Add a Review

  • The Monkeys Paw is a tale that has been covered cinematically several times over the years including as far back as the early 30's. It tells the story of a paw that grants wishes but the twist is that it corrupts whatever it provides.

    The original story always told of a parent who wants a deceased child returned from the dead, this version tweeks that slightly but is still loyal to its source material.

    Stephen Lang brings life to the rather dull cast and brings forth a performance only rivalled by his in Don't Breathe (2016)

    Not the best version and a tad slow this is one of those premises where you could do a lot with it but here they fail to do so.

    Perfectly watchable but perhaps should have been somewhat better.

    The Good:

    Stephen Lang

    The Bad: Oddly boring

    Things I learnt from this movie:

    Monkeys Paw would make a great television series!
  • If "Heart-Shaped Box", ever gets made into a movie, I would like it to have a little bit of the feeling I got from "The Monkey's Paw", that without being a great accomplishment, delivers with a little twist; making it as one wanted sequel for the original story of W. W. Jacobs and this time unleashing the evil we don't get to read on the original story.

    I kind of venture to say, that some may want to compare it with Stephen king's "Pet cemetery", or "The Serpent and the Rainbow" but, at least on my case I wouldn't dare to. Even though this is not a for the big screen of a movie theater, the film stands on its own, giving the obvious answer of what it would have happened after the mother opens to his dead son? Would he be like "I am alive again and I am better than before"? Definitely, the answer is no. Among the advantages of the story is that it doesn't play the main character as a dumb guy, just, naive and ingenuous man that unfortunately under the influence of alcohol and not having a good life, makes the wrong choices.

    Unlike other horror, slasher movies, the cliché, (like the phone ringing at the most inopportune moment) becomes a necessary element. Why? Because we feel like it shouldn't have happened to them, meaning that we get to care for the characters, regardless of them being of secondary importance on the story, I would say that at this point is about "family" it gets way more personal. A little weird? … after the Mom's death… dealing with this pseudo – zombie? Also I really liked the use of the street cars, and the location of New Orleans, it gave the little touch for a little "Vodou".

    The acting is fairly good, the ambiance, music and camera work let you appreciate the effort of the filmmakers,regardless of being a little slow between some of the scenes,and the appearances of the always welcome Charles S. Dutton, Daniel Hugh-Kelly (Cujo) and Stephen Lang (avatar), gives the necessary strength for the rest of the cast and the flaws you may encounter. Without being overexcited, I would recommend it much more than movies like insidious 2.
  • I had never heard of the story before, so I didn't have any preconceptions. It's not too bad, but it switched back and forth between dead serious and camp and not very effectively.

    Thomason and Lang both do a job, but Thomason plays it completely seriously while Lang plays it like a Freddy Krueger.

    There's also a hint of a subplot that goes nowhere, where the cops and others suspect Thomason's character is doing the murders. Not the newest plot and it would take it in a Hitcher direction, but it could have worked here. The cops SHOULD have suspected him.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Oh boy. Another mildly amusing Victorian horror story has been converted into another American slasher borefest.

    The recipe how to do it is very simple: Ignore the original setting of the story an chose today's America instead. You may choose mildly interesting place like New Orleans if you prefer to make the story somewhat exotic.

    Get rid of original characters of the story and replace them with good looking young folks. They are more interesting to look at and the viewer will forgive them as they behave as brain dead. Also ignore the original mythology and premises of the story - replace all these cults and gods and mysterious sellers just with a drunken boy in a bar. This will also explain why the folks use powerful magical devices with an incredible level of stupidity: They just do not believe it actually works.

    And now for the real "American twist of the original story": The story is usually about the device itself and the ways how the main character plans to use it without the backfire as it was advertised by its seller. Just do not care about the device at all and just focus on cheap TV soap grade interpersonal relationships of the young and stupid characters. No real depth is really needed as in the TV.

