of a garden hose, it's gonna be immediately obvious that it's _not_ rain, and it's _not_ somebody's filthy bandage on their sprained ankle, either.

When both sides of someone's chest are punctured, either from Kalashnikov fire or multiple wooden stakes, both lungs deflate and the subject does _not_ scream or talk. All they can do is die.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Two Veterans Make for a Fascinating Cinema Experience
jlthornb515 March 2015
Expertly directed by gifted, BAFTA nominated veteran Robert Young and highlighted by an outstanding performance by Oscar winning actor Abraham, this is a film that deserves to be enjoyed by a wider audience. It features as well a supporting cast of exciting young faces who we're sure to see much more of in the future. The special effects are lackluster due to budget constraints but Young uses his time honored skills to bring the thrills to life in spite of that. Abraham gives a subtly stunning characterization and while watching him work his magic, it is readily realized by any viewer that this is a true artist at work. Every moment he is on screen is mesmerizing and it is obvious why this is someone with an Academy Award for best actor on his night stand. The location shooting in Thailand is fresh and put to superb use and the cinematography is breathtaking. Unfortunately, the script is a bit weak but the actors overcome this through their burgeoning talent. Certainly a film worth seeing in order to see two cinema masters such as Robert Young and F. Murray Abraham work together so beautifully.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Fortunately, no CGI overkill here
unbrokenmetal18 February 2012
Most creature features recently had the same problem: extensively showing creatures that look computer generated from a mile. In that respect, 'Blood Monkey' is much better, because it doesn't show the monkeys through 95 pct of the running time. Suspense is created successfully, because the characters only know something is lurking in the jungle, but they have no idea how dangerous it actually is. This is closer to the 1940s horror movie style than the current gore-in-your-face flicks which leave nothing to imagination. I also liked the location in Thailand, it provides a convincing background.

On the other hand, the movie has serious flaws. To name a few: the video camera thing, one actor filming the others, which has been done to death in the past decade. Story logic - for example, why do they go hunting with only one huntress and one gun, I'd have armed myself to the teeth if I were in the professor's place? Briefly, there is some irrational behaviour to the point it's sometimes annoying, such as the students buying cheap excuses, and some of the young actors appear to be quite amateurish, anyway, but I realise it is a tough job for them to play next to an F M Abraham.

To sum it up, the movie was not extraordinary, but at least better than I expected from the other reviews around here, and more interesting than various recently released shark, crocodile or piranha flicks. I voted 5/10.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Poorly thought-out
Si_m00710 December 2007
It is a poor film, but it can be watched - more either while away the time, or as an example of how not to do things. Mr F is the only watchable actor, but his efforts are barely worth the film that it is in. Who puts good wine into a mug??? The film lacks tension - and as such it is not a 'whole film' - the lighting, music, atmosphere, do not co-conspire to create a tense environment - there is no 'mood' to the film which keeps the viewers locked in.

I also felt it quite blatantly stole from other films - 'Blair witch' and 'The Descent' in particular - most clearly toward the end, when the film decides it is obviously bored of its current direction and wishes to go off elsewhere following the lead of other, better films.

The young student actors are all pretty - (which is somewhat surprising since they are supposed to be anthropology student...) and none really leave a lasting impression aside from their good looks.

This was clearly a low budget film, with the monsters staying out of eye-sight until the end of the film (which could well have been a good move considering the paltry CGI employed).
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Yet another made-to-order monster movie.
Hey_Sweden30 March 2019
A team of students travel to the African jungle to assist a renowned scientist named Hamilton (F. Murray Abraham). He thinks he's found something very important: evidence of the existence of a primate with tremendous brain capacity. He will let nothing stand in the way of his agenda. Naturally, the giant ape soon makes its presence known, and then it's open season on Various Expendable Characters.

It becomes clear early on that these young supporting cast members lack any interesting features. So the viewer is already primed and ready to hope for lots of casualties. The trouble is, "Bloodmonkey" isn't even bad enough, or funny enough, to qualify as entertainment if you approach it as typical modern cheese. Mostly, it's just dull, with the filmmakers supposedly making the smart move of never showing the ape (it's largely inferred through vocalizations on the soundtrack, and "Bloodmonkey" p.o.v. shots). The film certainly LOOKS great, having been shot on location in Thailand, but it's atmosphere wasted on a nondescript cast and an uninspired script.

