Spanking the Monkey (1994) User Reviews

Flawed but Interesting. Dollar for dollar about the best $80,000 Movie you will see

[Dutch1968 · 6/10 · 29 June 2007]

Given the budget limitations ($80,000), "Spanking the Monkey" manages to hold interest albeit with some poorly chosen scenes.

The core of the movie is the relationship between mother and son. The rest of the cast exists to point the way to the inevitable.

The philandering, materialistic, self absorbed husband/father illuminates the barren marriage.

The fumbling sexual attempts of the son with the girl next door and her contradictory accusations of his sexual attempts as either too rough or not rough enough (gay), understandably confuse the son and provide the mother with a mentoring, nurturing sexual role for her son about how to sexually succeed with women.

The mother, stumbling upon a bedroom sexual session between the son and the girl next door, reacts more in jealousy than in any maternally disproving fashion.

The mother's flirtatious ways with the male neighbors, doctors, and ultimately with the girl next door's father point out that while she may be her son's mother, she is still a very desirable woman in the eyes of the rest of the male world.

From the beginning through the end, you never believe the son and mother ever had a mother/child bonding. Both of them are intellectually superior, highly educated. The mother was young when she gave birth and she thinks of herself as her son's educational, intellectual and ultimately sexual mentor, not his mother.

The teenage son's inability to "spank his monkey" combined with the boredom, liquor and medications downed by his mother provide the explosive elements that are just waiting to be lit. The mother's seductive smile and a slight hiking of her nightgown set off the explosion.

This movie is nowhere near perfect, but it's compelling enough to let you sit through the unnecessary (e.g. stoner friends) and that's a lot more than you can say for most movies with a budget that is a thousand times greater.

Erotic for all the wrong reasons...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 12 September 2007]

An independent film that bravely confronts the subject of consensual incest is presented as a dark comedy in which ALBERTA WATSON and JEREMY DAVIES, as mother and son, have the key roles. It's their mother/son relationship at the heart of the story that is compelling and sometimes erotic--especially the scene where Davies has to massage his mother's legs and toes while they discuss why her road travelling husband isn't there to do it for her.

When the story strays to others outside this relationship, it fails to make the same connection. The father is strictly a man so obsessed with his own career that he ignores his wife. She, in turn, is a manipulative shrew who virtually seduces her son because she's a needy woman. The son's friends are depicted as total drug-happy boors and boozers whose minds are completely idle.

At times the story becomes dark and brooding--even intense--and yet there's a surface tension broken by laughter at some of the shenanigans going on in this dysfunctional, to say the least, family.

Outstanding work by JEREMY DAVIES and ALBERTA WATSON. He's highly sympathetic in his predicament all the way through and she's totally despicable in the manner by which she exerts control over him. Both show complete understanding of their difficult roles.

Summing up: Interesting tale, character-driven and flawed, but worth watching.

flawed third act but still a keeper

[acerbica · 7/10 · 28 January 2005]

THIS COMMENT CONTAINS SPOILERS, GIVEAWAYS AND REVELATIONS. Or something.

Okay, to my mind what holds this movie together is the chemistry between Susan (Alberta Watson) and Ray (Jeremy Davies). Almost everything else is superfluous and a great deal of the last half hour could have wound up on the cutting-room floor.

Tom, the controlling, philandering dad, could have been fleshed out more. As it is, we see a driven, conniving, dishonest man - with no idea of what made him that way, or why Susan stayed with him. There is a scene rather late in the film where he opens up, but it's wedged between about six other speed-the-plot scenes, and loses almost all its meaning. His character works best not as a real person, but as another one of the many pressures that act against Ray all summer long. You can see Ray's fear, resentment and anger build through the entire film. Jeremy Davies' performance is agile and moving.

I did not need even one appearance of Ray's stoner friends; they don't advance the plot or even give any comic relief. We're supposed to understand that Ray is only there because he's friends with Nicky (played by guitarist Matthew Puckett), but the other three jokers take up so much cinematic room that there's no way to tell what Nicky and Ray meant to each other.

Likewise, when Ray jumps off the cliff, we're supposed to understand that he's making a desperate bid for freedom, and that his old life is over (rebirth / baptism / etc). But not half an hour ago he was trying to kill his mother. Too much information.

