At least since the “Toy Story” films, we have known that toys are in truth. But only a fun adventure for the whole family does not necessarily have to come out – and almost as evidence starts “The Monkey“In our cinemas. A film that is likely to cause real states of rapture for fans as dark as possible-at least in theory: after all, the short story template of the same name comes from Stephen King and thus from the Master of Horror himself. In addition, director Osgood “Oz” Perkins was responsible for the serial killer superhite “Longlegs” last year, which was celebrated, among other things, as the “creepiest film of the decade”.
Nevertheless, it is better to unscrew your expectations, because in view of the names involved, “The Monkey” is quite a disappointment: The film is not only expanding the already elongated list of mixed Stephen-King films. Oz Perkins also lets his fine staging, with which he has recently made “Longlegs” with Nicolas Cage into a visual experience that was creeping under the skin, largely missed this time. The film begins damn moody:
In the opening sequence, we will witness, like a bloodstained Adam Scott (“Severance”) in a pawnberry house, desperately strive to get rid of a movement (known as “Jolly Chimp” in American). Seconds later, the toy premium shows its teeth, lets the drum stick circle in his hand and hits its little drum. As a result, a – of course by no means accidental – chaining of events is kicked off, in which a harpoon in the end spans the torn out of the shop owner across the business.
Woe when the monkey hits his drum.
If Adam Scott then tries to destroy the toy monkey with a flame thrower with a loud combat, even without Leonardo DiCaprio, memories of Quentin Tarantino's “Once Upon A Time … in Hollywood” are awakened. There is no question that the start arouses hopes for pulpy splatter cinema, which makes it really bad fun to stage the death of its characters as creatively (and coarse). This route remains “The Monkey” only to a limited extent. Instead, Oz Perkins uses far too much time on the emotionally ars forced story around the twin brothers Hal and Bill (as a young person embodied by Christian Convery, in adulthood by “The Gentleman” star Theo James).
This is how the director, who also wrote the script, brakes himself again and again. When Perkins researched the twins' everyday school life of the twins in the first 30 minutes and traces the loving relationship with the mother, one would like to assume an honest interest in the reality of life of the teenagers. But it quickly becomes clear that even the boys' fears and worries should only serve for the next gag. Significant is a funeral sequence that is almost negligent with the feelings of HAL and Bill after the film has invested so much time and seriousness in these figures in advance.
More than a quarter of a century of bloody horror
This two-track between serious emotionality and flat-blooded gags continues even after a 25-year jump. As an adult, Hal finally overturned with his brother. As an emotional anchor, the relationship to his son -neglected son (Colin O'Brien) is now to serve. This is to be adopted shortly by the slimy “father-like expert” Ted (Elijah Wood). And so there is a “last” common road trip, on which you can get closer to each other in the middle of all of the awakening monkey terror.
The fact that Oz Perkins takes the father-son relationship so seriously could possibly also be related to his own biography-and here “The Monkey” gets an interesting meta level. Finally, the Stephen-King filming also negotiates the burdens that fathers inevitably inherit their sons. A fact that Oz Perkins may have learned on his own, after all, his father was none other than Anthony Perkins, known primarily for his legendary serial killer performance in Alfred Hitchcock “Psycho”.
Elijah Woods Ted conjures up the family blessing in all his dubbleness.
A self-reflected, possibly even therapeutic approach, can still be guessed in “The Monkey”, because the violence that is always more cartoon-like in the course of the plot is not only torpedoed by the serious character drama. As a viewer, one inevitably arises as to whether OZ Perkins has just not dared to simply staged a bitterly cynical, which is obvious in his inhibition. Or whether the story may have been so close to him that he had the absurd amounts of blood flow as a means of a distance acquisition.
The story of HAL and BILL is also taken up again, yes, yes, almost without ideas, when the brothers meet in a fortress full of traps in the style of an FSK-18 version of “Kevin-alone at home”. Here you can see most clearly that “The Monkey” is based on a short story that is just 68 pages. Because that Oz Perkins ultimately fails to bring together the threads of action and characters can be explained primarily with the lack of sincerity that the director brings towards his protagonist.
When the monkey strikes, the walls are re -coated with blood.
Topics such as guilt, grief or the correct handling of death get a lot of space, but then only everything is sacrificed to the next kill again. In the end, the bloody punch lines that arouse memories of the “Final Destination” series in their best moments: Among other things, a swimmer explodes when jumping into an electrically charged swimming pool in a thousand meat parts and a broker with a shotgun blown up – and so spelly that Hal still has to fish one of her fingers out of his mouth.
In the end, an entire small town even sinks into the apocalyptic chaos, including a burning stroller and a surfboard that cuts a man. In addition, Oz Perkins has also written a role in the film – and how it has to believe in it is also officially mushy.
More “Final Destination” than “Longlegs”
The fact that the main responsible for “The Monkey” is actually the director of “Longlegs” can be seen primarily by one aspect, namely the atmospheric maps of stipulated US regions. In any case, the impressions of the American northeast prove to be an absolute mood guarantee: a crashed out of the time, as well as lonely region and family houses in Maine, the Stephen-King state par excellence, vocally tie the tape into a supplier. After all, he was not only a master in celebrating brute horror, but also subtly conjuring up the claustrophobic tightness of the excavation of New England.
Conclusion: In the inflation of Stephen King's short story of the same name, director Oz Perkins has unfortunately betrayed himself a bit. According to some of the sadistic splatter inserts, “The Monkey” is simply not uninhibited enough to make Gorehounds happy. To do this, Oz Perkins gives the fears and longings of his protagonists (much too) a lot of space, only to let them jump over the blade for the next dofol. In “Final Destination”, nobody would have thought of giving each of the victims a full -grown character drama.