Add a Review

  • yicktar210 December 2003
    In 2003 "Lost in Translation" finally broke the mould of films that were nothing more or less than intense character studies. That film has a sheet-thin plot, and for an hour and a half an audience watches two actors (Scarlet Johannsen and Bill Murray) FORCE them to care about the social plights of two characters. "Inside Monkey Zetterland" takes a far quirkier approach to the concept of character study, and succeeds just as well. Perhaps it's no coincidence that Sofia Coppola, director of the former, has a supporting role in the latter. "Monkey" delivers an ensemble case of quirky characters in zany situations that allow them, through their own character study, to make the plot simply about PEOPLE.
  • storytym20 September 2001
    A boring, meaningless, self indulgent piece of tripe. Nothing's worse than a movie that thinks it is amusing and most certainly is not. Don't be misled by the promising cast--the actors here just prove that actors are nothing without a good script. And one thing this movie lacks is a good script. Stay far, far away from this waste of celluloid.
  • So this 1992 independent comedy was released on DVD a week or two ago and I thought I would check it out. Sad days for me, it blew. This is why independent film gets a bad rap, any dude with a lame idea can make a film with bad acting, worse writing and a silly plot. Not only did Steve Antin star in the film (his was the acting that was especially bad) he wrote the story, but he and the director must have had some connections, because they got loads of 2nd tier actors such as Patricia Arquette, Ricki Lake, Sandra Bernhard, Sofia Coppola, Tate Donovan, Rupert Everett (who did a good job) and other recognizable people to act in it. Did I say that the dialogue was especially bad? So Monkey wants to be a screenwriter, but his family is dysfunctional, and his sister has left her girlfriend, his mom is having a breakdown and they have rented a room to a dude and his angry, bulimic wife. This tries to be quirky, but compared to an off the wall excursion like "Little Miss Sunshine", it just ends up being annoying, up to and including the self-discovery at the end.

    This movie is like french fries and hamburger with squid ink ketchup. It looks pretty cool, black ketchup on the fries and on the hamburger, but tastes nasty. Trying to hard to be cool and edgy attention to taste was completely ignored, and when you bite into it, the squid ink flavor overpowers decent flavor of the fries or the burger. 2/10
  • Which explains a lot of the votes of "1"... Lou Pearlman (boyband daddy)executive produced and is in the first scene of this, one of my fave "bad" movies... it's not really bad but it is "out there." And star Steve Antin, who wrote and produced it, is very cute. The ensemble cast (check out the fire power) gamely gives their all and, like I said, you either go along for the ride or you don't. I did... and I still do every few months.
  • evilminx28 November 1999
    In the beginning one does not know what to think of this movie. It's the story of a man and his quest for well, you could say love, happiness, possibly just contentment and a career. His family is quite insane, although very intriguing. You slowly start to understand exactly where Monkey is coming from. Many great performances (Debi Mazar, Sandra Bernhard, Martha Plimpton) keep the movie flowing. The sense of humor in this film comes from conflicts with family and friends. By the unpredictable end your wondering why it's ending so quickly. I became absorbed by it, wanting to know more about the future of Monkey Zetterland.
  • So weird and quirky that you'll laugh until you cry... then you'll puke. :) Monkey is one of those films that you love or you hate. I love it and I make everyone I know watch repeatedly (and in turn they hate me for it). It's brilliant humor!