Toni Peck is the little girl from down the lane who's had a crush on Ray without ever meeting him. She is a precocious thing who has read more about life than she's actually experienced. The early scenes with her and Ray could have had more bite - what he says to her in the pagoda is not really enough for her to go home in a snit. And if she can't take that kind of verbal treatment, how in the world does she manage to stand up to Hurricane Susan later on? I don't feel that Toni's character was really thought through (and her father should have been excised from the movie). She was not really a person, but a study in contrast. Ray is awkward, graceless and fumbling when he's with Toni, but with Susan he's the consummate lover - relaxed, confident, passionate, healing.

Jeremy Davies does not quite pull off every trick in Ray's book. Too often he is a limp dishrag - not at all vibrant or interested in interacting with the world. Makes sense for his character but is very boring to watch. He is at his best when he's with Susan - there are long loving closeups of his face as he massages his mother's feet, calves, thighs... those are some of the few times in the entire film Ray looks really involved. The phrase "smoldering lust" comes to mind.

Alberta Watson was phenomenal. Her character is the only one who really does anything. She behaves inappropriately with her son and suffers the consequences. Tom is a cipher, and Ray's biggest problem is that he is acted upon. Everything he does is a reaction. Even the climactic leap at the end.

Morphine's score is sardonic, rueful and knowing - very well suited to this movie. And the cinematography isn't stunning by any means, but the camera is so voyeuristic when Ray and Susan are in the bedroom - those extreme closeups, coupled with panning shots that don't cut away even when you're flinching and squirming and wanting to leave the room. Those are the scenes I go back to - they are erotic, but for all the wrong reasons. Even as you're drawn in, you really wish you could look away.

Kick a few plot twists (will Ray won't Ray ever get to Washington?) and extra characters (Aunt Helen) to the curb, and this movie would have been tight as a snare drum, extremely compelling cinema. As it stands, it's a darkly flawed diamond. 6.5/10.

Good tragedy - not a film you'll see too often

[bob the moo · 27 July 2002]

Ray comes home for 2 days to look after his mother before going back to his new town to take up an internship in his summer break from MIT. However his father informs him that he will need to stay much longer than that to care for her as she has broken her leg. While in the house Ray becomes increasingly frustrated and fins himself drawn into lust for his mother with devastating results.

This independent film is refreshingly straightforward but has enough quirk in it to have an edge of humour. The drama is sort of Shakespearean as Ray finds his life controlled by his mother who he becomes filled with desire for after rubbing her legs, showering her etc. This quickly finds him in a situation where, unable to masturbate due to the family dog following him everywhere and unable to have sex with a young girl because he is too rough he is increasingly drawn to mum!

This is not a comedy but a tragedy that deals with a very taboo subject. It deals with it gradually and in such a way that you can understand why it happens. Even when it happens there is no judgement - Ray is more sensitive after that and his mother seems nonplussed altogether. The fact that people hated it because they were expecting a teen comedy shows not a weakness in the film but a fault from the audience.

That's not to say this is a classic - it has flaws, some characters and scenes appear to have no meaning and the ending wasn't as concrete as I'd hoped for. But it still handles the central theme well and is a good tale of a young man who slowly loses a lot due to lust. The performances are all good - expect Gallo who is a little directionless in her character.

Overall THIS IS NOT A TEEN COMEDY! But it is a good drama on a taboo subject. It may be a little light on basic plot but the underlying themes will give you plenty to consider after you watch it.

Not just your ordinary family. These folks need help.

[michaelRokeefe · 6/10 · 30 November 2001]

Writer/director David O. Russell gives us a disturbing look at a dysfunctional family. Turn your head, Granny. Incest, masturbation, sexual impropriety and a family failing in communication, honor and respect. A promising pre-med student(Jeremy Davies) returns home from his freshman year at MIT to tend to his bedridden, mentally unstable mother(Alberta Watson)while dear old dad(Benjamin Hendrickson)is engaged with extended 'business trips' that allows him to practice adultery. Davies is caught up in a wad of sexual confusion. The family dog keeps interrupting the young man's attempts at self gratification. A young neighborhood girl(Carla Gallo)accuses him of rape after some heavy petting. Mom is attractive and needs some attention. The dutiful son ends up drinking with his mom and next comes the horizontal bop. This totally drives a stake into his secret fixation on his domineering mother. This dark comedy flirting with taboo subjects is disturbing as much as it is interesting. Now time to go spank the......