    The plot it is also simple: The first third will be wasted on the introduction of the characters and their TV soap opera class problems. Then for a 60 seconds there is a device and the rest of the movie is running, driving, fighting, screaming, slashing, shouting and crying. You know - emotions. The more people are killed the better - you need a lot of blood in the horror stories these days. You know: How folks should understand their are watching the horror if there is no blood? Just do not forget: The main enemy must be older man with a beard. That makes him different from the young lovable characters.

    In the end please do not forget to show the plot device for about 5 seconds so the viewers can know that if they pay a lot for a tickets and DVDs they may have a whole series made in this very manner. Sort of preview I would say.

    I really have no idea why Americans hate so much other cultures so they feel entitled to "upgrade" their horror story to this mild tasting bland coca-cola-KFC blend. But it is really horrid. What's even worse I do love original American horror stories. Just this sort of cultural rape made by brain dead script writers and producers makes me sick. It's insulting and what is more - it's really stupid as this makes resulting coca-cola-KFC blend sooooo predictable and boring.

    Seriously: Stop doing that. Please just stop doing that. It fails most of the time. Do what you can do very well: Variations like The Cabin in the Woods. This was not dumbing down the original stories but improving over them by telling an entirely new story inspired on the older ones. That was way better.
  • anitsuj19 October 2014
    The bottom line: don't waste your time. This should not be called "The Monkey's Paw." This has nothing to do with the original story. I am so very disappointed! I was hoping that the story was brought to the big screen. I could not be any more wrong. I highly suggest for viewers who like the original story NOT to view the movie. However, if you have never read the original story or do not like the original story, watch the movie an decide for yourself how bad the movie REALLY is. Truly, it id REALLY bad. If you decide to waste your time with this movie, I hope you have the chance to do something else constructive in parallel. I hope somebody decides to remake this movie the way it is supposed to be.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The Monkey's Paw.

    Find a paw and ya get some wishes, three wishes to be exact. As the wise and the witless say, be careful what you wish for. This is the tired story of cliché love lost 20 something guy, his blonde make-up crusted bimbo of an ex who has moved on to guy's boss, old drunk and bitter father figure who wants his family back... enter a monkey's paw. Three wishes to make your dreams come true, what could go wrong?

    Guy looses his friends and family to father figure turned zombie killer, blonde takes stab wound to chest (her best feature), drunk and bitter gets drunk and dead and young and innocent spawn of drunk and bitter gets the next rack of wishes from the monkey's paw.

    If this sounds like a bad horror movie to you, you are not imagining it. The story was terrible, the script was scrap, and the acting was atrocious, and the blood had the look and consistency of Hershey's chocolate syrup. It would take the gang of mystery science theater to polish this gem to an appreciable point, but even that may be stretching it. Bad is bad and bad it was and frankly to expect more would be to expect too much.
  • videodrome123423 August 2014
    Warning: Spoilers
    Last week I did a review of Brett Simmon's new direction Animal. I mentioned that he had previously done a film with this production company, which according to critics wasn't the best film either. Well I gave the film a go at proving them wrong. It was made by Chiller Films and was released not long ago. It's genre? The one that seems to go hand in hand with the director. Horror. Monkey's Paw had a lot of the same going for it as Animal, but I'd be hard pressed to call any of it positive. While it's true that the story isn't about a wild beast, but an ancient horror legend, we end up with a zombie story, with a dash of voodoo, and a pinch of modern day America. The problem with stories like this is that they are cliché and not really all that interesting. The story: The film centers on Jake Tilton, who acquires a mystical "monkey's paw" talisman that grants its possessor three wishes. Jake finds his world turned upside down after his first two wishes result in co-worker Tony Cobb being resurrected from the dead. As Cobb pressures Jake into using the final wish to reunite Cobb with his son, his intimidation quickly escalates into relentless murder-- forcing Jake to outwit his psychotic friend and save his remaining loved ones. First off granting wishes, voodoo story is a little overused, there have been oodles of films about this topic and if that's all they were about they didn't really stand out of the crowd. The whole story and atmosphere would work great in say a Tales from the Crypt episode, but not in a feature film. Plus the film has a bunch of things wrong with it too. First off it's so TV movie. It's not really that it's just reminds me of one and the script helped in that department. Not to mention that it's so riddled with logical holes it's Swiss cheese. Sometimes they were made out of stupidity, sometimes it just seemed they weren't really paying attention. The next problem is something I spoke about in relation to Animal too – though it was a lot more annoying in that film – is the fact that there is no blood. Yeah you can make a case for that not being too important and it really isn't if the film has something else going for it, if it has squat? Then at least it could be bloody no? Unfortunately it's sorely lacking here. The one positive thing are the actors, who did a solid job, other than that I don't really have anything good to say about it. It seems like this production company is predominantly going for broke in horror stories that can be easily shown on TV. But then I kind of don't get how come they don't just make films for the SCI-FI Channel. All in all the director Brett Simmons was true to himself. Animal was a kind of pointless, but watchable once, mediocre horror and so was Monkey's Paw. I think the whole thing took a left turn at Albuquerque when they picked out the basic story. Sure that makes it hard to go anywhere good, so then why the hell make the film? 2/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog
  • Too many 'plot devices' by the writer/director in place of coherent storytelling.

