Ryan Murphy has a way of making people uncomfortable. He did it with Jeffrey Dahmer, and honestly, he did it even more aggressively with Netflix Monster Season 2. This time, the focus shifted from a lone serial killer to a family tragedy that defined the 1990s: the case of Lyle and Erik Menendez.
People are still talking about it.
It isn't just because of the acting, which was incredible, but because the show forced everyone to re-examine a case we thought was closed decades ago. You’ve probably seen the TikToks or the news clips. The brothers are back in the cultural zeitgeist, and this time, the public's reaction is wildly different than it was during their first trial in 1993.
The Messy Reality of The Menendez Brothers Story
When we talk about the second installment of the Monster anthology, titled Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story, we’re looking at a narrative that refuses to pick a side. It’s frustrating. Some viewers wanted a clear-cut "they were victims" story, while others wanted a "they were cold-blooded killers" documentary. Murphy gave us both, often in the same episode.
The core of the show explores the night of August 20, 1989. That’s when Jose and Kitty Menendez were shot in their Beverly Hills mansion. Most of us know the basic facts. The brothers claimed they acted in self-defense after years of horrific sexual and emotional abuse. The prosecution, however, argued they were just rich kids who wanted their father’s $14 million fortune.
What Netflix Monster Season 2 does—sometimes brilliantly and sometimes controversially—is present multiple "truths."
One moment, you're watching a harrowing, single-take episode of Erik (played by Cooper Koch) describing his father's abuse. It’s gut-wrenching. Koch’s performance is so raw it feels intrusive to watch. Then, a few episodes later, the show suggests the brothers might have been more manipulative than they let on. This "Rashomon-style" storytelling is why the show received so much backlash from the actual Menendez family and their supporters.
Erik Menendez himself released a statement from prison, calling the show a "dishonest portrayal" that took the narrative back to an era where the idea of male sexual abuse was treated with skepticism or outright mockery. It’s a valid point. For a show released in the mid-2020s, some of the psychological theories presented feel a bit dated, or at least intentionally provocative.
📖 Related: Big Brother 27 Morgan: What Really Happened Behind the Scenes
Why This Season Hit Differently Than Dahmer
The first season was about a predator. Netflix Monster Season 2 is about a family. That's a huge distinction.
With Dahmer, there was no "other side" to the story. He was a monster. Period. But with Lyle and Erik, the "monster" label is applied to everyone in the house at different times. Was Jose the monster? Was Kitty’s complicity the real horror? Or did the brothers become monsters to escape their environment?
The show leans heavily into the excess of the late 80s. We see the Rolexes, the shopping sprees, and the private tennis coaches. It’s easy to see why a 1990s jury, struggling through a recession, found it hard to sympathize with two kids spending thousands of dollars on cars and clothes while their parents were barely in the ground.
But our understanding of trauma has changed.
Back then, "Battered Person Syndrome" was barely understood, especially regarding men. Today, the conversation is different. The show captures this friction perfectly. It contrasts the flashy, cynical media circus of the 90s with the deeply private, traumatic memories the brothers shared.
The Casting and the Controversy
Let’s be real: Nicholas Alexander Chavez and Cooper Koch carried this show. Chavez’s Lyle is a vibrating wire of anxiety and bravado, sporting a hairpiece that becomes a literal metaphor for the lies within the family. Javier Bardem and Chloë Sevigny as the parents are, frankly, terrifying. Bardem plays Jose as a man who viewed his family as a business he had to manage with an iron fist.
There’s a specific scene—the one where the toupee is ripped off—that basically sums up the entire series. It’s about the loss of dignity and the shattering of a "perfect" image.
👉 See also: The Lil Wayne Tracklist for Tha Carter 3: What Most People Get Wrong
However, the inclusion of Dominick Dunne’s perspective (played by Nathan Lane) adds a layer of "true crime as entertainment" that meta-critics both loved and hated. Dunne was the one who helped turn the trial into a soap opera for the Vanity Fair crowd. By including him, Murphy is almost admitting that we, the audience, are part of the problem. We’re watching a tragedy as if it’s a thriller.
