Agrega una trama en tu idiomaTo spice up her ho-hum life, college senior Amy sleeps with Aaron and Dil, her two best friends since the 3rd grade. But her best-laid plans turn their perfect, if predictable, platonic tria... Leer todoTo spice up her ho-hum life, college senior Amy sleeps with Aaron and Dil, her two best friends since the 3rd grade. But her best-laid plans turn their perfect, if predictable, platonic triangle into a tangled web of supercharged emotions.To spice up her ho-hum life, college senior Amy sleeps with Aaron and Dil, her two best friends since the 3rd grade. But her best-laid plans turn their perfect, if predictable, platonic triangle into a tangled web of supercharged emotions.
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Elenco
Seamus Dever
- Aaron Miles
- (as Séamus Dever)
Woong-ki Min
- Mishnu
- (as Bianco Min)
Alesha Rucci
- Giggling Blonde
- (as Alesha Clarke)
Nancy Sánchez
- Deaf Woman
- (as Nancy Sanchez)
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
I found the box made the film more appealing than it actually is. The script is interesting if not resembling that of a soap opera.
Despite a hard attempt to watch this film, I eventually ended up discarding it for few reasons; It feels like a long soap opera with static, repetitive shots in over-lit sets (or what look like sets), and it's visually dull. Examples being that the colours often seem saturated and dull, while all possibilities for visually boosting the appeal of the film are ignored - even something as simple as altering the depth of field, which is almost always infinite and again, dull.
The sound is well recorded, crisp and clear but again lacking a certain something.
Above all, this feels very much like a student film: undeveloped, simple and shallow on many accounts. The writing, however, could possibly be the saving grace of the film were to be backed up with equally appealing direction, lighting, sound and editing.
This does appear to be a film made in the youth of the said director's career which could explain why it is how it is.
Despite my negative views, I can say that there are no, or not many errors with boom shadows, editing errors, continuity errors in the shots, narrative or lighting and it's obvious much care has been taken to avoid such issues.
As a film that has been placed in the genre of comedy, I feel it has been misplaced. This is a very performance orientated piece which would sit neatly in the genre of drama or docu-drama along side a short such as 'Tape'. With this possibility in mind, it could still be seen as a comedy from a narrative perspective.
I do feel though, that this film could be very useful in a learning environment as something for beginner to intermediate film students to critique as a piece that's not too complex in an particular way, as something at a quality to aim for when producing their first short.
I hope this is a useful review, and that I haven't overlooked the direction the makers were approaching this project from.
Despite a hard attempt to watch this film, I eventually ended up discarding it for few reasons; It feels like a long soap opera with static, repetitive shots in over-lit sets (or what look like sets), and it's visually dull. Examples being that the colours often seem saturated and dull, while all possibilities for visually boosting the appeal of the film are ignored - even something as simple as altering the depth of field, which is almost always infinite and again, dull.
The sound is well recorded, crisp and clear but again lacking a certain something.
Above all, this feels very much like a student film: undeveloped, simple and shallow on many accounts. The writing, however, could possibly be the saving grace of the film were to be backed up with equally appealing direction, lighting, sound and editing.
This does appear to be a film made in the youth of the said director's career which could explain why it is how it is.
Despite my negative views, I can say that there are no, or not many errors with boom shadows, editing errors, continuity errors in the shots, narrative or lighting and it's obvious much care has been taken to avoid such issues.
As a film that has been placed in the genre of comedy, I feel it has been misplaced. This is a very performance orientated piece which would sit neatly in the genre of drama or docu-drama along side a short such as 'Tape'. With this possibility in mind, it could still be seen as a comedy from a narrative perspective.
I do feel though, that this film could be very useful in a learning environment as something for beginner to intermediate film students to critique as a piece that's not too complex in an particular way, as something at a quality to aim for when producing their first short.
I hope this is a useful review, and that I haven't overlooked the direction the makers were approaching this project from.
My first impression watching Monkey Love was that the characters were shallow. Based mostly on excessive use of the "F" word, which is a little hard on my sensibilities. Ten minutes into the movie, I was hooked on the frustrations and feelings of young single people trying to cope with mixed emotions. There are a couple of insane characters in the movie and cuts to silent films, leading to a surreal emotional state in the middle of the show. I found the ending completely satisfying. Overall, I liked the film and came away well entertained and felt good.
I really wondered how this got made. The real genius here is the person that designed the DVD case. The producers owe all there money to this person. The Video would have been Awful but the writing got better. First video? What happened here, couldn't afford to do the transfer? The acting was questionable at best. The Girl (Amy Stewart)is cute, but in the beginning of the movie she had a whole different look. She got much better looking as the film went on. The one guy (Jeremy Renner) had this weird Corey Haim look but only if Corey Haim tried to look like James Dean. The sex scenes were videoed so bad, I wondered if the director ever saw a sex scene in a movie before.
Hmm.. A crazy film,.. music, editing, everything.. There were few moments when I wanted to fast forward but when the closing credits rolled I was smiling. A silly, light fun.
How can anyone say this film is good? It's not even film. It's video. And it sucked. The acting. Directing. Lighting. Everything. No wonder it doesn't have distribution. Everyone...please don't listen to the hype-machine written here, because it's most likely written by crew members from the film. They are lies. This movie screams of student film! DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaAlesha Rucci's debut.
- Versiones alternativasFor the 2005 DVD release some songs where changed in the final cut. And the Copyright Holder was changed to 2005.
- ConexionesFeatures The Perils of Pauline (1914)
- Bandas sonorasQu'est La Vie Sans Coeur
Words & music by Marlene Hajdu
McCormick's Last Chance Publishing, ASCAP
vocal: Rebecca Varon
producer: Marlene Hajdu
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
- Monos enamorados
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 36 minutos
- Color
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was Monkey Love (2002) officially released in Canada in English?
Responda