If you're just coming here for the first time, uh... you're late. The site is no longer updated daily (see HERE for the story). But it's still kicking a few times a month, and it's better late than never! Most reviews nowadays are labeled "FTP:" and you should read THIS PRIMER to understand why. Also, while they're marked nowadays, many of the site's older reviews (i.e. 2010 or older) do contain unannounced spoilers, so tread carefully! Thanks for coming by and be sure to leave comments, play nice, and as always, watch Cathy's Curse.
PLEASE, GO ON...
The Monkey (2025)
FEBRUARY 23, 2025
GENRE: SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)
As I find Osgood Perkins' output pretty hit or miss so far (and by that I mean the only one I've liked is Longlegs) and the original Stephen King short story left so little an impression on me that I can't even be fully sure I read it*, I wasn't exactly going to be first in line for The Monkey. But when I heard it had Final Destination vibes, I got a little more interested, and so carved out some time (and 45 bucks for the silly popcorn bucket) to check it out on opening weekend after all.
Interestingly, the movie ended up being a rumination on the randomness of death, which struck a little nerve with me considering the circumstances under which I first saw (well, "attended" might be more accurate) Longlegs. In the movie, a pair of 12 year old twin brothers named Hal and Bill find a strange monkey toy in their departed (perhaps dead) father's things, and quickly discover that winding the key on its back and letting it play its little drum solo will result in someone dying. However, they can't *control* it per se; winding the key while thinking about the bully at school or something doesn't mean the bully at school will be the one to suddenly die under freak circumstances. Once the kids figure this out (and we in the audience chuckle at a few outlandish deaths) after losing their mother and beloved babysitter, they dump it down a well in hopes that no one will ever find it.
That wouldn't make for much of a movie though. We flash forward 25 years and the now adult Hal (Theo James) lives a solitary life and works at a grocery store, not exactly making the most of his time. He is, however, about to spend a week with his estranged son before the boy's stepfather (played by a cameoing veteran actor who does a lot of genre work but somehow has never made a King movie before? ) takes full custody. Unfortunately, the bizarre murders start up again, and (spoiler I guess? If it's a "reveal" it occurs pretty early) it seems his twin brother Bill, also estranged, may be responsible. Can Hal put a stop to it again and keep his son safe?
Naturally I won't answer that question, but I will say that the film's strange tonal shift from "hahaha, these deaths are so wacky!" to "Hey, maybe you should learn to embrace life" didn't quite land for me. I enjoyed the movie overall, but the first half is notably more successful, and the attempt to impart a little life lesson seemed grafted in from a different/earlier draft of the screenplay. Frank Darabont wanted to make this movie for years, and while I'm sure his version wouldn't have had the Rube Goldbergian deaths (though some are merely insane, like a guy camping in a sleeping bag being trampled by so many horses that the remains aren't even recognizably human), I think the "live life to the fullest because you never know when your time is up" messaging would have felt more earned, maybe even poignant, in Frank's more (imo) dependable hands. As is, it came off a bit like someone saying "Hey that's not funny" after everyone else in the room enjoyed a good laugh at a dark joke.
And that's a shame, because Perkins is unusually qualified to make a movie about the randomness of death, especially in a tale about parents and their children. His father was HIV-positive and died of pneumonia, and his mother died in one of the planes on 9/11. That kind of covers the whole spectrum of death, from "a known disease with a common outcome" to "wtf, what are the odds?" But either in his attempt to make a slightly more commercial movie than even Longlegs (the film was produced by James Wan, whose audience-pleasing films makes this an unusual pairing) or just the usual pratfalls of expanding a short story in to a full feature, the film's strengths all come in the top half, buying enough goodwill to keep it in the "worth seeing" section while falling short of a full blown win.
But the thing I found most interesting was an inscription on the box that the monkey is found in: "like life." As Hal explains a bit later via voiceover, it's a bit of a warning that the monkey's actions are random, much like life itself. No matter how much they want a certain person to die, the monkey is just going to kill who he wants - he's not working for you, even if you were nice enough to turn his key and give him a little exercise. But—and maybe this is just the result of my way of thinking—when the message first appeared, prior to Hal explaining its meaning, I read it differently. To me, "like life" meant, simply "ENJOY life", because you do not indeed know when your time is up. In the past year alone I've had friends die from long illnesses and others drop dead while carrying out the most mundane tasks in their day to day, and yet there are certainly a few people out there who deserve the early grave and are thriving. And if you have a certain sense of humor about it (which I do, and it seems Perkins does as well, considering how silly the deaths here), there's no reason not to, well, LIKE your life. Do what makes you happy, and take the risks. Ask out your crush. Try a new restaurant. Ride a unicycle. Whatever you think you might enjoy, there's no reason to keep putting it off. The brain is far too random to risk seeing that bus coming for you with no time to get out of the way and have your last thought be "Damn, I never tried sushi."
