kelseyvsy This film was... Different. The way it was shot was boring and even annoying. The lines were cliché, or even one step above of that, because it was truly awful. I didn't get how her relationship with her parents pertained to the story. But I love love love Jeremy Renner and Seamus Dever... So I was completely willing to overlook this because it was their early works and they are both onto bigger and better things. Not decent, not OK, but it was there, so I watched it. Probably, most defiantly, won't watch it again. There are better Jeremy Renner films that he did before his "big break", like Dahmer or Neo Ned. And watch Seamus on Castle. Much better options than this. So I give this four stars, two stars for Jeremy, and two more for Seamus.

suzy-reynolds The acting was actually pretty good. But, the movie sucked donkey balls. And let's be honest, who just watched this to see gorgeous Jeremy Renner back in the day? I did! But yeah, it's a total student film. The camera quality is awful and editing is terrible. Whoever cast the actors did a good job, though.I have no idea who that girl was. Pretty forgettable.And Jeremy looks bangin'. As always.And Aron was cute, in a nerdy sort of way.And that's all that really matters.

loopycooper 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.

normsmith2 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.