Obsession

When a young man wishes for his crush to love him more than anyone else in the whole world, the wish backfires with terrible consequences...

According to the lore, Youtube filmmaker Curry Barker pitched Obsession to Tea Shop Productions after they saw his short film, The Chair. Barker cites the Lisa's Nightmare segment from the Simpson's episode Treehouse of Horror II, a twist on the classic short story, The Monkey's Paw by W. W. Jacobs, published in 1902, as his main inspiration for the film.

The story of The Monkey's Paw is about a mummified monkey’s paw, a cursed talisman that grants three wishes, but each wish comes with its own unexpected and horrific consequence, so the moral is obviously "Be Careful What You Wish For," much like the tagline of the film's poster. The Moneky's Paw is a tale that has inspired a myriad of different versions and retellings.

Obsession is the latest one.

Shot in Los Angeles for $750,000, this is technically Barker's second feature-length film, after Milk & Serial (2024), which was an YouTube release, so it’s his first feature-length film released in theaters, or what some people would call... his first feature-length film. Obsession premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), where Focus Features bought the rights for $15 million, which is apparently the highest price anyone has ever paid for a genre film in TIFF history. This gamble ultimately worked out, as Obsession went on to gross $460 million worldwide, making it Focus Features' highest-grossing film of all time, as well as (currently) the seventh-highest-grossing film of 2026.

Couple this with Backrooms, a similarly Youtube-filmmaker-sourced production, as well as the (currently) ninth-highest-grossing film of the year, with a box office of $390 million worldwide and a budget of around $11 million, and what that now means is that all the big Hollywood studios are in a mad scramble to find the next niche memefied idea in the dusty corners of Youtube that is actually gold, to throw massive (although likely ill-advised) amounts of money at, most of which will sputter out and crash and burn and vanish at the box office, all while the weirdos–who make their whole personality about hating franchises–rabidly cheer them on, but will eventually trample each other in their rush to be the first to post an article about how the Youtube Movie Gold Rush failed because it was rooted in a bad idea. This abbott and costello style of doing business should surprise absolutely no one who pays attention to this shit.

This is The Cycle.

The Hollywood studio system has never met a burgeoning trend that it wasn't more than willing to run down like a pack of slavering wolves, so they could then furiously gorge themselves, and eventually crap out a bunch of half-baked scripts, all in the desperate hope of recouping the huge losses they incurred as a direct result of their own dipshit expenditures.

It’s like fucking clockwork.

The (hopefully not rotten, but probably rotten) fruit that will be born from this particular poisoned tree will probably begin to appear in theatres maybe later this year around Halloween, but more likely sometime early next year.

But that’s for later...

Right now, we’re here with Obsession, the trendsetter. It's a good film, one with a few issues, but a lot of potential, but still, a generally good film nonetheless.

But before we get into things…

I want to say that I hate Bear. I want that to be clear from the start. I hate him. So much. Right away when you see Bear, and his stupid puppy dog face, you can tell he’s a huge loser who definitely deserves to get his ass kicked.

A stereotypical “nice guy,” Bear is nothing but an untrustworthy asshole. He's like Xander from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but more of a gross and pathetic and self-serving evil little weenie. I hate his stupid face. Plus, Bear is short for Baron, and like... fuck that shit, right? Who the fuck names a character Baron in this day and age? "Here's our hero! Her name is Ivanka!"

What the fuck is wrong with you?

...But then, to be fair, maybe that's the exact reason why Barker chose such an instantly detestable name for his main character. Maybe it was supposed to spark an immediate sense of scorn in the audience. Or maybe… it’s meant to call-back to the whole "Man or Bear" question that lit the internet on fire a while back.

If so, well played, Curry Barker.

Regardless. I still really hate Bear. He sucks so bad. Plus, he’s a monster and a rapist and a weenie cry-baby who deserves everything bad that happens to him.

So, yeah… I'm just saying. I hate him.

Baron "Bear" Bailey has feelings for his best friend Nikki Freeman.

They both work at a music store alongside their friends Ian and Sarah, and it's implied that they all spend a lot of time together. Bear lives in his grandmother's home, who has somewhat recently passed. One night, he returns home to find that his cat, Sandy, has died after accidentally consuming some of his grandmother's old oxycodone. He's sad, but he puts it aside when Nikki calls him, complaining about her day, and inviting him out for a drink.

Bear decides to get Nikki a present, so he goes to the local crystal shop, because Nikki likes crystals. But instead of buying her the thing she likes, he buys a "One Wish Willow" instead, a novelty toy that claims to grant a wish.