And I can't help but think the movie might have been more successful in the back half if it actually went with this theme full throttle instead of just kind of tossing it in with moments left in the runtime. Instead, there's a very strange additional character named Ricky, played by Rohan Campbell from Halloween Ends, who is obsessed with the monkey and wants to keep it for himself. It seems like half of his role ended up being excised in order to keep focus on James' dual performance as Hal and Bill, especially when it comes to Ricky's own family, as he, like Hal and Bill, has a brother who doesn't seem to be a lot like him but also kind of completely spaced out. It felt like there might have been an attempt to draw parallels between Ricky's situation and Bill's (especially when you consider the similar physical appearance of their mother next to Bill and Hal's aunt, who raises them after their mother dies), but none of it really lands, and honestly they could have cut him out entirely and not really changed anything. Nothing against Campbell, to be clear, it's just a strange diversion to the narrative without much payoff, and coming at the expense of Hal and Bill's potential time together.
Third act blunders aside, it's a solidly entertaining way to kill 100 minutes, if nothing else. There's a laid back priest played by Nicco Del Rio who is almost worth the price of admission alone, and—if someone tracks these things—features the equivalent to Lawrence of Arabia's legendary match cut in terms of darkly funny reveals (if you've seen the movie, it involves a cut to a portrait of one of the male cast members). And even though a lot of the attempts at genuine emotion don't quite work, Tatiana Maslany does wonderful work with her role as the kids' mother, who seems to already be aware, without the monkey's unusual way of suggesting it, that life is too precious to waste. Maybe an extended cut (or at least a few deleted scenes) on the eventual Blu-ray will clear up some of its murkier narrative issues, but as is it's still worth seeing, and continues Perkins' current (and surprising!) transition into a guy who can keep his warped sensibilities while still telling a story that a general audience can get behind on the big screen.
What say you?
*I know I read "The Mist" before the movie came out, and remember a couple others in the same Skeleton Crew collection, so I must have read it all the way through x number of years ago as I'd have no reason to be skipping around. But I reread it after watching the movie and nothing rang a bell. At any rate, for those curious, beyond (most of) the characters and how they relate to each other, the story and movie are nothing alike. Even the title character is different; in the story he's got the cymbals and in the movie he's got a standard drum. Which worked out nicely for AMC, since the drum can double as a (tiny) popcorn bucket.
PLEASE, GO ON...Heart Eyes (2025)
FEBRUARY 4, 2025
GENRE: SLASHER (and ROMCOM!)
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PREVIEW SCREENING)
If you’ve ever even taken as much as a cursory glance at this site before, you probably know how much I love slasher movies. But what you may NOT know is that I also harbor a similar soft spot for romcoms; I can’t recite them chapter and verse the way I can my favorite F13s and Halloweens, but I’m certainly just as easy a mark for a new one when it comes along. So needless to say, the elevator pitch for Heart Eyes-a romcom that revolves around a slasher killer-is about the most appealing one I’ve heard in ages. Like even if one side of the equation didn't work, I'd probably be happy with the other, you know?
Watching it unfold it actually dawned on me for the first time that the two genres offer a sort of comfort in their admittedly basic formula. Both have rules they need to live by in order for their respective fans to be won over; a deviation from that formula can lead to revolt. And that’s what makes Heart Eyes so impressive to me, because you can absolutely despite one of the genres but still feel pretty satisfied with it as an entry of the other type. This element was largely absent from the marketing so far; the few hints of the film’s romantic angle (leads Olivia Holt and Mason Gooding grabbing the same coffee, for example) were largely overshadowed by the slasher element, making it seem like it’s just another masked killer movie albeit one with a bit of romance thrown in (as opposed to the genre’s usual approach of just a general horniness among its core cast). But that isn’t really how the movie plays out at all-it really does function as a romantic comedy, perhaps even moreso than as a slasher in some ways.