Selling points are few. Seeing Oscar winner Abraham in this sort of rent-paying gig is amusing, and he gives a genuinely enthusiastic performance that outclasses the rest of the film. Also of interest is Prapimporn Kanjunda, cast as Abrahams' henchwoman who revels in evil doings, setting up characters to be bait for the monster.

"Bloodmonkey" features some gore, but maybe not enough to sate the appetites of some viewers. Of course, the young cast members are attractive, but that still doesn't mean that one really cares about their characters.

Unless you're curious about Abrahams' presence, this is *definitely* one feature you can easily skip.

Four out of 10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Anyone rating more than 1 is dating the "stars"
RogerBorg21 December 2009
On a scale of "Good" -> "Bad" -> "So bad it's good", I have to rate this waste of digital video tape as "A Waste of Digital Video Tape".

"Blood Monkey" lacks two things: Blood, and a Monkey. It has one Name, and a bunch of waiter-slash-actors doing the biggest and best movie they'll ever be in.

And that's two truly sad things. One: that there are people in Hollywood who are desperate enough to be cast in a Waste of Digital Video Tape like this, and two: that there's apparently nobody better available. I jest not - every "actor" in this piece should be wearing a name tag, because it's otherwise impossible to remember who they are from one cut to the next. It's a positive relief when they are mercifully dispatched by the makeup department, and a shame that they're not put out of our misery sooner.

Everything about this disaster is amateur hour. Script, cinematography, editing, score, everything. Nobody working on it gave a Goddamn about this movie. The utter contempt for the viewer just spurts out of the screen in every scene.

Don't watch this, no matter how bored you are. Watch anything - except the Star Wars Holiday Special - instead of this. Yes, anything, including Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park. That's how bad we're talking.

And if you rate this higher than a 1? God have mercy on your soul, because no mortal will.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Would've been fine with an imposing monster
Arriving in Africa to explore a previously unexplored section of the jungle, anthropology students realize that the whole trip was a trap in order to gather bait for a race of ferocious, highly-developed apes and try to get out of the jungle alive.

This here was a little disappointing, but still managed to get some good parts to it. One of the biggest marks here is the fact that the jungle here has a really great atmosphere that really helps to up the tension, at times really bearing down into an oppressive force that really highlights the ominous feeling quite nicely, especially the beginning of the trek through the jungle or the later scenes of them searching that really helps the film turn out to be pretty tense when it tries. There's also some fun to be had with the ending half, with its action, chases and everything else fun about it. The chase through the woods is intense, marked by the repeated use of trying to get to safety while trying to remember a trick done earlier, the encounter in the cave is just tops with the whole thing being done through night-vision goggles and having a bunch of large shocks, a fantastic conclusion and some more fun to be had, and it comes from the heels of a spectacular series of scenes in the jungle to make it all the better. There's also some really nice gore in here that comes from its' nice kills from the couple of brutal scratches, part of the face bitten off, a couple violently beaten and dragged away, as well as a spike-trap that punctures through the back to make for a rather nice surprise. These are enough to hold off the few flaws in here. One of the biggest issues here is the extended amount of time spent on showing their trek into the area which is just way too overlong to really amount to a lot of interest in the first half. It's filled with such droning and endless scenes of the group just wandering around in the jungle that there's about half the time devoted to just meandering around while the professor begins endlessly going off about their research or the other ravaged campsite yet none of this really does anything toward generating a good pace. This one here doesn't have much action until the half-way point as it saves most of that until the final minutes, but it feels really dull for large portions of time because it follows those weird pacing patterns. The other big flaw here is the fact that, like just about every single one of the Sci-Fi Channel's creature features, the fact here is that the monster is done through really terrible CGI. The shots of the ape are just plain terrible, looking like they were done on an obsolete computer from decades ago simply days before it was put together, and it offers up absolutely nothing in terms of being fearful of the creatures. What makes them even worse is that this is only accomplished through one shot at the end, comprising all of ten seconds of the film's time. That's all that's shown of the creature, beyond a flash here or there of a hairy arm or a large body moving through the distance. It's hard to get over this, and as a result, the movie really fails at times.