Later that night, after a group hangout, as Bear is driving her home, Nikki asks Bear if he likes her, and he chickens out. She gets out of the car and goes inside her house, and Bear berates himself for being a coward. Then he realizes he didn't even give her the gift he got. Frustrated with himself, Bear (suprise!) uses the One Wish Willow himself, and wishes for Nikki to love him more than anyone in the world. Immediately afterwards, Nikki is at the car window, asking if she can spend the night at Bear's house. She confides to him that her estranged father is dying of cancer. In bed, she kisses him, but then abruptly screams and pulls back.

It's an awkward night.

The next morning, Bear discovers that Nikki has created a weird “memorial” with Sandy's remains on the kitchen floor. This freaks him out, as it should. Nikki later explains to Bear that her erratic behavior was due to the fact that she was rolling, an excuse which Bear accepts, letting us all know that Bear has never taken Molly before his life.

The two begin to date, and things are fine for a bit. But then, Ian, clearly a little butthurt for reasons they lay out later, tells Bear that Nikki told Sarah that she only saw Bear as her "little brother" and this was mere days before they started dating, and also that she lied to Bear about her father's cancer. These would be considered to be Red Flags, if not for the fact that the reality of the situation is that Bear has magically roofied Nikki, and it is clearly driving her insane, and he totally knows it, but he does nothing about it.

Because he’s a piece of shit.

Things go downhill from there.

Nikki watches Bear sleep while standing motionless in a dark corner of their bedroom. She screams randomly. She walks funny. She will suddenly break out in hysterical crying fits, wildly accusing him of not loving her. Once, she just stood in the middle of the living room all day, completely motionless, soiling herself, while waiting for Bear to return home. Another time, she makes him a sandwich using his dead cat's remains, and honestly, at this point, all I can think is… thank god his cat is already dead, because she would’ve definitely killed it.

So, as Bear is now somewhat concerned at this point...

He calls the One Wish Willow's customer support number listed on the box and asks to alter or cancel his wish. The voice on the other end explains to him that the One Wish Willow is a one time wish per person, and his wish will remain in effect for as long as he lives. The customer service rep then connects him to a hysterically screaming Nikki, who is definitely not happy with him, causing Bear to hang up in a panic. It's at this point that Bear begins to suspect that his new girlfriend Nikki is not the real Nikki, that there is something else that is controlling her...

Besides him, of course, because as I mentioned, he's the one who used the magic roofie on her.

That night, Nikki accompanies Bear to a party at Ian's house, where she recites a violent and incestuous retelling of "Hansel and Gretel" for the entire party.

And after that, the evening takes a bit of a turn for the worst...

Obsession is really just your basic morality play meets The Monkey's Paw, all dressed up in modern day stylings. I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all, I'm just saying, that's what it is. So, if you know the Monkey's Paw story, then you won't be surprised to find out that the film goes exactly like you'd expect it to, because that is how Monkey's Paw stories always go. Tales from the Crypt has done versions of is, so has Tales from the Darkside, and Goosebumps, and Creepshow too, and of course The Twilight Zone. Pet Sematary by Stephen King is just following the same path the original short story laid out over a hundred and twenty odd years ago. It's a very basic formula, for instance, you wish for money and then you get it, but it's from the pay out of a loved ones’ life insurance.

In a nutshell... You make the wish, and then the wish turns out to be terrible, because you shouldn't have made the wish in the first place, because it was selfish, and now, your selfishness has ruined everything.

That's the whole deal.

So then the question becomes, does that mean that you are ultimately responsible? And the answer is... Yes. Yes it does. You fucked around, and you found out. That's how the story goes. Be careful what you wish for. Pretty simple. Pretty familiar. It’s a very basic story, common of the sunrise.

Like Mrs. Potts says, it's a tale as old as time.

Which leads me straight into the thing that bothers me the most about this film. And you know what? This might not even be true. I might actually be misreading these comments, or maybe reading too much into them. Maybe. But I don't think so, because I've looked. I didn't take a deep dive or anything, but once I noticed it, I started looking, and here's the thing...

Across the board, in so many different interviews and write-ups, as they're talking about this film and the process of making it, Curry Barker, and a lot of the cast, all clearly believe that this film is something new and amazing and revolutionary. And y’know what? That is totally acceptable. I mean, besides the fact that they're doing press–and the whole point of pre-release press is to hype up the film–they should be proud of what they’ve made. I don't want to take anything away from them here, they should be proud of it. They clearly worked hard, and the end result is that the film is fun. It's good.

But...