So if you just heard the idea but thought it was going to cater more toward the slasher side of things: fear not! There’s a meet-cute, complete with accidental headbutt! There’s a mad dash to the airport! There’s the sassy friend who encourages our heroine to take her chance! Director Josh Ruben and the trio of screenwriters (Phillip Murphy, Michael Kennedy, and Christopher Landon) balance the needs of both formulas in an expert fashion, and honestly my one minor complaint concerns the slasher stuff. And given the relative dearth of such fare in theaters anymore (there was exactly ONE given a wide release in all of 2024, Fly Me To The Moon), I kind of wish the marketing had showcased the blend a little better, if only to assure potential romcom lovers that this would genuinely scratch that itch for them.
So how does it work? Well, after a cold open showing the killer (dubbed “HEK”) taking out a vapid influencer couple in a vineyard, a flurry of news reports tell us that this murderer has taken out a lot of couples in different cities (Boston and Philly) on the two previous Valentine’s Days, and now he seems to be in Seattle. Then we meet our leads: ad exec Ally (Holt) has turned in a dud campaign, and her boss has brought in an outside fixer to help come up with a new one. Said fixer? Why it’s Jay (Gooding), the handsome and charming guy she met in the coffee shop that morning! What are the odds???
Anyway, the two meet for dinner to figure out a new campaign, but his attempts to turn it into a date don’t go well. However, when Ally sees her ex with his new flame, she quickly retorts to the “We have to pretend to be a couple” tactic and kisses Jay so the ex can see and hopefully be jealous. Alas, the ex doesn’t really care, and worse: their kiss attracts the attention of HEK, who was staking out this fancy restaurant to find new victims. What follows is essentially a long chase scene as the killer stalks them throughout the city, with our heroes finding a way to check every romcom box along the way, allowing them to fall in love (awww) but with the killer never more than a few minutes behind them (ahh!!!).
At about the hour mark, the movie really nails how well this idea can work (and honestly, made me wonder why no one ever really tried it before that I can recall). HEK has chased our heroes to a drive-in, and they duck into a van, assuming its owners are elsewhere. Turns out they’re just in the back, fooling around, but the couple is kind of into having an audience and they continue enjoying the evening back there while Ally and Jay lay low to avoid detection from their hunter. While they do so, they have a heart to heart, briefly/softly interrupted by the sounds of the couple going at it in the back. It’s an incredibly funny scene, built around a tense situation, AND it’s giving the romcom formula the obligatory “This is why I get scared when I like someone” conversation, all at once. It’s a remarkable balancing act, and I spent the bulk of the scene just kind of in awe at how well it was working.
The balance goes a bit askew for the film’s finale, however (minor spoilers ahead!). Without getting into the details, I will say that the unmasking of HEK wasn’t particularly surprising. Part of the reason for that is that the film offered almost no other suspects to who it could be (honestly, I assumed it would be a Hell Fest-esque “He’s just some guy” kind of reveal, and I am leaning toward the idea that it might have been a better choice) due to its compact cast. The other is actually weirdly revealed in the film itself – a flashback sequence that includes a scene that was clearly cut. This scene explained where a character went during a previous major setpiece, and while I’m sure it was removed for pacing or something, it unfortunately left careful viewers wondering where that person was, and thus going by the law of slasher films, realizing this means also realizing that they’re the killer long before the film springs it on us as a surprise.
That’s why red herrings are so important, because you gotta have a few other characters as a buffer for these moments to really land. Take Scream: it seemingly comes down to “It’s either Stu or Randy!” but there’s still the sheriff or Sid’s dad to consider. Here? Well, I guess Ally’s boss could kind of count, but as she only appeared once before that (and is played by veteran comedian Michaela Watkins) I doubt that anyone on the planet would a. be thinking it might be her or b. would be satisfied if it was. To be clear, the identity of the killer isn’t the issue, and the actor is relishing getting to do the big “Why I do this” monologue, but without any other suspects, and a weird editing choice making it a foregone conclusion anyway, it didn’t quite pack the same punch the rest of the movie did.
Otherwise it’s a remarkably solid example of both of its genres. The leads have terrific chemistry and are both naturally engaging performers; I’m not as familiar with Holt but as for Gooding I actually kind of get why they let him survive certain death not once but twice in the Screams: it’d be silly to toss away the charisma (plus we let it slide for Dewey even more times). The kills are good and gory but without feeling like the filmmakers spent more time concerned with the punchline than the setup, an issue which plagues many modern slashers (so, yes, there are honest to god chase scenes here!). And one must give props to Gigi Zumbado for a late-movie monologue that I can’t explain without giving away the gag, but once it clicked I was cackling and cheering, and she delivers it perfectly. Everyone, as they say, understood the assignment, which is even more impressive when you consider how unusual that assignment was. Basically it’s just a damn good time at the movies. I’d even go again, which is about the highest praise I can give anything these days. Plus it’s an amazing litmus test if you are, like me, a horror fan with a not-so-secret love of seeing Sandra/Julia/etc do their thing: take a date, and if they’re equally enjoying both sides of the equation, you got yourself a keeper. I alas saw it with my slasher-loving buddy (who didn't put out, the prude) but I couldn't help but be amused at the irony: my wife is not exactly drooling at the prospect of an upcoming romantic comedy (I see most of them by myself) but does enjoy slashers as long as they're more in line with Scream and such than, say, Rob Zombie's Halloween (i.e. brutally violent and not "fun" in any way). So while there are some horror fans out there who might have to trick their partner into seeing this by saying it's a romantic comedy, when this hits Blu-ray I might have to try the reverse approach to get her on board.
PLEASE, GO ON...Companion (2025)
JANUARY 31, 2025
GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)
Fangoria's weekly newsletter came today and it was titled "See Companion with a companion" or something to that effect, but alas like 90% of the movies I see, I saw it by myself. I only live near two of friends, both of whom have wacky work schedules, and I myself tend to keep weird hours, so I've just gotten used to not bothering to coordinate schedules, opting to go off on my own when the showtimes are in my favor. It's not a bad thing, really; the only time I feel self conscious is if it's a comedy, because laughing alone just makes me think someone behind me is going to think I'm a budding Max Cady.
(SPOILERS AHEAD! Slightly more than even the trailer gives away! If you haven't seen the trailers, particularly the second one that they only released a few weeks ago, perhaps do not read until you've seen the movie or at least the trailers. Consider this a warning for the entire review, not just the next paragraph.)
But I, and probably a lot of people, have a friend who I kind of wish I saw it with, because the core of the movie is about Iris (Sophie Thatcher) finding her voice and standing up to her boyfriend Josh (Jack Quaid) when she realizes he sees her as nothing more than an object to boss around and use for his own pleasure when he feels like it, never taking her own needs into account. And my own friend is in this kind of relationship, where their partner practically admits that their only use to them is to take care of them without giving a crap about being a true partner in return. Naturally it's none of my business and I know from experience that if I as much as hint that they deserve better, they go on the defensive and offer "No, they do love me, they just don't show it" kind of explanations, so I just keep my mouth shut, settling for a sigh when I see my friend getting ignored and even occasionally insulted in plain view of their mutuals. (I guess we're supposed to assume they're much nicer at home with no one around? Seems backwards.) But I also know that inspiration comes from unlikely places, so I just hope that they (not a big moviegoer) someday sit down to stream what looks like a fun genre movie with the girl from Yellowjackets, and then are surprised to get their wheels turning when they see a bit of their own predicament laid out on screen. Maybe they'll even get inspired to start taking the steps to stick up for themselves like Iris eventually does? A friend can dream.
Again if you've seen the trailer (or ideally, the movie itself in full!) then you know that Iris isn't a human being, but an AI companion (read: sexbot) for Josh, the tech bro douchebag. The reveal occurs fairly early in the proceedings (if it's even a full half hour I'd be surprised, though in a rarity for a modern movie, it actually felt a bit shorter than it was so I might be off), but even before then you could see how he treats her and think "It's like he doesn't even consider her a real person at all, let alone his girlfriend." There's a subtle bit early on, when they arrive at the isolated lake house that most of the movie takes place in, and we see him carrying his shoulder bag while Iris lugs both of their (much heavier) suitcases, and later during a bedroom scene we see him orgasm and then immediately roll over and go to sleep without as much as a final kiss (and, clearly, not making the effort to get her past the finish line). There's chivalry (carrying both bags/getting her an O first), and then there's equality (recognizing she is capable of carrying her own/use your imagination), and then there's whatever this is.
It's actually part of why I feel the trailer shouldn't have given the reveal away. If you go in knowing she's a robot, you might have a distance from his behavior, a sort of "Well who cares, it's her job to serve him!" But by spending 25-30 minutes with this person and seeing how hard they are trying to please their "perfect" boyfriend while he continues to belittle her with endless microaggressions, you're fully on her side by the time we find out she's not actually flesh and blood, and thus it doesn't matter. Robot or not, you deserve better, Iris!
Of course, Ex Machina already covered a lot of this material, but it branches off in a new direction thanks to Iris being reprogrammed to do ~something~ (THAT I won't spoil) and how this begins a chain reaction of... well, the sort of thing that makes this feel more like a horror movie than the earlier film. It's still firmly in thriller territory, but the deaths are far more gory than you'd see in your typical "people turn on each other" kind of story, and it has a Coen-esque spiral of violence that I couldn't help but appreciate. You will never look at an electric wine opener the same way again, I assure you.
But even through all the mayhem (and laughs; thanks to Harvey Guillén in particular the movie is very funny at times), first time director Drew Hancock-working from his own script-never loses focus on the core concept, which is that Iris may be a package of nuts and bolts tied together with programming, but she's still more empathetic and human than her narcissistic boyfriend. This is aided immensely by how good the two leads are. Quaid's charms (it's crazy how he inherited the absolute best qualities of his parents) are a perfect fit for this character, as we absolutely understand why she'd be drawn to him even before we learn she's actually programmed to. And even when we know what he's really like, there's still a sense of "I can fix him" that is unfortunately the reason so many people (not robots) are in these kinds of relationships in the real world. You WANT to like this guy, even though he repeatedly proves he's garbage.
And Thatcher is already genre royalty thanks to Heretic and Yellowjackets (not to mention Boogeyman, which is better than you'd expect for a PG13 King short story expansion), but this might be her best work yet. There's a scene where her programming has been switched to speaking German and she's desperately trying to communicate, and there's also some humor built into it because Iris is unable to lie (so when the cop asks her what's wrong, she answers truthfully, even though the situation would be better for her if she lied - but he can't understand her anyway!), and the way she toes that line where you feel sorry for her while also kind of chuckling at the irony of her answers is a marvel to watch.
Speaking of irony, it IS kind of a weird time to release a movie where we root for the AI robot, which is somewhat distracting. AI sucks, to be clear, and our government has been overrun with tech bros who want to go all in on it for whatever reason (well, money, duh, but it's very shortsighted even by their standards). At least when Ex Machina came out this stuff was still "in the future..." kind of material, but now it's killing the environment and threatening jobs *today*. Luckily they don't really even use the term "AI" all that much (if ever?), so you can kind of ignore it if you want to, but still. It's THERE, you know?
That said, the takeaway here has nothing to do with AI or robots. Maybe it's just because of my own personal connection to this sort of thing happening (though, again, I'm sure lots of people do), but as much as I was enjoying the movie I kept feeling a bit sad, wondering if my very human friend will ever learn to stand up for themselves the way Iris eventually does here, or if their own shitty partner will keep using them as a toy for their own amusement until they get bored and move on, having wasted the best years of my friend's life. It's a surprisingly hopeful movie in that respect, and another winner from the Barbarian team (Zach Cregger is one of the producers here, alongside his partners from that film). My only real issue? When Iris is delivered to Josh, he's listening to "Iris" from Goo Goo Dolls, and it's a good gag, but I woulda gone deeper with "Iris" from the band Live. Since the trailer is too spoilery and you should only be reading this if you've seen it, I'm gonna put that banger in the usual place.
What say you?
P.S. I know this is the first review in months. Don't get excited for a full return; I am, alas, still basically calling it a day here due to the fact that it no longer generates any income whatsoever and also I'm working on a new book which I'd rather focus my writing time on instead. But the whole "I wish _____ would see this!", something I never could have predicted before I sat down, kinda left me with a bunch of thoughts so I decided to put them down here instead of in a Bluesky thread. Plus it's kind of amusing that Lukas Gage is in this, because he was also in Smile 2, which is the last time I reviewed anything. I like a coincidence! From now on I vow to review any genre film he's in, at the very least.
PLEASE, GO ON...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)