The Monkey

3 friends and I were really looking forward to this movie for months. After LongLegs it was clear they were pushing Oz to be the next Spielberg but for horror.

I just walked out of the theater and got home and boy, this just was not a good movie at all.

I knew and expected camp and comedy, but this had a few "funny" scenes but there was zero tension and scares to balance out the lame attempts at getting a chuckle out of the audience.

The story - no spoilers because there barely is a story. It's a killer monkey. There's no hint at what's really going on, there's no lore; there is just a guy who has a killer monkey problem

And I was really hoping this one would land and in the end all it did was send me him a sad monkey.

My 3 friends also did not like the movie - not even a bit. This was a huge misfire by OZ.

Will it make money? I heard the budget was $10M so it has a pretty good chance, especially with the advertising and the hyping up of Oz. But for me - the next Oz movie that comes out I'm waiting a bit to see how it lands.

The previews made this horror movie seem different and it peaked my interest.

In the end, the previews were better than the movie.

This seemed like a take on a couple of Twilight Zone episodes. The one with Talking Tina and the one with another doll that showed up in war zones and as evil charm.

The two main characters, the twins, were not likable characters. You didn't really get to know them, but what you do see in them, it's not something adorable or likable.

The killing scenes were just over the top unrealistic, made it seem like a cheap slasher movie made to attract a high school audience. We don't learn much about the monkey and not because of a cloud of mystery, more like and oversight. The plot in the end wasn't believable and the movie did little to make it believable. ...again, like they were more interested in just showing guts, buckets of blood, heads being blown up or removed, and deaths that defied the laws of physics . The other bright spot was I had the entire theater to myself with a bucket of popcorn and a Coke Zero.

I read the Stephen King short story in anticipation - which was a bad idea. The narrative is used more as a springboard for the further development of the concept. Don't get me wrong - I'm all on board for this expansion of the short story. I love the idea of the totem object that could possibly be a deity or god of some sort and how it follows the brothers into adulthood.

What I was sold was not what I got. I would say it compares to the use of the monkey drum toy for the poster of the film Monkey Shines (1988) by George A. Romero. Which is to say - they have nothing to do with each other - one is used to sell the other - and it's misleading. I blame the trailers. The Monkey - in terms of a film - is closer to a real bloody version of The Cable Guy (1996) or Very Bad Things (1998). If you go into the film expecting the tense horror/suspense of Longlegs, you'll end up a sad monkey.

As I walked away from the film I think I would have really enjoyed it if it was marketed more as a dark comedy (and sure some of this blame is on me as a viewer to do my research). As it stands - if you've seen the trailers you've already seen 90% of the suspense in the film. What you haven't seen is the absolute mayhem and chaos that surrounds those situations. I think the first 10 minutes of the film tells you exactly what it is - how the humor works - and how it plays out through the monkey.

If you're on board with the opening - it's a perfect roller coaster. My problem was that I thought I was on a rollercoaster and instead ended up tripping on a bunch of banana peels. Regardless, I think the film is worth viewing (and to continue using animal innuendos) you might find it a hoot! But in the end, the film is just monkeying around with the audience.

There are few writers whose output is as prodigious as Stephen King. With over 65 novels and countless short stories to his name, the master of the macabre has kept Hollywood busy for decades. However, for every frighteningly brilliant 'Misery' or 'The Shining', there's a lacklustre 'Cell' or 'Mercy' lurking in the shadows, reminding us that not all adaptations are created equal.

Fresh off his massive hit 'Longlegs,' Osgood Perkins is the latest director to try his hand at a Stephen King tale of terror. 'The Monkey,' based on the short story of the same name, follows Hal Shelburn and his twin brother Bill, whose childhoods are derailed by a sinister toy monkey with a talent for triggering untimely, gruesome deaths. Years later, the monkey resurfaces, and Hal must confront both the literal and emotional baggage he thought he'd left behind.