Russell Makes His Film Debut

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 13 March 2017]

Raymond Aibelli is a promising medical student ready to begin a prestigious summer internship. But Susan, his mother, is immobilized by a broken leg, and his father Tom, a traveling salesman, makes Raymond stay home and take care of his mother, an unhappy woman.

"Spanking the Monkey" is a god film, not a great film. At he time of its release, it was a box office success, grossing $1,359,736 on a $200,000 budget. And what makes it remarkable today (2017) is how it launched the career of David O. Russell, who has become something of an Academy favorite.

The film, on its own merits, is alright. Nothing outstanding, not a landmark film by any means. In fact, it is very typical of the independent movie scene of the 1990s. Although Ray is clearly a success, he is trapped in a world that has him treading water... not altogether different from characters we might find in Kevin Smith or Richard Linklater.

Oedipus for non-classical viewers

[lastliberal · 7/10 · 9 August 2008]

Almost everyone is familiar with MILF. We just saw it recently in Superbad when Seth was drooling all over Evan's mom. "I am truly jealous you got to suck on those tits when you were a baby." But, having the hots for your best friend's mom is not the same as having the hots for your own mom.

Ray (Jeremy Davies) is planning on a quick visit on his way to a choice internship after his first years of college. Dear old dad (Benjamin Hendrickson) screws him so he can get back on the road and he ends up taking care of his mom (Alberta Watson), who has a cast on her leg. That means being a support while she takes a shower, and rubbing cream on her dry feet and under the cast, and, well an alcohol fueled night leads to things that almost destroy him.

He is trying to pursue a normal relationship with his next door neighbor (Carla Gallo), who gives a great performance herself, but the mom issue has traumatized him to the point where this isn't possible.

His dealing with his problem is somewhat funny, but also very tragic until he finds a way out. There was some funny bits in the beginning before the tragedy, but the overriding theme of selfishness on the part of everyone reminds us that shite happens even when you make great plans.

Jeremy Davies gives a great performance, and Alberta Watson really is one hot mom!

what a summer!

[mcfly-31 · 5/10 · 13 January 2001]

A college dude heads home for the summer to take care of his broken legged mom. In among his daily routine is letting her brace herself on him as he stands outside the shower, his would-be goofy romance with a neighbor girl, and peer pressure from the guys he hangs out with. Not to mention taking one of the most annoying dogs of movie history for walks. The capper comes when after rubbing cream on mom's legs, he's unable to sleep. Turned on perhaps? The two proceed to get drunk and tear one off (insert your "EWWW" here). He tries to put it behind him and concentrate on the neighbor girl, even though earlier she nearly accused him of rape...after accusing him of being gay and telling him to be more agressive! This girl is true schmuck/dink. Maybe the most stunning moment is the sex scene, or near sex scene, involving him, the girl, and mom toward the end. And that's mostly what the film does: stun, not really shock. Mostly it just annoys, as all of the characters are totally unlikable, the meanie mother and father, the bonehead girl, and even Davies as the lead, comes off cold or irrational sometimes. Plus the ending, which leaves everything up in the air. Ridiculous, too, is the business with the family dog, that is constantly distracting Davies from the doing the title deed, as it wimpers outside the bathroom door. Sheesh, man, lock the damn dog in a room! That's what I do. Uh, I mean, that's what I WOULD do, WOULD do, not what I do do. Ahem. Anyway, this one's good to gather a group of friends around for some uncomfortable laughs. Or for the most awkward experience, I'd use the classic line from the Video Hound movie review book: "See it with a relative".

Good movie

[sultandj · 9/10 · 2 September 2004]

The climax it where it's at in this movie; didn't see it coming the first time I watched the film. Plenty of nice shots and solid character development. Funny and at times painful to watch, but definitely makes you think. The characters are written well and are performed admirably by the cast (with an early role for Jeremy Davies).