Rated R: Graphic Violence and Graphic Language.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Don't look now there's a monkey on your back....
FlashCallahan25 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
When six students discover a species of killer chimps, they are assured by their professor of rightful credit.

But a study in animal behaviour soon turns into a game of survival in a ruthless jungle......

Am I the only one who says 'F Murray Abraham' in their head in the voice of Homer Simpson?

I've had this problem ever since that episode aired, but it makes me want to see everything with him in it, and I love everything that he has been in. T's pretty odd, I must confess, but then some people collect shoehorns.

The film is nothing to write home about, even though I'm literally doing that right now. Abraham takes a group of students into a forest to find something that will do something for someone. It's purely narrative filler, because we haven't come to this movie for the plot, we've come to see it because it has killer monkeys, F Murray Abraham, and in the most brilliant piece of film i have ever seen, someone turning a light on and off to depict lightning.

It's not good, the acting is terrible, but F. Murray Abraham boosts this film, to make it the camp cheesy film that it is.

Funny, for all the wrong reasons.....
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
BloodMonkey (2007)
SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain17 January 2012
A film so stupid there are no monkeys in sight. There are apes, which look like your average CGI gorillas. That is to say, not too impressive. Just use people in suits if they are average sized gorillas. The film has a cast of annoying characters, from the whiny monkey fodder, to ACADEMY AWARD WINNING F. Murray Abraham pretty much screaming "I'm a psychopath". It's annoying and confusing, especially the urinating scene. The monkey/apes/whatevers are disappointingly absent throughout the entire film. They manage to show up just in time for a five second shot, in a Blair Witch style ending. It's a shame the film forgot the monkeys and the fun.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good movie, bad script
peterzanetti28 February 2008
Almost every aspect of this movie could be better, but overall its worth a horror movie one- time watch. Scary enough for some to keep you at least riveted throughout. Shot entirely in the bush in Thailand, its gives you a real feel for the environment as you are not frequently whisked away by some annoying sub-plot, or worse, the dreaded above-all-else, behind-the-scenes plot.

The cast / acting is actually very good IMO, however the written plot did not do the actors justice. They often make decisions that real individuals would not, could not, conceivably do, and they are the decisions that drive the entire course of the film. But alas, that is horror. People make ghastly decisions and get killed for it.

Watch this movie once, you won't be too disappointed.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Go Monkey Go
Michael_Elliott29 October 2010
Blood Monkey (2007)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Yet another Creature Feature from the Sci-Fi Channel. This one here has six Americans going into the jungles of Africa where they meet up with Professor Hamilton (F. Murray Abraham). The Professor has been doing research on various monkeys and thinks he has discovered a location where extremely large ones live but soon when the group is on their land the creatures attack. The more of these films I watch the more certain I'm becoming that not much really changes from one to the next with the exception being whatever monster they decide to show. As usual we get the typical stereotypes going into the jungle and of course becoming victims. I don't mind these groups going to get slaughtered but I do wish that if the screenplay wants them to be smart and intelligent doctors or brain surgeons then the actors should at least make us believe these characters. As usual we got the idiots you'd expect to see in a film like this and of course they make one mistake after another and this eventually leads to their deaths. I think the biggest problem with this film is that it takes forever to get going. We get a pretty gory attack to start the film and then that's pretty much it for the next hour as we get to know our Americans as well as the doctor. We spend a hour getting to know them yet we really don't get to know anything about them because their "character development" is about as lame as some of the acting. It goes without saying but you really don't expect to see someone like Abraham in a movie like this but he appears to be giving it his all even though I'm sure he was just picking up a paycheck. I'll admit that seeing him come across this gory battlefield and just kicking body parts around made me laugh. The creature here is 100% CGI and looks terrible. I think a lot of people are going to be upset that the creature doesn't appear too often but then again, once you do see it you might want it to just stay away.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Da Huh Another Sci-Fi Hit Me In The Head PLEASE Movie
hegan195627 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Lets strike up the band people, another Sci-Fi Channel ho-hum movie. I rated it as a 4 as it wasn't the worst of the movies they've done nor was it their best. It had fair acting from F. Murray Abraham that plays the over the hill mad professor of Anthropology that has discovered an extremely brutal smart anthropoid. He leads a group of students that by appearances think they are going to "Safari Land," on a misguided search into the deep jungle to find the creatures with disastrous results. The premise and the storyline of the movie works for me as well any Horror/Sci-fi/Action flick. The problem is with the direction and acting of the actors that leave so much to be desired. The characters were very shallow and that is the director and writer's job to fill in the, "Why we are so dumb," story that makes sense. Otherwise we wind up with a movie like "Bloodmonkey," with so-called smart students doing the most gullible dumbest things and acting like high school morons with an IQ of 80. If Sci-Fi could figure out a simple premise that all students on digs, research or hunts are not shallow blithering morons, it would go a long way to making their movies a lot better.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
One Word: Disappointing
nater300025 May 2019
A movie called Bloodmonkey (or Blood Monkey as it is written on my dvd copy) sounds like a schlocky, terrible, but ultimately entertaining attempt at creature feature. Throw in F. Murray Abraham trying his hardest to look like Fidel Castro, the guy who played Constantine on TV, and some terrible special effects, and you have the perfect Best of the Worst type of film.

