- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Monkey (2025) Discussion (Spoilers)
Posted on 2/19/25 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 2/19/25 at 3:46 pm
Horror/Comedy from the creator of Longlegs and adapted from a 1980 Stephen King short story. Starring Theo James, Tatiana Maslany, and Elijah Wood. Currently sitting at 85% Critics and Audience Score on Rotten Tomatoes. Releases in theaters tomorrow.
quote:
When twin brothers find a mysterious wind-up monkey, a series of outrageous deaths tear their family apart. Twenty-five years later, the monkey begins a new killing spree, forcing the estranged siblings to confront the cursed toy.
This post was edited on 2/22/25 at 10:30 am
3
Posted on 2/19/25 at 9:07 pm to Esquire
I'm in! James Wan is very hit or miss but when he hits, it's usually spectacular! Plus, those monkey toys used to scare the crap out of me when I was little.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 9:15 pm to CrimsonChaos
James Wan just helped fund it. This is another movie from the son of Norman Bates. His first was longlegs
Posted on 2/20/25 at 10:04 am to SCLSUMuddogs
Allegedly after the credits you can watch a trailer for Perkins’ next movie - Keeper.
Posted on 2/20/25 at 11:30 pm to Esquire
Watched it earlier tonight. I’ll give a spoiler-free review until someone else sees it.
It leans more comedy than horror and did an excellent job of blending the genres. There are a few jump scares but overall the horror comes from the gratuitous nature of the deaths. They are gruesome yet you’ll be laughing during most of them.
I thought the camera work was impressive. It also doesn’t fall apart in the third act. Looking at you, Longlegs.
It leans more comedy than horror and did an excellent job of blending the genres. There are a few jump scares but overall the horror comes from the gratuitous nature of the deaths. They are gruesome yet you’ll be laughing during most of them.
I thought the camera work was impressive. It also doesn’t fall apart in the third act. Looking at you, Longlegs.
Posted on 2/21/25 at 3:42 am to Esquire
Nice, going to check it out tomorrow.
Posted on 2/21/25 at 10:52 pm to Esquire
Awesome film. Hilarious, over the top deaths. Solid story, well paced and directed, just a fun movie. Definitely check this one out yall. It’s a good time for sure! This could be a new franchise entry for Osgood. I’m down for sure. Give me more of that crazy Monkey action.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 10:33 am to Richleau
Which was your favorite death?
I laughed the hardest when the bride and groom skydivers fell through the roof. It took my fellow audience members a few seconds to make the connection back to the son reading the skydiving brochure.
Second place is Osgood getting trampled in his sleeping bag.
I laughed the hardest when the bride and groom skydivers fell through the roof. It took my fellow audience members a few seconds to make the connection back to the son reading the skydiving brochure.
Second place is Osgood getting trampled in his sleeping bag.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 10:52 am to Esquire
Completely agree on the skydiver wedding couple. That one made me laugh out loud the hardest but since you said that one, I’ll go with the lady jumping in the electrified water simply because I was expecting her to just fry up in the pool and instead she straight exploded! Give me more Monkey mayhem! I feel like now that the lore has been established, the monkey 2 is going to be insane. Was that petey at the beginning of the movie or was that their father at the beginning of the movie with the flamethrower? I couldn’t quite remember.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 11:23 am to Richleau
quote:
Was that petey at the beginning of the movie or was that their father at the beginning of the movie with the flamethrower? I couldn’t quite remember.
Both, technically. It was their father, also named Petey.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 11:23 am to Richleau
I thought it was fun. Didn’t take itself seriously at all which is my type of vibe in these movies.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 11:32 am to TigerCub
Which is interesting because as far as personal films go, this is probably Perkins’ most personal. He lost his dad when he was really young to AIDS and then lost his mom 9 years later in one of the planes on 9/11. And in spite of it all, the message was clear at the end “Dance in the Face of Death”
Posted on 2/22/25 at 12:23 pm to Richleau
quote:
Which is interesting because as far as personal films go, this is probably Perkins’ most personal. He lost his dad when he was really young to AIDS and then lost his mom 9 years later in one of the planes on 9/11. And in spite of it all, the message was clear at the end “Dance in the Face of Death”
Interesting
So the central character's comments about purpose and meaning probably come from his personal history.
Movie has a Final Destination vibe. Edged towards a dark comedy more than a horror flick. It would be easy to have as a series with several sequels. There's not much meat on the bones though- unless he breaks with the first film and established motivation or purpose for the evil toy.
FWIW both Longlegs and The Monkey rely upon the audience buying into the children's toy being supernatural. I would imagine not everyone would like that premise.