Great movie to watch in the middle of the day, with the pacing slow relative to many movies. But it works, and it makes the payoff all the more rewarding. The interactions feel so real. This is as good as it gets for under $100,000.

No monkeys were spanked during the making of this film

[JamesHitchcock · 6/10 · 24 September 2021]

The title "Spanking the Monkey" derives from an American slang expression for masturbation. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals will doubtless be relieved to learn that no monkeys were spanked during the making of the film.

The Wikipedia entry for the film describes it as a "black comedy", which surprised me. There is little that is comic, even blackly comic, about it. It is rather one of those independent dramas about bickering, self-tormenting, dysfunctional American families. (See also "Lymelife", "Margot at the Wedding", "The Lifeguard" and many others). The main character is Ray Aibelli, a young man in his early twenties. He is a medical student who has just finished his first year at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has been offered an internship with the Surgeon General's department, a much sought-after appointment, but has had to turn it down, at his father's insistence, to look after his mother who has broken her leg.

Ray has a difficult relationship with his father, Tom, a travelling salesman whose job means he is often away from home. He has little sympathy with Ray's academic aspirations or his choice of medicine as a career and resents having to pay his college fees. Tom's relationship with his wife Susan is equally difficult, and he takes advantage of his frequent absences on business trips to cheat on her with prostitutes.

Ray's relationship with his mother is closer, although he is unhappy about being unable to take up his internship. There is little to do in the small town where he lives. He tries to get in touch with old friends from school, but finds that they are childish and immature with little in common with him. He dates a local teenager, Toni, but she is too young for him and their affair does not get very far. And then comes the development which has made this film notorious. A sexual attraction grows up between Ray and Susan and they have an incestuous relationship.

Some will find the very idea of a film about incest distasteful. This is not just because incest is widely regarded as immoral and is illegal in many countries. There are many other illegal or immoral human activities which do not evoke the same reaction. Murder, for example, is almost universally condemned as the most heinous of all crimes, but there are a vast number of films which involve at least one deliberate killing compared to the very few about incest. It is as if the cultural taboo against incest extended to writing, talking or even thinking about it, whereas we are perfectly free to write, talk or think about murder provided that we do not commit it.

Despite this cultural taboo, there have been some very good films on the subject. The two I am particularly thinking about are Louis Malle's "Le Souffle au Coeur" and Bertolucci's "La Luna", both of which, like "Spanking the Monkey", dealt with mother/son incest. I would not rate David O. Russell's film as highly as either of those, but it does have its points of interest. There are no major stars in it, which is not surprising; even in 1994 a Hollywood big name would not have got out of bed, much less signed up to do a movie, for $200,000, which was the film's entire budget. Nevertheless, you don't always need big names to make a well-acted movie.

All three of the main roles are well played. Benjamin Hendrickson as Tom probably has the easiest part to play because Tom is a straightforwardly unsympathetic character, a cold, selfish and domineering man who always puts his own needs and interests before those of his wife or son. Jeremy Davies as Ray and the late Alberta Watson as Susan have a more difficult task. Their characters, after all, are breaching one of our most basic taboos, and yet it is important that the audience should, if not necessarily sympathise with them, at least be able to understand their motivation. I think that, to a large extent, Davies and Watson succeed in this task. Even if this film is not in the same class as Malle's or Bertolucci's, it is considerably better than many "dysfunctional family" films- certainly better than the three I named in my second paragraph. 6/10.

99 minutes of pure tedium...

