In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

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

The Robert Young the reviewer is talking about is the director. He's listed as Robert Young (III) in the database - not the Robert Young you're talking about in your post.It's an understandable mistake.This movie was standard fair and hardly worth watching.I have no real review to make of the film. It's not worth making a review of the movie or watching the movie even if it's a rainy day and you have nothing to do. There should be a way of responding to comments without typing a lot of 'filler', but I don't know what it is. Sorry for posting all this,but it won't accept my response to 'xminusone' without a lot of words.

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.

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).