    What could have been an intriguing story about the paw was turned into a murder/slasher movie, which would not have been terrible if the murders made sense.

    1. The villain has Flash-like abilities, no not really fast, but somehow appears wherever he needs to be in a few minutes (plot convenience). 2. The protagonist has the ability to warn people but instead talks in vague circles so the people in danger do not react (plot convenience). 3. Dumbest police ever (again). 4. The movie is about the paw, which is rarely seen. It is almost like they created a slasher movie first then added the paw element as an added twist so that is does not appear like a generic slasher movie (but it is). 5. The person with most screen time is the worst actor in movie. He never exudes any real emotion regardless of situation. 6. Charles S Dutton as the cop was wasted opportunity.

    Positive? Stephen Lang plays his part very well.
  • The Monkey's Paw was written in 1902 by W. W. Jacobs, but if you didn't know that and you read the message board for this film, you'd be tempted to think it was originally a Simpsons or Goosebumps episode.

    While so many iconic stories like the one Jacobs penned lend themselves to parody or adaptation, the writers of this version actually created something original - which is why, I would guess, the ratings here are so much lower than they should be.

    Instead of giving us one more pass through of the "be careful what you wish for" scenario, the filmmakers take us in a different direction. Saying much more would ruin the story, so I'll only point out that it's not only the protagonist who suffers for his choices.

    All aspects of this film are competent or better. The length is also very appropriate to the overall arc and pacing. I'll also mention that the connection to the original story is so subtle that many will miss it.
  • billcr1229 March 2014
    Warning: Spoilers
    This is the familiar old story of be careful of what you wish for. A guy working at a factory is given a monkey's paw and told that it will grant him three wishes. He sees a fancy sports car in a parking lot and it is his first wish. By chance, the keys are in it, and so he takes a friend with him on a high speed joy ride. They crash, and his good buddy goes through the windshield, with deadly results. Wish number two is for the accident victim to not be dead. The rest of the movie deals with the undead Tommy being a very violent sort of guy with a penchant for bloodshed. Bad things happen to the wish master, all due to the monkey's paw. The acting is decent enough, but the story becomes silly. A good premise does not sustain and I give the film a 5/10.
  • Seriously. This is a far much better film than its current, weak rating. There is also a serious flaw in IMDb's rating system. I think maybe members should have to actually be members for more than 1 day to leave a vote for ratings. 30, 60...maybe 90 days before you can vote or review a film unless you are a legitimate film critic with your own online site. Too many terrible films get very high ratings because people involved in the films get to create a new account and leave "Best Film Ever" reviews and "10 out of 10" ratings. Then, films like this one, which obviously deserves a much higher rating, end up having people leave "Worst Film Ever" reviews and "1 out of 10" ratings. Do you have a grudge against someone involved in this film? Not get the part you so desperately wanted? Did the director boink your girlfriend? No problem! Come on over to IMDb, create a new account and you can instantly voice just how terrible, poorly written and horribly acted the film was. Not to mention the director has a small penis.

