Sci Fi Channel first showed Blood Monkey on 27 January 2007.
Today is not a good day for psychotronic film. I planned to highlight Joe Bob Briggs. But I saw the trailer for Blood Monkey and it looked great. Frankly, I’d rather highlight films than people anyway. And we’ve had some great ones. This month we featured Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter and Monster from Bikini Beach. So I made a bet.
An hour and a half later, I thought Joe Bob Briggs was looking mighty good! This film is beyond tedious. When most people say a film is bad, what they mean is that it is unprofessional. That’s not me, of course. As the two films listed above illustrate, I find much to delight me in low- and micro-budget features. This film is different.
It is very professional. F Murray Abraham leads a good cast. Overall, the production is fine. And the special effects work well enough. The problem is an absolutely awful screenplay, despite Gary Dauberman co-writing it. There’s lots of fake conflict but nothing more. If it had been directed better, it might have worked. After all, director Robert Young has done good things. And he seems to be trying very hard to make this work. But the shaky cam and overuse of close-ups only make things worse.
Finally, the monsters are hidden throughout the film. And when it shows up, it looks like King Kong. It is the most boring reveal I’ve ever seen on film.
There is one idea in the film that is genuinely clever. The characters are all in their tents for the night. It starts raining. Or so we think. But it stinks. The monkeys are peeing on the tents! The problem is this scene is rendered in such a casual way with only an establishing shot that it doesn’t work at all. As a viewer, I thought, “That’s… Wait… Is that?! Oh, the monkeys are peeing on them.” But what are you gonna do when you can’t show the monkeys until the end?!
Many filmmakers delight us with a bit of creativity and pocket change. But Blood Monkey is as creative as a corporate merger. Doubt me? I dare you to watch it!
Blood Monkey (2007) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.
But what are the worst two? Can’t give us the tease without the answer!
Joe Bob is definitely an interesting, if frustrating, guy. His TNT MonsterVision show was a real highlight of my life one autumn. I was in-between colleges/jobs and living at home (briefly) with my Mom and two younger brothers, one in high school, and me + the high schooler were religious viewers of MonsterVision. It’d always be a normal movie for the first feature, then something stranger for the second. With all kinds of cool film history facts going into commercial breaks. I was kinda depressed at the time (24, back at home, looking for work), so that show was a godsend.
Later, Joe Bob would publish some excellent film history books (and I’m sure you know “Profoundly Disturbing”; I still have a copy). They didn’t sell well. Then he did a tech history book about Iridum satellite-com technology; it was very niche and sold less. Soon enough, Joe Bob started reviving his redneck character on right-wing websites that loved “reformed liberal who thinks the left is too PC” stuff (briefly, John Bloom had appeared on early Daily Show episodes mocking fundamentalist preachers). One website he was on had Kissinger on the masthead!
Apparently, he got COVID at one point and said he wished more people would just wear the damn masks, so he hadn’t completely drank the Kool-Aid. I wish the guy well. He cheered me up one time when I really needed it.
I thought I did!
I think JBB has always been a bit reactionary. And he isn’t terrible now. But he does highlight my own problem of being a liberal who likes the kinds of things reactionaries do. Regardless, he’s a smart guy with interesting film opinions. You can’t say that of many critics! (Although I might call him more of an appreciator than a critic!)
Too bad; Blackenstein is a good title! But Blacula is a better title.
I dunno about JBB/Bloom. He has always had a “real men don’t eat quiche” side. And there’s a shock jock side in “Joe Bob Goes to the Drive In” (which I still also have a copy of). But when MonsterVision did The War of the Worlds, he made the Wells point about genocide of native populations during the intro segments. (Which I had never thought about before I saw that MonsterVision episode; I actually learned something, and how often does that happen with m9st film commentary?)
And ultimately, if he took some reactionary website money, I’m still less pissed at him than I am at Taibbi. It’s one thing to sell out for money, if you need money. I’d probably do it. (Nobody’s offering.)
It’s another thing to sell out when you have money and you just want more attention. That’s the lowest of the low.