Entertaining show. I tore through it in 2 days- way quicker than I planned.

It's obviously not a documentary, but it's hard to walk away having any idea what really happened. You've got Ryan Murphy doing his typical dramatizations on top of the brothers' dramatizations, so there's a lot of layers of BS to wade through.

While I do believe some degree of abuse, sexual and otherwise occurred-I have a real hard time believing that an 18 yo athlete was still…doing the things claimed…with his dad at that age. I get that ep 5 was supposed to make me buy how ****ed up he was. But that just seems like really good writing/acting/dramatization.

$3 Sack of Groceries said:

---

I am near the end of the last episode. It's been incredible so far but holy hell, I can't be the only one who is just so put off by Nathan Lane and his character. The over the top narration of the situation his character provides in nearly ever seen is so ridiculous. And the latent homosexual tension that's present in those scenes….why?? It's doesn't add anything to the show. For the most part when he's doing those soliloquies at his dinner parties it's just utterly distracting and frankly comical. Really distracts from an otherwise fantastic show.

---

Do you not know who Dominick Dunne is? Lane's portrayal is spot on.

For real. Same as you about halfway through I realized what was actually going on and was just blown away and even more impressed. He absolutely should win some awards or something for that.

Glad others are agreeing with me and proving atmags snarky reply to be idiotic.

bonfarr said:

---

$3 Sack of Groceries said:

---

I am near the end of the last episode. It's been incredible so far but holy hell, I can't be the only one who is just so put off by Nathan Lane and his character. The over the top narration of the situation his character provides in nearly ever seen is so ridiculous. And the latent homosexual tension that's present in those scenes….why?? It's doesn't add anything to the show. For the most part when he's doing those soliloquies at his dinner parties it's just utterly distracting and frankly comical. Really distracts from an otherwise fantastic show.

---

Do you not know who Dominick Dunne is? Lane's portrayal is spot on.

---

I didn't know who he was, no.
I don't think you understood my critique.
It's the way the character is used. The narrator, the go between the show and the audience. I just didn't think THAT was done very well at all. It was just too blatantly in your face; as if the director just thought "let's make sure that the audience understands what I'm trying to get across and what the brothers may be thinking".
It definitely took me out of the show and reminded me I was on my couch whereas the rest of the show was completely engrossing and you could get "lost" in it.
Just my opinion. They vary.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

It was one take.

https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/monsters-episode-5-erik-menendez-single-take-1236155026/

---

I read that they filmed it 8 times. 4 times a day in two days. The one in the show was the final take.

You must be new to all things Ryan Murphy.

(Like the guy is very good, but it comes with the things.)

$3 Sack of Groceries said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

$3 Sack of Groceries said:

---

I am near the end of the last episode. It's been incredible so far but holy hell, I can't be the only one who is just so put off by Nathan Lane and his character. The over the top narration of the situation his character provides in nearly ever seen is so ridiculous. And the latent homosexual tension that's present in those scenes….why?? It's doesn't add anything to the show. For the most part when he's doing those soliloquies at his dinner parties it's just utterly distracting and frankly comical. Really distracts from an otherwise fantastic show.

---

Do you not know who Dominick Dunne is? Lane's portrayal is spot on.

---

I do don't know who he was, no.
I don't think you understood my critique.
It's the way the character is used. The narrator, the go between the show and the audience. I just didn't think THAT was done very well at all. It was just too blatantly in your face; as if the director just thought "let's make sure that the audience understands what I'm trying to get across and what the brothers may be thinking".
It definitely took me out of the show and reminded me I was in my couch whereas the rest of the show was completely engrossing and you could get "lost" in it.
Just my opinion. They vary.

---

It was an homage to Dunne's show. Power, Privilege, and Justice.

Haha! Fair enough.

Interesting. I appreciate your input. Genuinely.

$3 Sack of Groceries said:

---

Interesting. I appreciate your input. Genuinely.

---

Dominick Dunne was an interesting character. He started in Hollywood as a writer and producer working with some of the biggest stars of the 50s, 60s and into the 70s. Two of his kids were actors, you have probably seen his son Griffin in films in the 80s. They alluded to it in the Menendez series but his daughter was murdered by her boyfriend in 1982 as she was on the verge of being a major film star. If you have seen Poltergeist she was the teenage daughter that flipped off the construction workers. After his daughter's murder he became a successful writer with material usually coming from True Crime like the murder of his daughter and others that involved people in wealth and privilege.

Dunne was an eccentric and he described himself as a celibate bi-sexual. I thought they did a pretty good job of capturing his personality in the series.

$3 Sack of Groceries said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

It was one take.

https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/monsters-episode-5-erik-menendez-single-take-1236155026/

---

I read that they filmed it 8 times. 4 times a day in two days. The one in the show was the final take.

---

Yep. Incredible performances.

bonfarr said:

---

$3 Sack of Groceries said:

---

I am near the end of the last episode. It's been incredible so far but holy hell, I can't be the only one who is just so put off by Nathan Lane and his character. The over the top narration of the situation his character provides in nearly ever seen is so ridiculous. And the latent homosexual tension that's present in those scenes….why?? It's doesn't add anything to the show. For the most part when he's doing those soliloquies at his dinner parties it's just utterly distracting and frankly comical. Really distracts from an otherwise fantastic show.