    I seriously need to set up my own film review site. You may not always agree with my reviews, but you can sure as hell know they are honest and not because I had something to do with any particular film one way or another, good or bad. Chiller Films' remake of THE MONKEY'S PAW is a very good movie with an original story. It's very well acted, shot, directed, and edited. It is not the "Best Film Ever," but it is damn well worth viewing and one of the best horror/comedies I have watched all year! Yes, this is indeed some serious monkey business! Now give me your paw...
  • In New Orleans, Jake Tilton (C.J. Thomason) works in transportation business as assistant of the supervisor Gillespie (Daniel Hugh Kelly) with his friends Anthony "Tony" Cobb (Stephen Lang) and Catfish (Corbin Bleu). When the manager Kevin (Andy Favreau), who got married to Jake's former girlfriend Olivia Corbin (Michelle Pierce), fires Gillespie, Jake and Cobb meet him drinking in a bar and Gillespie gives a magical monkey's paw to Jake telling that it grants three wishes to the owner. Jake does not believe in his words but he wishes a nice car that is parked at the bar. Soon he and Cobb discover the keys inside the car and Jake drives the car. However he has a car accident and Cobb dies. Then he wishes that Cobb resurrects and his friend becomes a soulless undead. Cobb wishes that Jake uses his last wish to make his son to love him, but Jake has thrown the paw away. Cobb decides to kill everyone connected to Jake to force him to use the monkey's paw to grant his wish.

    In 1902, in England, the writer W. W. Jacob published the supernatural short story "The Monkey Paw" where the owner of a monkey's paw is granted with three wishes with tragic consequences. In Tales from the Crypt (1972), there is a segment with the title "Wish you Were Here" based on this short story where a bankrupted businessman uses a statue with the legend that it could grant three wishes to the owner to make the wishes that lead him to eternal damnation.

    "The Monkey's Paw" is a horror movie with a good version also based on this short story with the idea that you shall be careful with what you wish for. The creepy and gore story takes place in the mystical New Orleans and does not disappoint fans of horror. My vote is seven.

    Title (Brazil): Not Available on VHS / DVD / Blu-Ray
  • Warning: Spoilers
    THE MONKEY'S PAW is less an adaptation of the famous ghost story by British writer W.W. Jacobs and more a typical supernatural slasher flick with a generic Hollywood feel. It provides a role for the reliably evil Stephen Lang, whose appearance in AVATAR has made him extremely typecast in this genre, but other than that it's largely uninteresting. The story has been chopped and altered so that it's barely recognisable as an adaptation of the old story. The film itself has a dark, blue-tinted look and boring protagonists whose fate you never really care about. Inevitably there are some gruesome interludes but as a horror film, this one's a dud.
  • The Monkey's Paw! - started out with pretty much, no expectations whatsoever. So glad I did that! The story behind this one is quite easy to anticipate, wont have any sick twists to it, but it will have a normal presentation, and it will follow its course quite nicely. The acting is good, especially from Stephen Lang, who made the film happen (my opinion), the death scenes are more than OK I'd say, and it has a nice pace. Doesn't slow for anything, has no dumb reactions as many modern horror got us used to, so all in all, a perfect movie for a late, cold, night!

    Without going on and on about a simple, natural, yet effective horror, I would definitely recommend this one. A small surprise, a great add-on to one's collection, something that will put its mark upon you.

    Such movies are hope that modern horror will not ultimately present itself as a complete failure. Aw, and of course, I recommend "Monkey Shines", if you wanna see a horror, with a monkey! That one is also truly great! Hope you'll enjoy both of them.

