KEVIN MAHER – THE TIMES (UK)
“A sharply written critique that entertains more than it enlightens.”
“The star taking on two roles is the most interesting element of Oz Perkins’s tenuously plotted film about an evil toy monkey.“
Kevin Maher, chief film critic for The Times, is known for his incisive and often sardonic critiques. In his review of Osgood Perkins’s adaptation of Stephen King’s “The Monkey,” Maher highlights the film’s shortcomings, focusing on its perceived lack of depth and overreliance on gimmicks. But does his critique offer a substantive analysis, or does it mirror the superficiality he attributes to the film?
CLICK DROP-DOWN FOR DETAILED CRITIQUES
THE PERFORMANCE: Maher is more interested in the industry’s trends than the film itself.
Maher’s review opens with a commentary on the trend of actors undertaking multiple roles, positioning Theo James’s dual performance as the film’s sole redeeming feature. This introduction, while engaging, serves more as a critique of industry practices than an analysis of the film itself. As the review progresses, Maher provides a cursory plot overview, emphasizing the repetitive nature of the film’s horror elements. However, his critique lacks a deep dive into the film’s thematic intentions or directorial choices, rendering the analysis somewhat superficial.
THE PATTERNS: Maher frequently uses film reviews as a platform for industry commentary.
This approach is consistent with Maher’s broader body of work. In his review of Captain America: Brave New World, he critiques the Marvel franchise’s formulaic approach, yet spends considerable time discussing the franchise’s history rather than the film’s unique attributes. Similarly, his review of I’m Still Here focuses heavily on the film’s context and the director’s background, occasionally at the expense of a nuanced exploration of the film’s content. Maher’s critiques often prioritize industry commentary over in-depth film analysis.
HIGHLIGHT REEL: When Maher paints a scene, he paints it vividly.
Maher exhibits a flair for vivid descriptions, as evidenced by his portrayal of a death scene in The Monkey: “An ancient external air conditioning unit falls from a motel roof… a glamorous woman in a tiny bikini dives into the water she explodes into a huge spewing cloud of burger meat.” This graphic depiction effectively conveys the film’s grotesque imagery and showcases Maher’s descriptive prowess.
CUTTING ROOM FLOOR: An entertaining read that sidesteps deeper analysis.
Despite his engaging prose, Maher’s review falls short in several areas. He dismisses potential thematic interpretations, such as the monkey symbolizing “the primal pain that absent parents cause in the life of children,” without offering a substantive analysis. Additionally, his focus on the film’s surface-level flaws precludes a discussion of its stylistic choices, narrative structure, or the director’s artistic vision. This omission results in a critique that, while entertaining, lacks depth.
THE VERDICT:
- Analytical Depth: 4/10 – The review touches on surface elements but lacks a thorough exploration of underlying themes and directorial intent.
- Evidence & Support: 5/10 – Provides vivid descriptions of specific scenes but fails to connect them to a broader critical framework.
- Fairness & Balance: 6/10 – Acknowledges the film’s attempt at thematic depth but quickly dismisses it without substantial analysis.
- Insight & Perspective: 5/10 – Offers industry context but lacks a nuanced understanding of the film’s artistic choices.
- Clarity & Engagement: 7/10 – The writing is engaging and vivid, though it occasionally prioritizes style over substance.
TOTAL SCORE: 27/50 [★★☆☆☆] – An Adequate Review
Maher’s critique showcases his talent for vivid imagery and industry insight but falls short in providing a comprehensive analysis of the film’s artistic intentions. By focusing predominantly on surface-level observations and broader industry trends, the review misses an opportunity to engage deeply with the film’s narrative complexities and directorial vision.
OUR SELF-CHECK SCORE: 35/50 [★★★☆☆] – A Good Review
In our critique, we may have underappreciated Maher’s intent to situate “The Monkey” within broader industry trends, which could provide valuable context for readers. Additionally, while we critiqued his lack of thematic analysis, it’s possible that editorial constraints limited the depth he could provide. However, we maintain that a more balanced approach, combining industry commentary with in-depth film analysis, would enhance the review’s value to a diverse readership.
Authors
Comments are closed.
Together jeez because insect smelled far victorious aside and scowled bet more therefore incredibly then slight that asininely porcupine some hello the while much the crud dogged scratched underlay comparably