---

Do you not know who Dominick Dunne is? Lane's portrayal is spot on.

---

The look, the voice, the mannerisms. It was PERFECT casting.

There is a reddit sub dedicated to this and holy crap they seem to think these guys are innocent in some way. Is that a real thing? I thought it was a foregone conclusion that they are guilty as hell. But I haven't looked into this case and have only seen the first episode of the show. That episode sure as hell made them look guilty.

Some abuse took place. I'll buy that.

How much abuse took place? That's unclear, and will never be clear.

Is abuse justification for blowing people's heads off? You can make your own decision as a juror there.

Do I believe that you were 18, 19, 20 years old and still living in the house with the dad who's trying to boink you? No. My belief runs out somewhere south of there. Where? IDK. But definitely somewhere south.

Los Angeles District Attorney Says He Is Reviewing Menendez Case

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/03/arts/menendez-brothers-district-attorney-los-angeles.html

Quote:

---

If (and I know it's a big if) abuse actually did take place, I say yes, the killing is justified.

---

So…why not go to the authorities?

We're talking about an 18 and 21 yo here. Not some children.

Diggity said:

---

Los Angeles District Attorney Says He Is Reviewing Menendez Case

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/03/arts/menendez-brothers-district-attorney-los-angeles.html

---

Interesting...

DG-Ag said:

---

Diggity said:

---

Los Angeles District Attorney Says He Is Reviewing Menendez Case

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/03/arts/menendez-brothers-district-attorney-los-angeles.html

---

Interesting...

---

One of the cousins testified during the trial that Erik had told him about the sexual abuse prior to the murders. That cousin died a few years back and the family let a journalist go through his stuff and they found a letter Erik wrote him when Erik was 12 telling him about the abuse.

That letter, along with the allegations made by former members of Menudo of sexual abuse by Jose Menendez is the new evidence being used to request a re-sentencing hearing.

The really effed up part is when they were re-tried for the last time, the CA Supreme Court ruled allegations of sexual abuse were inadmissible.

Didn't the female prosecutor argue that males couldn't be raped?

For me, there is a bit of nuance to this. Did they have the opportunity and means to separate themselves from the abuser? Was there imminent threat to them physically at the times of the murder?

If no to both, while I feel bad for them, and I think it should certainly affect their sentencing to a more lenient sentence, I do think they should have still seen jail time.

Otherwise, it'd be the equivalent of someone murdering a school bully who has beat up on them every other day for years, and then killing him while he's hanging out in the cafeteria clearly not posing a threat to them.

I haven't seen the doc but I'm old enough to remember and follow the original trial. I will check the show out but going in to it I always felt like they probably were indeed abused but also used that as an excuse to try to get away w it and get all the parents money. I thought something like 20 years w a chance for parole at 10 woulda been fitting.

G.I.Bro said:

---

Didn't the female prosecutor argue that males couldn't be raped?

---

Yes. She said they don't have the "right equipment" to be raped, or something like that.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

G.I.Bro said:

---

Didn't the female prosecutor argue that males couldn't be raped?

---

Yes. She said they don't have the "right equipment" to be raped, or something like that.

---

My response would have been, "If you have a hole, you can be raped."

I've treated patients that have gonorrhea in places you wouldn't believe. spoiler tag for those that don't mind the graphic nature of what I'm about to post > the usual places vagina/***** plus colostomy, urostomy, mouth, anus, eyes

Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:

---

For me, there is a bit of nuance to this. Did they have the opportunity and means to separate themselves from the abuser? Was there imminent threat to them physically at the times of the murder?

If no to both, while I feel bad for them, and I think it should certainly affect their sentencing to a more lenient sentence, I do think they should have still seen jail time.

Otherwise, it'd be the equivalent of someone murdering a school bully who has beat up on them every other day for years, and then killing him while he's hanging out in the cafeteria clearly not posing a threat to them.

---

Lol. That is not even close to the equivalent. Come on man.

For those of you arguing that they were abused and deserve leniency, what's keeping somebody from just claiming they were abused, telling a few friends, and then blowing their parents away?

No need to troll, it's very clearly a similar scenario from a legal standpoint. In both cases, real and theoretical scenario, there is years of abuse and a murder that occurs in an unprovoked situation with no clear evidence of an immediate threat to self.

What you are asking for is essentially legalizing extrajudicial execution, which is absurd, regardless of whether we believe the abuse story (which does legitimately have merit from what we know).

bonfarr said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

For those of you arguing that they were abused and deserve leniency, what's keeping somebody from just claiming they were abused, telling a few friends, and then blowing their parents away?

---

Well those people don't set up the murder by writing their cousin a letter describing the abuse 7 years in advance.

---

So wait 7 years until you are 18 and 21 (and can just leave) to blow their heads off? That makes it worse, IMO.

So is your argument that the parents should have suffered zero consequences for what they did?