[moonspinner55 · 2/10 · 7 August 2010]

David O. Russell, who wrote and directed the suicidally-titled "Spanking the Monkey", has no conviction in what he's doing. He uses provocative situations as springboards for nasty little jokes; and when his picture begins to disintegrate near the finish, he cops a scene right out of "Five Easy Pieces" as a lazy out. College student is called home by his demonstrative father after mom has fallen and fractured her leg; although not happy about possibly missing out on a prestigious internship, the lad dutifully tends to his mother despite mounting sexual confusions, frustrations, and humiliations. Jeremy Davies is reasonably well-cast in the lead, although he doesn't resemble or behave like the actors (Benjamin Hendrickson and Alberta Watson) portraying his parents. It's almost as if Davies has been adopted by these people--which would certainly put a different twist on what transpires. Either way, the narrative focus is a mess, with one excruciating moment after another--and each of them followed by an unfunny visual or 'sardonic' verbal sucker punch. The audaciousness of Russell's conception palls once the viewer realizes this thinly-derived plot isn't about to go anyplace. * from ****

Unique, challenging and very well acted

[Red-Barracuda · 8/10 · 14 February 2014]

This is a film whose title and poster not only give nothing away but actually mislead. The name Spanking the Monkey – a euphemism for masturbation – makes you think this must probably be a bawdy teen sex-comedy, while the poster depicts the picture of a real smart aleck. Both factors are bizarrely inappropriate, as the title, while mentioned once in the passing, is pretty much irrelevant, while the guy on the poster in no way reflects the character in the film who is anything but confident. Overall, this is a movie whose content is a very different proposition to its marketing. And perhaps that is because the material here is pretty difficult and challenging to say the least. I'm sure this must have stoked up some controversy in its day. After all, it deals with one of the ultimate taboo areas – incest; although, in this case it is admittedly of the consenting kind. It explores the troubling idea of the Oedipal Complex, via a sexual relationship between a mother and her son. It pulls off the impressive trick of simultaneously not pulling its punches, while still exercising a certain restraint. Material like this is so tricky that it needs very careful execution and David O. Russell, in his directorial debut, shows impressive ability to do just that.

It's about Ray, an introverted college student, who has a disastrous summer. He is coerced into looking after his bed-ridden mother by his uncaring, immoral salesman father. She is overly dependent on him not only physically but emotionally as well and soon is encouraging an unhealthy relationship. At the same time Ray is developing a very awkward relationship with a neighbouring girl and hanging out with old friends who antagonise him.

It's a drama about discomforts. Ray lives a life of humiliations at every turn. His father bullies him, his mother manipulates him, his girlfriend makes him feel sexually inadequate and his friends display little respect for him. Even his dog seems to antagonise him by constantly interrupting him while he has a, shall we say, moment with himself. It's a drama with a fair bit of black comedy sprinkled throughout. At heart it's about a very dysfunctional family. It works so well because of the characters and acting. Everybody is well-drawn and convincing, which is important given the extreme areas that the film explores. In particular, Jeremy Davies is really very good as Ray. He is definitely a sympathetic character who finds himself lost in a messed up situation that he struggles to find a way out of. Alberta Watson is also excellent in the role of his mother. She is an alluring presence and like Davies strikes the balance just right in what is also a very tricky and complex role.

Disturbing Movie About Edipus?

[J P · 6/10 · 9 October 1998]

This movie was the most disturbing collection of images I have ever seen (at least in a long time). I have to give it props for a cool name and a VERY original screenplay (I give it one thumb up and a sack of wet worms).

What a Mess

[gbheron · 4/10 · 29 November 2003]

This Indie film pushes the envelope with its odious subject matter; mother-son incest. Now, I don't mind when a film tackles a difficult topic, but this movie appears to embrace its subject matter not because it has a story to tell or a point to make, but only to be out there on the edge.

It's intuitively obvious that the relationship between the mother and her son has to be a product of a very dysfunctional family, and the subject family is a case of middle-class dysfunction en extremis. So much so, the characters are rendered unbelievable. The director and screenwriter push way too hard to make the movie ‘edgy', and end up with a mess.

A snarling nineties remake of the Oedipus tale

[Murph-24 · 19 July 1999]

It's simply another one of the Greek myths retold in a modern setting. Those Greeks really knew how to write a cunning tale that cuts close to the bone. They wrote straight from human experience and feeling. Incest crept up on the young hero of the film with terrifying inevitability. They both knew what they were getting into, and went ahead even though they knew that they would subsequently experience "decision regret". A very enjoyable film that magically captures the passion of a summer holiday gone badly wrong.

Copying a tried and tested tale from the past is always a successful recipe for a good modern film, as Lucas has shown with borrowing from Homer's "The Iliad". This film is certainly capable of provoking strong emotion from the viewer, and I think that most of us would have a hard time resisting sexual advances in those circumstances if the woman in question was such a fox.

