The Monkey and all the images you see in this review are owned by Neon
Directed by Osgood Perkins
There have been many times that I’ve found myself on the wrong side of history when it comes to movies I’ve reviewed, and while I’m more than happy to like movies that others overlooked, it’s less fun when you’re the one person who just didn’t get a critically acclaimed masterpiece. That’s why I breathed a sigh of relief when I saw the trailers for this movie, as Osgood’s last few films didn’t really hit the mark for me and this looked like an easy layup for my goofy sensibilities. Will this horror comedy finally bring me onboard the Osgood Perkins train, or will this be a bigger train wreck than that time he starred in Quigley? Let’s find out!!
As young children, brothers Hal and Bill (Christian Convery) find a mysterious monkey figurine that once belonged to their deadbeat dad. Of course, since this is based on a Stephen King story, the Monkey is no mere toy but a harbinger of doom who brings about gruesome and hilarious death whenever its key is turned and its drums are played. After taking the lives of people they care about, they finally dispose of it in a well and go on about their broken lives for thirty-odd years before it mysteriously reappears, which prompts Bill to call Hall as estranged adults (Theo James) and tell him to get rid of it once and for all. Of course, life hasn’t been all that great for Hal, who’s become a deadbeat dad himself and now needs to spend his last week of custody with his son (Colin O’Brien) finding this toy and dealing with it before it kills everyone in their old hometown. Will Hal mend his relationship with both his son and his brother before the Monkey takes them away from him too? What monstrous force is behind the Monkey’s power, and is there more to be afraid of than just a simple toy? I’ll say this for the little guy; his penchant for unexpected and gory demises certainly gives those Final Destination films a run for their money!
There’s a sketch from the comedy troupe The Whitest Kids You Know where a sailor brings a sub sandwich onto a submarine. I always thought it was a funny bit, but when the group was talking about the sketch they said that the funniest thing about it wasn’t the pun, but the context in which the sketch was made. It wasn’t just funny because it was a sub on a sub; it was the idea that they put so much effort into making a rather sizable submarine set, complete with costumes and a periscope, just for this obvious and silly joke. I can’t help but think Oz Perkins had a similar goal in mind when making this movie; that the inside joke about its own existence was what motivated him to make it. It’s a guy who is getting the most credibility and acclaim of his career but decides to take a sharp turn in the opposite direction to make one of the silliest horror movies of all time; a category to which I’m including the Zucker Brothers’ Scary Movie franchise. This movie arriving in the wake of Long Legs makes only slightly more sense than if David Fincher had followed The Social Network with Ted, or if the Norbit gambit had actually worked, and Oz Perkins makes sure to drop a trailer for his next horror movie at the end of the credits here to assure us that he hasn’t completely lost his mind, but I always appreciate it when a director is inspired to go off the beaten path and try something outside their wheelhouse. I appreciate it, but it doesn’t always work out, and while this is not a bad movie or even a mediocre one for the most part, it does feel like we’re all part of the joke for having gone to see it.
What you can’t deny about this odd duck of a movie is that it’s made with the utmost skill and is uncompromising in its gloriously gory vision. That’s what makes the whole enterprise so funny, and why it’s important for filmmakers to go out on a limb like this. We get to see an accomplished director use their finely honed skills behind the camera applied to something completely unexpected, and the result is a genuinely unique farce with all the pretensions of its production undercut by the absurdity of its premise. Perkins’ cinematography is as on point as ever, as the attention to detail and the beauty of the shot compositions create an interesting contrast with the goofy narrative and trashy violence; perhaps not reinventing the wheel of horror comedies, but giving us one of its more polished examples. It also can’t be overstated that the monkey itself is an absolute scene stealer; a wonderfully realized prop that certainly puts other popular horror movie toys like Annabelle to shame. It brims with personality without ever doing anything other than being a wind-up toy, and that’s a testament to the filmmaking for capturing such menace from such a limited monster.
Unfortunately, the good-natured chuckles and outright laughs cannot disguise the shallowness of the enterprise, as its narrative ambitions begin and end with the creativity of the gore. Our protagonist is well acted by Theo James, but the script doesn’t give us much of a reason to care about his fate; especially as an adult, as he comes off as aloof and unsympathetic despite the tragedies he endured. The whole movie has this problem where there’s not much of a reason to care about what’s happening outside its in-the-moment indulgences, and its token attempts at some emotional catharsis or deeper themes fall short of having any impact. While there’s no set definition to what makes something a horror movie or not, I don’t think there’s any expectation for you to be scared while watching this or to even feel a sense of dread, and it’s why I compared this to a Zucker Brothers film and not a horror movie with genuine laughs. At some point, you have to take the threat seriously to feel any emotion other than detached amusement, but because of its commitment to the bit, there’s no room for anything resembling humanity to contrast against the absurdity of it all. If the consequences for the Monkey’s actions were meant to elicit anything other than laughs, or if the Monkey had some deeper metaphorical meaning for our main character and wasn’t just a gag making fun of horror story MacGuffins, then maybe there’d be some weight to any of the events that happened on screen. Instead, it coasts along on its surface elements and the giddiness with which it shows off its gore effects to carry us through to the end, and while it manages to reach those goals that it sets for itself, I can’t help but feel that the bar should have been set a little bit higher.
It seems that I’m impossible to please when it comes to Osgood Perkins movies, as each one that I’ve reviewed has been wildly different and yet ends up with the exact same score. I’m not sure what can explain such a consistent reaction from me given how little each of the films have in common, but they at least make for interesting movies to talk about, even if the end products aren’t as impressive as their premises would suggest. I suppose it’s worth checking out at the theater if for no other reason than for how shockingly hilarious the gore effects are, but I’m hoping his next movie will be the one to inspire a stronger reaction from me, or else I’m gonna have to start taking such consistent indifference personally.
The Reviewers Unite 