Did the Show Change the Outcome for the Brothers?
This is where things get interesting. Life started imitating art—or at least, the timing was impeccable.
Shortly after Netflix Monster Season 2 premiered, new evidence came to light. This wasn't just "show hype." A letter Erik wrote to his cousin, Andy Cano, months before the killings, surfaced. In it, he detailed the abuse. Additionally, Roy Rosselló, a former member of the boy band Menudo, came forward with allegations that Jose Menendez had also abused him.
Because of this, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office began a formal review of their case.
It’s rare for a TV show to have this much real-world leverage. We saw it with The Jinx and Serial, and now we’re seeing it with the Menendez brothers. Whether you think they should be free or not, the show sparked a legal conversation that had been dormant for thirty years.
The Ethics of the "Monster" Label
There’s a lot of debate about whether Ryan Murphy went too far with the homoerotic undertones between the brothers in certain scenes. Many journalists and family members called it "incestuous slander." Murphy’s defense was that he was portraying the various "theories" that were actually presented by the prosecution and the tabloids at the time.
It’s a risky move. By showing these theories visually, the show risks cementing them as fact in the minds of viewers who don't do their own research.
✨ Don't miss: Songs by Tyler Childers: What Most People Get Wrong
But that’s the Murphy brand. He doesn't do "boring." He does "visceral."
The show also spends a significant amount of time on Kitty Menendez. Often lost in the shuffle of the "abusive father" narrative, the series portrays her as a woman broken by her husband's infidelities and eventually her own mental health struggles. Sevigny plays her with a haunting, vacant stare that makes you wonder how much she really knew—and why she didn't stop it.
What You Should Watch Next
If you’ve finished the series and you’re feeling conflicted, you aren't alone. The best way to process the dramatization is to look at the source material.
- The Menendez Brothers (Netflix Documentary): Released shortly after the scripted series, this gives the brothers a chance to tell their story in their own words via phone interviews from prison. It’s a much more straightforward, albeit biased, account.
- The Trial Transcripts: If you’re a real true-crime nerd, the 1993 trial was televised on Court TV. You can find hours of the actual testimony on YouTube. It’s fascinating to see how closely the actors mimicked the real people.
- Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders: If you want a different scripted take, this 2017 miniseries starring Edie Falco as Leslie Abramson offers a much more sympathetic view of the defense.
How to Approach the Case Today
Viewing Netflix Monster Season 2 requires a bit of a "critical eye." You have to separate the stylistic choices of a Hollywood producer from the legal realities of a double homicide.
The case isn't just about whether they did it—everyone knows they did. It's about "imperfect self-defense." In California, if you truly believe you are in imminent danger, even if that belief is unreasonable, it can reduce murder to manslaughter. That was the crux of the first trial, which ended in a hung jury. The second trial, however, stripped away much of the abuse testimony, leading to their life-without-parole sentences.
If you’re following the news, keep an eye on the habeas corpus petitions currently in the California court system. The "Monster" effect might just lead to a resentencing.
To truly understand the impact of the show, look at how the legal system treats male victims of domestic abuse today versus 1989. The biggest takeaway isn't necessarily about the brothers' guilt, but about how much the court of public opinion has shifted its values over three decades.
Practical Steps for True Crime Consumers:
Check the dates on the evidence mentioned. The Roy Rosselló allegations are relatively new and weren't available during the original trials. Understand the difference between a "retrial" and "resentencing." A retrial would mean starting from scratch; a resentencing would simply acknowledge that their original punishment was too harsh given the circumstances. Read the 1996 appellate court documents to see why the original conviction was upheld; it provides a necessary counter-balance to the emotional narrative of the TV show. Finally, acknowledge that two things can be true at once: someone can be a victim of horrific trauma and still commit an act that the law deems a crime. Finding that middle ground is where the real "story" of the Menendez brothers lives.