A compelling tale, made all the more sickening for it's overt basis in human experience.

Not one to watch with your mum (unless you fancy her!).

Pushing the envelope

[smck · 6/10 · 20 April 1999]

Mother and son get a wee bit too close one summer in this rather timidly told incest tale. The subject matter is of course, incendiary, but the filmmakers essentially let the audience off the hook, by skirting around the central theme. Doesn't amount to much.

Trash

[edumacation · 1/10 · 4 November 2005]

Saw it on HBO2. I don't have anything to say except it's an awful movie. Don't rent it. Whoever is responsible for creating this trash should be banned from future movies. The movie is basically trying to get people to speculate on incest. It has nothing to do with the title, and I'm pretty sure most people don't think the way the characters do in this movie. Overall a very bad attempt to get the general public to accept the movie makers fetish. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, not even my enemies. It's filthy and disgusting and leaves you with a sick feeling when the movie is over. Please excuse me, I think I have to vomit.

Clever black comedy

[robhammond · 9/10 · 26 October 2003]

It's always nice when Americans make thoughtful, atmospheric, and reflective films. Especially when they are black comedies, because America is home to some of the masters of the genre. Dealing with the most taboo of all subjects, this film makes you squirm in your seat even more than Thomas Vinterberg's 'Festen', and the subject is dealt with using the tact and subtlety that many Hollywood directors lack.

Anybody expecting a slapstick, South Park type movie will be sorely disappointed, but fans of Todd Solondz will probably love it. Plus there is a great soundtrack by Morphine.

teenager out of control

[barkus · 2/10 · 11 August 1998]

The video jacket claimed that this movie was in the tradition of "The Graduate" and picks up where "Sex, Lies, and Videotape " leave off, and the IMDd voters gave this movie a 7.5 rating. It sounds pretty good (tacky title aside), but the movie lacks believability and sincerity. The problems that college student home for the summer encounters are worse than any Shakesperean tragedy, and even the teenagers with the worst lives can't identify. The film does give a tremendous sense of awkwardness, which mirrors the lives of teenagers well. This movie is depressing and gives no hint at hope.

Calling this a comedy misses the point

[jspicoli23 · 8/10 · 3 November 2000]

I really don't like the marketing of this movie. The tagline and the doesn't really tell you what's going on. 'Flirting With Disaster' was a comedy, and this is a drama. A tragedy more accurately. The movie has its laughs, but it's the anything but humorous incestuous events, that are the the core of this story. I think David O. Russell is a very gifted filmmaker and here he presents a very unreal subject in a very believable and compelling way. But if you are looking for a comedy, see "Flirting With Disaster.'

A tale of abuse and child molestation! I appreciate the guts of producers and directors for dealing with such an unpleasant subject matter

[macpherr · 5/10 · 7 July 1999]

This is not a very easy subject matter to tackle. I started watching the movie on television. I kept thinking where is this thing going? My husband went to bed earlier. Next morning his first question, "did they do it?" Yeah, they did.. The topic of incest tends to make me ill, but I was just wondering to what point a parent can push a child. I do not think that the kid was out of control, but that the mother was. The whole family was out of control. A good example of a dysfunctional family. Never was positive enforcement given to that child in the entire movie. The parents expected too much from him and kept on hitting his spirit. The kid was smart enough to get an internship in Washington, D.C., but the father made him stay with the mother. She ends up seducing him. This is so sick! I cannot begin to tell how sick it is to me. When I was in Law School, we had a class called Juvenile Law, where the Professor brought in the victim and the perpetrator of the crime of incest. They sat down and told us, the students, how it happened. Both sides stated how addicting it had become. I was raised in a "Father Knows Best " type of home and the entire discussion stuck to me. Needless to say it really shocked us all! It has been years since I took that class and I can still see the face of the older man who told about committing incest with his daughter. The only solution to the problem was to have them part company forever. Interestingly in the movie the boy leaves because he appeared to know that the situation would continue. He did the right thing!