At the same time, there’s something they all say over and over that pokes at me. Admittedly, I didn’t do a super deep-dive, but in everything that I saw with Barker talking about this film, he only ever cites the Simpson episode as the main impetus behind it. Which is fine. Technically it’s true, right? He saw the episode and he was inspired. But what I can't help but notice is that he never mentions the fact that the Simpson's episode is a direct adaptation of The Monkey’s Paw. Not once. Not even like "One day, I saw the Simpson's Treehouse of Horror II, you know, where they do a version of the Monkey's Paw? And I was so inspired that..." Nothing like that. It’s never mentioned by him or the cast. I looked through multiple articles, looking for this specifically, and I didn't come across one mention of the Moneky's Paw by him or the cast, just Treehouse of Horror II. And if The Monkey’s Paw is actually mentioned in the article, it’s because the article’s author included it.

It’s weird. It’s noticeable. And it bugs me.

I know it’s a weird thing to obsess over, but it makes me wonder, like... he has to know, right? He has to! Right? He can't not know, can he? He can’t possibly think the Lisa’s Nightmare segment of the Simpson’s Treehouse of Horror II episode was original, right? Right? Especially as the movie was coming out. Okay, sure, maybe he didn't know anything about the Monkey's Paw before filming started, but in the time between filming and the release of the film, someone had to have mentioned it to him, right? How could it not come up? It's not like it's not obvious. How could he and the cast not know about where that Simpson's episode came from, or at the very least, if they do know it, how could they not at least acknowledge it?

It's unfathomable to me.

And yet... they truly don't seem to know about it, because when they're all blathering on in the press about all these things that inspired them while making the film, it's all TikTok trends, and a handful of movies from the last ten god damn years, all of which are some real mainstream films too, like Pearl, or Midsommar, or Hereditary, or Get Out. None of which are based on the Monkey Paw story, a fact that drives me crazy, although—and this drives me even more crazy—ask me what the name of Jordan Peele's Production company is, the guy who made the film Get Out, the film they all love so much, ask me what Jordan Peele calls his Production Company...

MONKEYPAW PRODUCTIONS!!

So, the director and the cast are mentioning all of these things, along with multiple mentions of Treehouse of Horror II, of course, and yeah, cool, awesome, those are some good choices, I love them, but how can they not name the actual short story? It's not just a root inspiration, it's the ENTIRE story! The only thing that changed was the details.

They have to know, right?

And I'm sure there will be some people who will be like “well, they’re probably too young to know” and I’m like “motherfucker, you’ve never heard of fucking google? How about fucking wikipedia? Because these kids sure as shit have. Why the fuck wouldn’t you do a little bit of research? Hey, Alexa, you evesdropping bitch, who wrote Treehouse of Horror II?" To paraphrase Madeline Kahn... flames on the side of my motherfucking face!

...But like I said, maybe this is just me.

And, fine... FINE! It’s all nonsense. Fine. I’ll admit it. As far as complaints go, it’s not at all relevant to the quality of the film. Fine.

Moving on...

So, there are some script issues that really bother me. There's a vague sense of incongruity in this film, an awkwardness to how some of the details fit together that I can't get my head around. To me, despite its many good points, Obsession feels like a film that was found in post, welded together out of multiple versions, and that makes for a frustrating watch at times.

First of all, I'm having trouble nailing down their ages.

They're drinking in bars, so they're clearly over 21, and sure, maybe I missed it when they said their ages, but from the way they talk about college throughout the film, they feel more like this is taking place in their first summer post high school. But maybe they're all just fuck-ups, or poor, and none of them went to college after high school. It could be. The point is, between the context clues of their locations, their lives, and the way they act, I just couldn't tell. Plus, let's be honest here, the idea that someone would leave Los Angeles, in order to move to Decoura, Iowa, so they can attend Luthor college for an art degree, is just too ridiculous to imagine. Besides the fact that Luthor College isn't known for its art program, and that there is no graduate program there either... it's in Decoura, Iowa.

Decoura, Iowa. And they're gonna move there from L.A.?

Decoura, Iowa is a town of 8000 people in Northeastern Iowa. You’d think that alone would make a person from L.A. not even consider this option for a moment. And come on, if you're someone with few choices when it comes to college, either due to grades or money or both, I'd have to assume that would also mean that you won’t/can’t move halfway across the country either, especially for a nothing college in the middle of nowhere that doesn't even specialize in your academic interest. I mean, Jesus Christ, man, if you're just going to a crappy and cheap college, just go to fucking UC Santa Cruz or something. So, yeah, narratively, I can't figure out why Barker would choose this otherwise seemingly random spot, and the film doesn't justify it at all. And it’s mentioned so many times too. It’s just weird. I don't get it. Was an earlier version of the script set in North Dakota or something?

I just can’t make any sense of it at all.