This post was edited on 2/22/25 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 2/22/25 at 1:30 pm to molsusports
Yes, I would think all the commentary as well as far as guidance from the church and other family members were direct representation of his childhood upbringing. Particularly the preacher and his “it is what it is” eulogy maybe left a young Perkins with little comfort or understanding as to the freak nature of both of his parents’ deaths; as well as a disdain of the church.
One could surmise considering the brutal nature of the death of his uncle that he, in particular, was not a good guy.
What more fitting of a role for the director himself to play than the very person who perhaps was a poor father substitute. Harkening back again to the “dance in the face of death” idea and facing one’s fears.
One could surmise considering the brutal nature of the death of his uncle that he, in particular, was not a good guy.
What more fitting of a role for the director himself to play than the very person who perhaps was a poor father substitute. Harkening back again to the “dance in the face of death” idea and facing one’s fears.
This post was edited on 2/22/25 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 2/23/25 at 1:00 am to Richleau
Everyone go see this movie yall.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 2:17 pm to Esquire
Just watched it, I really enjoyed it. It's silly horror but a lot of fun
Posted on 2/23/25 at 4:26 pm to RLDSC FAN
Hell yeah
Posted on 2/23/25 at 4:42 pm to Richleau
I was always creeped out by the cover of the King short story collection.
Had no idea this was being made. Glad to see it was well done.
From this collection...
Had no idea this was being made. Glad to see it was well done.
From this collection...
Posted on 3/3/25 at 3:05 pm to Esquire
Just got back from this one. Have to say I was a little disappointed due to the filmmakers' pedigree and the board's reaction. I mean, it's not a bad film or anything, I just couldn't get myself onboard for the ride.
The biggest surprise to me was how Perkins lifted a page directly from Wan's playbook, with Wan along as producer. I guess it makes sense since this is obviously Wan's type of humor. However, Wan essentially already made this movie, and better, back in 2021 with Malignant, which was WAY overlooked by audiences. Malignant was much more subtler in its approach. The goal of both films is to strive for the absurd. Whereas Malignant is more subtle and nuanced in its approach, though, The Monkey is like a sledgehammer that strikes the same note early and often throughout. Malignant holds its cards close to its vest, so much so that it's pretty far into the film before you realize that you're part of the filmmakers in-joke. From the very first scene of The Monkey, you realize this is a movie not to be taken seriously.
Which is fine, but the humor isn't really that plentiful or fresh. The movie doesn't really subscribe to its own inner story logic, so the only mystery for audiences is simply to see what absurdity each successive death takes the form of. Even Final Destination respected its own logic, and we actually cared about the characters. The humor in The Monkey distances the audience from caring anything about the characters. Which, again, is fine if the comedy works. But the comedy here is very on the nose, and after a couple of silent chuckles, the filmmakers continue mining from the same comedic well.
Malignant is the superior version of this film to me. It contains scenes of action, cinematography, set design, and mayhem that are striking by any comparison. As a whole, it respects its inner logic, which, however absurd, still contains an element of mystery as it unfolds back upon itself. Watching Malignant and then The Monkey is like watching Hitchcock and then DiPalma do their thing. Perkins knows the notes, but Wan is the true maestro in this domain.
If any of you have seen Malignant, I'd be interested to see how you thought the two compared.
The biggest surprise to me was how Perkins lifted a page directly from Wan's playbook, with Wan along as producer. I guess it makes sense since this is obviously Wan's type of humor. However, Wan essentially already made this movie, and better, back in 2021 with Malignant, which was WAY overlooked by audiences. Malignant was much more subtler in its approach. The goal of both films is to strive for the absurd. Whereas Malignant is more subtle and nuanced in its approach, though, The Monkey is like a sledgehammer that strikes the same note early and often throughout. Malignant holds its cards close to its vest, so much so that it's pretty far into the film before you realize that you're part of the filmmakers in-joke. From the very first scene of The Monkey, you realize this is a movie not to be taken seriously.
Which is fine, but the humor isn't really that plentiful or fresh. The movie doesn't really subscribe to its own inner story logic, so the only mystery for audiences is simply to see what absurdity each successive death takes the form of. Even Final Destination respected its own logic, and we actually cared about the characters. The humor in The Monkey distances the audience from caring anything about the characters. Which, again, is fine if the comedy works. But the comedy here is very on the nose, and after a couple of silent chuckles, the filmmakers continue mining from the same comedic well.
Malignant is the superior version of this film to me. It contains scenes of action, cinematography, set design, and mayhem that are striking by any comparison. As a whole, it respects its inner logic, which, however absurd, still contains an element of mystery as it unfolds back upon itself. Watching Malignant and then The Monkey is like watching Hitchcock and then DiPalma do their thing. Perkins knows the notes, but Wan is the true maestro in this domain.
If any of you have seen Malignant, I'd be interested to see how you thought the two compared.
This post was edited on 3/3/25 at 3:22 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News