La zampa di scimmia

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.

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 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!

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.

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.