Instead, we get an hour and 20 minutes of almost nothing, followed by 6 minutes of something, and 5 seconds of the actual 'Blood Monkey', which looks like a 5th grader used an online animation program to make King Kong, and believe it or not, those 5 seconds are the only moments we actually see the titular creature.

A couple of laughs were had, I will admit. This is filled with some terrible dialogue and editing choices, including a scene that I think they just forgot to record sound effects for, some dropped audio, and even a couple of blank frames. I spent a dollar on this since the title was funny and the cast was interesting, and if you can sit through terrible characters and sub-amateur filmmaking, you might enjoy this. If not, you'll likely end up like me; disappointed.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not a particularly exciting creature feature...
paul_haakonsen9 October 2020
Well, this 2007 addition titled "Bloodmonkey" for the Man-Eater series wasn't really all that great. Sure, it was a watchable movie, but it wasn't great.

The storyline told in "Bloodmonkey" was pretty much straight forward. In fact, it was so straight forward that the movie became very predictable. You knew what would happen some time before it happened, but yeah, the movie gave the audience very few surprises along the way.

For a creature feature then "Bloodmonkey" didn't really fare all that well. And when you sit down to watch these movies, you kind of want to see the creatures up close and personal, don't you? I know I do. And this is where "Bloodmonkey" failed miserably, because the monkeys were hardly ever to be seen in the movie. And when you did, it was mostly through their point of view, a camera angle with a red lens for effect. Yeah, that was about it.

Oh, and some very shoddy CGI animated monkeys here and there. That didn't really do much for the movie, now did it?

Initially I was a bit thrilled to see F. Murray Abraham was on the cast list, as he usually tends to bring something enjoyable to the movie. And yeah, he did that here in "Bloodmonkey" as well, given the role and character he was portraying.

I am rating "Bloodmonkey" a rather generous four out of ten stars. I think the movie was watchable, and semi-entertaining, you just shouldn't be expecting too much from writers George LaVoo and Gary Dauberman. This is the type of movie that you will watch once and then never return to it a second time.

If you enjoy the Man-Eater series of movies with ferocious creatures, perhaps you might find some enjoyment in this 2007 movie.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Some blood, but the monkeys for the most part are MIA
Woodyanders21 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Crazy Professor Hamilton (a lively performance by F. Murray Abraham) leads a group of young American college students deep into the jungle in search of a tribe of primates that are rumored to be the missing link.

