The Monkey's Paw

+1 for Stephen Lang's performance here Such a great character actor and a pleasure to watch him play just about any part

-1 For the Ending Where a certain So and So stopped beating another certain So and So...no spoilers, haha

Okay a Story told fairly blandly and ends up being pretty average and really only saved by the additions of Lang and an underused Charles Dutton

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...

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.

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.

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.