    Cheers!
  • draftdubya5 September 2018
    Warning: Spoilers
    3 things that irked me about this movie. Jake's mother would've had bruises on her mouth and nose. This would've been a better movie if Cobb killed Jake's annoying brother(which he eventually did) instead of his mother. Abby is miscast, she would've had to be like 16 while getting preggers(their kid was like 12 years old) by a 55 year old Cobb.
  • Jake (C. J. Thomason) is given a monkey's paw that grants three wishes. After the first two wishes leave his friend Cobb (Stephen Lang) undead, Cobb pushes Jake to make a final wish.

    There have been many films based on the short story of the same name by author W. W. Jacobs, going back to at least 1933. Each is a little different, often because of the time period in which they are set. This one is a bit different because it features two friends rather than the traditional pair of mother and son. (George A. Romero has said this story could only be told in a short film or an anthology, but clearly many have tried to prove him wrong.)

    This one has more action than previous versions, and really makes the story its own. Whether it is better or not is up to the viewers. When compared to some adaptions (such as "Deathdream"), it seems unlikely this will develop a following. But perhaps?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "The Monkey's Paw" is a movie for in between and looks like a movie version of one of Stephen King's short stories. Upon further investigation, it appears to have originated from W.W. Jacobs who has written this story in 1902. The story is based on the well-known 3 wishes which are granted to someone. In this movie the paw of a dead monkey can achieve this. However, there is a snag. The wishes are carried out but you have to pay an extremely heavy price because you are tampering with fate.

    The basis of the original story is mostly retained in this film. Only the end has a different turn. The final message behind the whole story is in the description of the leg. "There was a spell written by a fakir. He was a very holy man. He wanted to show that life depends on fate, and those who are interfering with it won't do this without any sorrow." Actually, it is a perfect story with the right atmosphere for an episode of "Tales from the crypt" or "Creepshow". Also there's a comic of "The Monkey's paw" and even a radio show. It actually sounds a bit corny and feels like an old-fashioned ghost story to read to children at Halloween.

    Despite the fact that I didn't expect much of it, the movie was still reasonable. You should forget about the overused banality, such as a phone ringing at the wrong time. Ultimately, it's an ordinary creepy story with a bit of voodoo and a zombie section. The feeling and atmosphere of "Pet Sematary" leans close to it, but nevertheless, this movie has its own personality.

    The acting is reasonably well . You do have the feeling that you are watching a TV episode. I don't think it's screened a lot in the cinemas. It appears also that the protagonist C.J. Thomason has quite some experience in the world of television. Generally he played his part convincingly. However, his actions weren't always logical. Jake didn't have a easy life thus far. His mother is in the hospital and is suffering from cancer . He has a bland, probably poorly paid job with a gland of a boss, who's also married to his ex-girlfriend he apparently still has feelings for. A reasonable person would immediately think of his mother at the first wish. Nope. The first thing he wishes is to become the owner of a glitzy sports car parked in front of the pub. You can bring up the arguments about his drunken state and his skeptical attitude towards the so called wishes. But still ! Stephen Lang looked familiar, but I couldn't place him immediately. Compared with Jake he's a more colorful figure. In the beginning he played an ordinary fellow who apparently can handle his liquor. The changing into a blood-drooling murderous zombie who kills anything that stands in his way of fulfilling his only desire by a wish, is rather successful. So we get a soft-slasher zombie movie where the massacres are not visualized too gross. The most original was the part with the machine working on air pressure. A typical horror story and an enjoyable entertaining movie. Don't expect more. One thing always amazes me. Am I the only one whose first wish would spontaneously be to ask for a 1000 wishes more ?