With its elaborate death sequences and darkly comic tone, 'The Monkey' invites easy comparison to the 'Final Destination' films. It's gorily over-the-top, frequently funny, though never quite earning a place in the pantheon of great King adaptations. It's not a disaster by any means, but it is uneven: the scares are sporadic, characterisation slim and the film's sense of humour often undercuts its own tension. The narrative also lacks the psychological depth that made 'Longlegs' so unsettlingly compelling.

To his credit, Perkins is clearly reaching for something more than jump scares and blood splatter. There's an admirable attempt to blend horror with dark humour and a melancholic parental dynamic that lends the film a touch of emotional heft. At its best, the film gestures toward themes of grief, inherited trauma and the quiet terror of watching your children face the same darkness you did. Moreover, beneath the evil banging of the monkey's drum lies a meditation- albeit a muddled one- on the one thing we all have in common: the certainty of death.

Sadly, these weightier ideas don't always cohere. The tonal shifts are jarring, and the emotional beats often get drowned out in the noise. It's a film that wants to make you laugh, jump and maybe even cry- but doesn't quite commit fully to any of the three. Further, when the monkey isn't onscreen doing what it does best- maiming and murdering- things drag. The stretches in between the carnage feel oddly lifeless, padded with exposition and domestic drama. The whole affair suffers from a dearth of tension, while the emotional stakes never quite land with the force they should.

What the film lacks in narrative cohesion, it nearly makes up for in atmosphere. Perkins' direction is confident, and Nico Aguilar's cinematography- handled with a steady, stylish hand- elevates even the narrative's dullest stretches. The lighting is often moody and expressionistic, with deep shadows and rich colour palettes giving proceedings a dreamy, timeless quality. Whether it's a blood-slicked bathroom or a flickering attic filled with childhood relics, every frame feels carefully composed, as if trying to will a better film into existence through sheer visual craft.

Additionally, the production design evokes a lived-in, slightly off-kilter world where nostalgia curdles into unease. The monkey itself- aged, grimy, and grotesquely toy-like- is a highlight of the film's tactile creepiness. The special effects and scenes of bloodshed are visceral, with a darkly comic edge; easily the best aspect of the film. Further, Edo Van Breemen's score adds a haunting, discordant undercurrent, though occasionally leaning too hard on the eerie whimsy, blurring the line between unsettling and self-conscious.

The sound design, on the other hand, is razor-sharp- each crash on the monkey's drum lands with a wince-inducing jolt. The editing is less consistent: while some sequences are slick and rhythmic, others feel slack, sapping momentum just when things should tighten. It's technically polished, but not always paced to keep the tension simmering.

The performances, much like the film itself, are a mixed bag. Theo James delivers a solid turn as the haunted Hal, playing the role with just enough clenched-jaw intensity to sell the trauma without tipping into melodrama. He's compelling when the material allows, though his character is more of a vessel for themes than a fully fleshed-out person. As Hal's identical twin Bill, James turns it up to eleven and is as over-the-top as the material requires.

The supporting cast have less to work with, though some still manage to shine. Tatiana Maslany, Elijah Wood and Rohan Campbell make the most of their limited screen time, elevating their thinly drawn characters. Others, however, blur together into a Greek chorus of exposition and emotional hand-wringing.

Despite some great scenes of gory grotesquerie, 'The Monkey' ultimately feels like a film caught between instincts- too camp to be truly scary and too scattershot to say anything lasting about grief or death. There are flashes of something sharper, weirder and more affecting buried amidst all the blood and guts, but it never quite takes shape. Although Osgood Perkins remains a filmmaker of intrigue and ambition, and the scenes of carnage are terrific, this King adaptation- like so many before it- is nothing to go ape over.

I read a lot of Stephen King books but this short story from him I must have skipped as I have no recollection of it so I can't really compare this movie with the book. There have been a lot of his books made into movies, some really good ones that became classics in the horror genre like The Shining, Misery, Carrie and so on, but also a lot of movies that honestly were an insult to the books. The Monkey was a bit of good gory fun with multiple innovative killing methods which resulted in a lot of blood spatters. My wife and I enjoyed this one. It's not a bad story, good acting and well shot horror scenes and the monkey is creepy. A fun watch!