I appreciate the guts of producers and director for dealing with such an unpleasant topic because it happens and it happens a lot, unfortunately. Otherwise there would not be legislation for it. The movie won Independent Spirit Award 1995; and the Sundance Film Festival Audience Award for 1994. This was the first movie I saw that deals with the topic in such a graphic fashion.

Missed Chances

[parkerr86302 · 19 March 2006]

Considering the plethora of reviews here, both good and bad, there isn't much I can say that hasn't already been said. I will add that the first half works "reasonably" well, allowing viewers to understand perhaps how such a thing as an incestuous encounter could possibly happen. But then the film derails, and derails big time. The boy blames his mother completely for what they did, and the film seems to side with him despite the fact that it had previously shown us that he was just as guilty as she in the liaison. The film gets unspeakably ugly from there. The subject of consensual incest has been addressed by film only a few times over the years, always with unsatisfactory results---perhaps this is reflective of society's uneasiness with the subject. Consensual incest is about the only "sexual more" that is never discussed (even by psychologists), even though it likely occurs in real life with more frequency than we would like to believe.

Worth seeing once...

[Jimmy Jimmereeno · 5/10 · 19 February 2000]

Yeah, I'd say see it once so you know what people are talking about. But no more than once is required to realize it's not very good. My big problem was that it wasn't believable. I didn't believe for one second that the mom was his mom. Also, any mom that drinks with her son, probably wouldn't make such a big deal about being seen naked in the shower. Nothing gets resolved at the end, either. The mom and son could've at least gotten together and retaliated against the dad. It's better than Flirting With Disaster, but if you want to see a really good movie check out Three Kings. I can't believe it's made by the same guy.

Disturbingly Funny!

[RockPortReview · 9/10 · 8 June 2010]

With a title like "Spanking the Monkey" it's bound to induce some odd looks. What lies within is a brilliantly twisted film that is made to make you squirm and feel uneasy. This film deals with the incestuous relationship between a dude and his mother. When you think of other famous mother and son combos, Hitchcock's Psycho and the original Friday the 13th come to mind, but they were horror films. "Monkey" is quite funny at times but also bizarre at others. This was the first film by Director David O. Russell, who is most known for the Persian Gulf movie "Three Kings." Med student Ray Aibelli (played by Jeremy Davies, the island physicist from "Lost") arrives home for summer vacation set on taking a prestigious internship only to have to take care of his injured mother instead. She has a broken leg and would rate pretty high on the MILF scale if you ask me. Ray's father is an uptight traveling salesman who is always on the road, and screwing other women. If you have ever been in a situation when a parent is completely dependant on you, you will get an even more bizarre joy out of this movie. We watch as Ray carries his mom back and forth to the bathroom, then has to hold her hand as she showers. Davies plays these scenes perfectly with equal parts awkwardness and a sort of voyeurism.

Ray's mother keeps a tight leash on Ray weather she needs him or not. If she has to suffer, Ray should too. As the saying goes misery loves company. He is kept as a virtual prisoner in the same house he grew up in. The urge to free yourself from your parents starts at an early age for many and when freedom is finally achieved, returning for any extended period of time can be a huge psychological blow. Ray is even pestered on numerous occasions by the dog when trying to get some bathroom privacy (think of the title.) When Ray is able go out he starts up a relationship with a neighborhood high school girl named Toni. Just what he needs more awkward relationships and complications. He also hangs around a bunch of guys who aren't really friends, but its the only other option. When you have a few months to kill, and limited options how do you pass the time? Ray is a regular, nice guy and director Russell make you feel every cringe worthy moment.

Although funny at times, this really is a dark and disturbing movie and is not for everyone. Made on a budget of about $200,000 in the summer of 1993, it was also shown at the 1994 Sundance Film Festival were it won the Audience Award. If you like your movies on the edge give this one a look.

Flogging your soldier!

[Mothball · 1/10 · 28 November 1999]

Jeremy Davies, the star of this movie, also played in Saving Private Ryan. The whole time I watched that movie, I wanted his character dead. After watching Spanking the Monkey, I discovered that one character isn't enough. To make up for the horror of this film, I feel that every movie Jeremy Davies is in from now on should have him die a horrible, gruesome death.