    More reviews at http://opinion-as-a-moviefreak.blogspot.be/
  • Now don't get me wrong, not a bad movie by far, however the trailers and hype brought this movies potential to be one of the best horror films in years. Kind of fell short. I agree it's not the worst movie and very well worth watching, just don't expect academy awards for this. I give this flick a solid 6-7 stars (out of 10) for getting so many to watch it in the first place, a good solid 5 for the acting, as for the plot, we'll have to dig a little deeper for this to even reach a 4. The story line and plot fell short in every category I can think of, at times I swear the actors were ablibing lines to fill in the plot holes. So overall score... A solid 5. Hope you enjoy it, I did , past 2 hours in a flash..... My wife keeps yelling at me for singing "Monkey Paw, Monkey, monkey paw all day " over n over...lol.. (Very loud at that :))
  • Scarecrow-8825 August 2016
    Warning: Spoilers
    The Monkey's Paw is updated to 2013 where a factory underling, Jake (CJ Thomason), accidentally costs a long-time employee, Gill (Daniel Hugh Kelly; Hardcastle and McCormick) his job. Gill received a monkey's paw as a kid after his father died, and he decides as revenge to give it to Jake, knowing that if wished upon bad things were most certain to happen. And they do.

    As the old story goes, Jake wishes for a nice ride, and a wreck caused by a gator in the road throws his bar/work buddy, Tony Cobb (Stephen Lang), through the windshield, killing him when he hit the ground. Unwisely making a second wish on the paw to resurrect Tony, what happens is he's brought back, but the soul is "poisoned" and he becomes a remorseless killer. Tony has an ex with a son who has a restraining order against him. Although he wants to "take his boy fishing", Tony isn't some father of the year: in fact the friendly, chatty Tony Jake became close to has returned cold and distanced. What Tony wants is to have his son and sees the monkey's paw as the means to do so. So unless Jake does as he wishes, people will die (a motorist he met at a bar is strangled by him through the use of her hoody)…and do.

    Two wishes and Tony wants Jake to make that third, being the kid belonging to him. That motivation will drive Tony to commit unspeakable acts, like murdering Jake's family (mother, brother, and brother's wife), a detective trying to help him (Charles Durning in a thankless part he still manages to bring depth to despite being given a few scenes with a manner of minutes), and Jake's employer (thinking that if the rival for the woman he loves is out of the way, Jake would be more apt to help him).

    Lang has cut his teeth on complex villains. He was at first an opinionated, assertive, but ultimately amusing blue collar forklift operator, only robbed of his humanity after Jake awakens him from the dead thanks to a monkey's paw with only bad intentions it offers. Lang offers a weapon cutting a swath through all that are close to Jake, wanting the kid, not fully realizing the cruelty of his actions. The black soul and how Lang posits a ruined character thanks to the paw is damned effective. He's shot well, too, to convey all that darkness. Thomason just wasn't particularly involved in his character and left me cold…we needed someone who could provoke a response not leave a feeling of apathy towards him. The paw dilemma isn't too badly executed. You see how the paw really takes Jake down a dark road: no good really comes of it. Kelly isn't available for the film much, but you can feel for him considering his firing left him in a difficult spot. That he is the catalyst for all the harm done, though, visits upon him karmic justice…he pays for not ridding himself and others of the paw. This is not a film which focuses on the grisly details, more or less suggesting the horrors caused by Lang. Heads don't fare well: one victim is crushed in a vice while another has his head split open with a blade; a third is twisted all the way around. This will perhaps be judged by Lang's mission of terror, because the paw story is old hat.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is a good old-fashioned "horror" movie. Well, not much of a horror, though. Reminds me of Stephen King's works (storytelling) and Wes Craven's earlier movies (Chiller). There's even some E.A. Poe here. It is well directed, correctly acted, edited and shot almost perfectly (compliments to the camera-man). Much better than many of so-called horror movies nowadays (with few notable exceptions, of course). It's even funny occasionally. The basic concept is very well known "careful what you wish for..." and if you disregard obvious basic nonsense of "three wishes granting" (actually one is perfectly enough: make all my wishes come true), the rest is a nice little movie in which the atmosphere itself is scary, not the actual "slashes" and stuff. So, I like it. Of course there is a cliffhanger! "If the movie is a success, let's make some sequels and squeeze money out of it." On the other hand, it is a whole in itself and any sequels could ruin the whole idea. I recommend it to the people familiar with the genre (who could see the references and acknowledgments and appreciate good work)and anybody who wishes (be careful, though!) to see a good one. This movie deserves to be watched.
  • It was promising but didn't make any sense after the first half of the movie. It was also very predictable... If you think you know what being bored is, watch this movie and think again.
  • I didn't know what to expect going into The Monkey's Paw, but I was not disappointed! The film basically takes the classic tale, turns it on it's head and expands it into a twisted, often surprising story. The tone is just eerie. Throughout the entire movie, there's this building tension or dark energy that never fully lets up. I couldn't fully relax until the very end, but even then I was left with chills.