Sound good and exciting? Well, it just ain't. For starters, director Robert Young relates the by-the-numbers predictable story at a plodding pace as well as crucially fails to generate any essential tension or creepy atmosphere. Worse yet, the blah script gets bogged down in a numbing surplus of tedious talk, the red-tinted blood monkey POV shots are super cheesy, there's a shopworn found footage hook (yawn!), the briefly glimpsed titular monkeys are rendered with extremely cruddy CGI effects, and we even get an unintentionally hilarious scene with the monkeys urinating all over tents (don't ask). Only Abraham brings some much-appreciated energy to this inert lump of a movie. Despite some decent gore and beautiful Thailand jungle locations, this clunker overall rates as a steaming pile of what the proverbial monkey does behind a tree.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
What a mess!
swedzin17 October 2010
Funny, lame and stupid! Nothing to say more about this dreadful film about some college students traveling to the woods of Thailand to discover a new species of large ape and what CGI ape that was!!! All the students were impossible!! Some of them are annoying some of them were boring, and for God's sake... these actors, were really annoying with their British accent, they just couldn't perform it like real British actors, these didn't have a proper acting training, sweet Jesus! Unknown Z actors, leaded by... by... once a great A actor, and he is still great, but poor hell, how the hell he ended up here...? F. Murray Abraham, why?! How come that you ended up in this pyle of monkey turd!? He tried, he tried to give us some performance of eccentric, crazy primate scientist, but with his British accent, the entire fuc*king movie was about competition "Who Has the Best British Accent"... oh... for the... A real mess, real mess... If you see it in the video store... skip it and take the next stupid film. This one is not worth of your time.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Robert Young - the director...not the actor!
it001k030629 January 2009
This film is directed by the Hammer Horror and British television veteran director Robert Young, not the actor, so the facts are right if you check thoroughly enough. As such, poor film or not, I say that we should be glad that those who provided top class efforts in their youth (and ours) are still working, albeit not in the classy productions that they might wish. I'd sooner Robert Young directed this than not direct at all. I have happy memories of 'Vampire Circus' and 'Charlie Boy' from the dear old Hammer House and I have plenty of good things to say about the TV shows the guy directed, including Minder, GBH and Jeeves and Wooster. Okay, so this is typical exploitation crap, but it is an item of interest through its director's heritage.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wow, you really embarrassed yourself, xminusone!
maxim311 November 2007
Is it beyond the realm of possibility that there may be more than one Robert Young? You are correct in the fact that Robert Young is not listed in the cast - however, he is the director of the film. No, Robert Young did not come back from the dead to direct it, there are actually 18 Robert Young's listed in IMDb. I do have to say that this review section proved to be more exciting than the film. xminusone, please , before railing somebody else's opinion, do your due diligence by at least reading some of the credits first. Nice review Richard! Keep up the good work. F Murray Abraham's performance is well done, but that is to be expected. I have to agree that this film seems to be one step above the usual Sci Fi junk (ie anything starring Lorenzo Lamas).
10 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Average in every-way
elliott7821224 October 2014
Matt Ryan star of the new Constantine TV series and F. Murray Abraham in a SyFy creature of the week while this has some better production values, well known TV director and an Oscar winning actor it also has a not so great script several poorly talented actors but to my surprise watched start to finish its a little slow getting started , passable entertainment for a late night or rainy day. When compared to some of the more recent films on SyFy its better than many. Shot on location in Thailand not some cheesy set or awful CGI. Average acting, so so storytelling, same goes for direction, beautiful jungle location, lacking suspense or many scares but better than watching wallpaper dry.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Jolly Good Fun
whut-19 March 2008
As an insomniac I tend to be awake late at night. Oftentimes this is simply a thorn in my side, but on certain occasions it's a blessing in disguise. One such occasion was the other night when, overcome by an inability to sleep, I turned on the television and stumbled across the film BloodMonkey. The opening, I will admit, made me skeptical as to what the quality of the film would be, but once the film started, I was hooked. Granted, at times the film is campy, but it's held together by strong dialogue and performances that truly develop the characters. The actors are all young, yet they nail the accents they put on; I was convinced that Seth was actually either Scottish or Spanish until I checked out his IMDb page! Not only are the performances well played, but the film-making itself is quite good. The suspense is truly tangible. After about and hour and fifteen minutes of nothing happening, I was on my seat waiting for the next development. As a man with some connections, I was able to get a hold of the script. I was blown away by what the filmmakers did with it! It truly is amazing to think about...
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed