“The Monkey,” adapted from Stephen King’s 1980 short story, was released in theatres on Feb. 21, 2025. Jada Hauser | The Washtenaw Voice
 1 out of 5 stars This review may contain spoilers for “The Monkey”, released in theatres on Feb. 21, 2025. |
Henry Sincic | Contributor
“The Monkey,” a new horror film from director Osgood Perkins, represents the latest effort to translate a classic Stephen King story to the big screen. But like so many similar attempts before it, the movie also represents the latest misfire when it comes to adapting King’s work. At least 2023’s dreadful “The Boogeyman” can feel a little less bad about itself, in this regard.
King, of course, hardly needs an introduction. He’s “The King of Horror” for a reason, having terrified, horrified or just outright disgusted readers with stories, long and short, for more than half a century. If anything, some of King’s best works are his short stories, for many of them serve to answer that question of countless creatives, “What if…?” In the case of King’s 1980 short story, “The Monkey,” the question is, “What if a toy monkey was cursed, with the power to cause death whenever it played its drums?” It’s a story that lays bare the all-consuming grief and paranoia that such an object would bring to its owner, and it’s still well worth a read 45 years later.
Given the nature of the story, it seems fitting that the film adaptation is cursed from outset.
For starters, it is an admittedly difficult task, adapting a story of just under 15,000 words into a film of an hour and 40 minutes. Things will need to be added, changed, moved around, etc. That all makes sense. But the movie is also attempting a genre shift, from a purely chilling and paranoia-inducing read to some kind of macabre comedy. It doesn’t go well.
As mentioned, the tone of the film is off. The film is clearly going for laughs, with gruesomely over-the-top (and often poorly CGed) deaths being met with “comically understated” reactions, but it really doesn’t work too well most of the time.
Mystifying humor and apathetic performances often combine to create a “CollegeHumor sketch gone wrong” vibe, and it’s as painful as it sounds. This curtails the brilliant, fear-inducing pacing of the story from the outset.
Speaking of the short story, WCC English professor Maryam Barrie, who teaches a class on horror literature, notes King’s storytelling prowess.
“He’s a master of foreshadowing, right? So he drops these little honest hints about something’s bad with the monkey early on in the story, and they just grow as the plot develops,” Barrie said.
The movie can’t hope to compete with the understatement of “a master of foreshadowing” such as King, however, because we know what the monkey can do from the outset: deliver horribly-CGIed deaths that would make a “Mortal Kombat” fatality blush in excess.
The characters bear the same names as those in the story but are practically unrecognizable from their print counterparts. Absolutely none of them are likeable, and the attempts at making their unlikeability a point of humor are more strained than an orange juice factory. And no, Osgood Perkins, awkward Elijah Wood cameos don’t count as real comedy.
The changes made to the original story are also baffling. None of the characters’ motivations or actions make any sense and, by the third act, the film gives up any semblance of sense and cohesion. It almost feels like a cruel prank someone would pull on an unsuspecting audience of horror fans, like, “Hey, don’t y’all love Stephen King? Wouldn’t it be fun to bastardize one of his most cherished stories? Y’all better clap, or we’re getting out the cattle prods again!!”
I suspect that the best way to rid myself of the memory of this awful movie is to dispose of it in a place where it can never disappoint anyone ever again. If you’ll excuse me, I have a trip to the middle of a lake that I must attend to.