    The performances were great too. C.J. Thomason makes a great lead and Stephen Lang is creepier than ever. His character was my favorite- so mysterious and unpredictable. You will not believe Corbin Bleu's performance. I didn't even recognize him at first. He actually does a great job with his character in this film.

    I won't give away any of the surprises, but suffice it to say this is a quality, surprising, dark and eerie film.
  • When I stumbled upon "The Monkey's Paw", I didn't know what it was about, who starred in it or who directed it. I am familiar with the myth of the magical powers of the monkey's paw, and that was sufficient enough to make me pick up the movie and give it a go.

    I was pleasantly surprised to see that Stephen Lang was in this movie, because he usually performs quite well in the stuff that he participates in, and it turned out that the 2013 "The Monkey's Paw" was also one such feat. And he was joined by C.J. Thomason whom also performed quite well.

    Now, the storyline was pretty much straight forward and simple to follow. Actually, it was so straightforward that it was actually a bit too predictable. But it was alright, because the movie was entertaining enough to sustain the predictability without suffering under it.

    To quickly summarize the storyline, then it is about Jake Tilton (played by C.J. Thomason) whom is given a monkey's paw and the three wishes that come with it. But when one wish turns his friend Tony Cobb (played by Stephen Lang) into a soulless husk of his former self, things turn foul and bad things start to happen.

    The atmosphere that director Brett Simmons managed to set up during the course of the movie was quite good, because it was quite becoming for the storyline and the movie as a whole.

    This isn't a horror movie that relies heavily on special effects, so don't get all worked up and hope for a grand CGI and practical effects show, because it just ain't there. Sure, there were special effects in the movie, and the effects that were there were to the point and functioning very well.

    "The Monkey's Paw" is the type of horror movie that is driven by a good and entertaining storyline and have some well-rounded characters in the character gallery to help bring the story to life on the screen. While this is not the type of horror movie that will make you cringe and jump at the edge of the seat, it is the type of horror movie that broods and stays with you.
  • madameminty19 April 2023
    It explicitly adheres to the original concept in a backstory one of the characters provides us, but the actual movie shows nothing but a generic genie-driven slasher. The writers didn't quite understand the trope, even though you can tell they made an attempt by at least drawing plenty of elements from the story.

    The writing is uneven, showing promise tainted with predictably poor key scenes, including the very typical ending for horror. Unconvincing acting from Thomason as the protagonist doesn't help, but the antagonist's portrayal is surprisingly entertaining.

    I wish it was something more.
  • Mehki_Girl15 June 2020
    Warning: Spoilers
    I did watch all the way through with many many pauses to play much more interesting video games.

    Random thoughts because this movie is random.

    First I read the original story and it's a classic and scary AF as you must use your imagination and feel the characters anguish and motivations.

    Also saw this classic depicted ob TV in an excellent production that kept to the original story and also let you use your imagination (Twilight Zone?).

    Near the end I was just, please just shoot that damned thing already.

    And, gee, mom, don't you think you should cover your son's eyes from the drama?

    Okay, the actor playing the ghoul (and former ahole) pretty convincing (not sure not having a soul really changed much), is a real life ex military guy who keeps in shape. Got that because we had to view his well-sculptured naked torso in one gratuitous scene. (Well for once the woman got to keep her clothes on.) Not bad, but somehow I didn't want to see it, given the par he was playing. Like ewww already.

    Stupid, silly movie, with only two well known actors, but actors gotta work right?
An error has occured. Please try again.