But that's just a little thing. The main reason I think this film is the result of having a constantly rewritten script, that then resulted in multiple versions being shot, that were then welded peicemeal together into one single film that almost works, is mainly due to two moments…

1. Pina Coladas

If Bear, Nikki, Sarah, and Ian regularly go out on Wednesday nights for bar trivia, how does Nikki not know that Bear prefers to drink cocktails like pina coladas? If Nikki and Bear are such good friends, how does Nikki not know that Bear prefers to drink cocktails like pina coladas? I’m not saying pina coladas are bad. Much like getting caught in the rain, or making love at midnight, I myself happen to enjoy them. Of course I do, after all, I have half a brain. And sure, maybe Nikki doesn't pay as much attention to Bear as Bear does to her, but come on now, if you’re in your early twenties and you regularly go to the bar with your friends, and when they all order bears, you order a Blue Hawaiian or a Bahama Mama or something, that’s the kind of thing that you very quickly become known for, because it stands out so specifically. And while your friends may rib you for it, if one of them goes to the bar for another round, they’re gonna come back with a bunch of beers and also something sweet with a bunch of umbrellas. That’s how it is with a friend group, you know each other, especially when it's something so outside the norm. The fact that Nikki expresses surprise at Bear ordering a pina colada tells me that they aren’t actually friends at all. In fact, it implies that they've never hung out before, as her being surprised at his order, and him explaining that it's just what he likes is really more of a first time hang-out question. It just doesn’t make sense at this point in their relationship.

So... was it a rewrite meant to soften him, make him more cute/quirky, and less creepy? Or was there a narrative connection to the large story somehow that was cut? But if so, then why keep that detail? Because it never comes up again. It just makes no sense. It’s just there, weirdly incongruent, like foreshadowing that never comes to pass.

2. Meeting Sara in the park

Later on in the film, Sarah texts Bear to meet her in the park to chat. When he arrives, from the way they talk, parking at the park and chilling out and chatting is something that Bear and Sarah have a long history of. And that feels very out of left field, because up til then, it didn’t feel like these two had that kind of relationship. In fact, the film otherwise heavily implies, especially in the beginning, that this was more the kind of relationship that he had with Nikki. Before this scene, all of Sarah and Bear’s interactions seemed friendly, sure, and yes, it was clear that Sarah had a crush on Bear, and that Bear didn't notice, but what they didn’t feel like was a pair of people who hung out together outside of the larger group hangs. And yet, all of the dialogue in the Park scene very suddenly tells us otherwise. In the Park scene, its like they're discussing an entire different history than what the film has otherwise been telling us.

These aren't the only two moments that make wonder how many times the script was rewritten and shuffled around during filming, but they're two big ones, as they make me wonder if in another version of the script, Bear and Sarah were the best friends, and Nikki was the new girl in the group, and that the original dynamic was that Bear was lusting after new girl Nikki, never realizing that his old friend Sarah is lusting after him the whole time, but then at some point, the script was changed, and these already shot scenes were still used in the final film, despite the fact that the intent of the scenes and of the characters’ involved was different from the rest of the film. And it was probably because a $750,000 budget doesn’t allow for a lot of reshoots.

And I get that this kind of shit happens when making a movie, but I noticed it, and that made for a frustrating viewing experience, which ultimately made it harder for me to enjoy the things that the film does well.

Plus... the cat stuff is super fucked up.

And even though it’s not gross or weird, and it doesn’t show anything, and it’s obviously a fake cat, I still don’t like it. I’ll admit that. And the fact that Bear is such an incredibly irresponsible pet owner definitely contributes to how much I don’t like him. But that aside, I just don’t understand why it was even included in the film. I know some people link his irresponsibility of leaving out the medicine is supposed to indicate his unwillingness to accept his responsibility in things, but that seems so flimsy and unnecessary. Also, the bottle clearly had a childproof cap, so thinking about that fact only brings up a lot of the kind of questions about what exactly happened that have no answer in the film and only muddy the waters more narratively-speaking, which make me wonder again... was this part of a previous version of the script? To what point? And if so, why did it stick around through all of the changes? And then there's all the other things that Nikki does with the dead cat? I don’t understand. Was it Real Nikki sending him a middle finger for what he did to her, or was it Demon Nikki looking to impress him, which is an idea I can’t even begin to see the rationalization for. I can’t connect it to even the most fucked up and twisted idea of romance.

I just don't understand.

Then, and this is more of a minor thing that annoyed me, but they never actually show Nikki getting the gun out of the safe. Now, obviously the mention of the gun in the beginning is your classic Checkov’s Gun set-up, but it's so off-handed, such a throw-away line, that with all the other issues, I have to wonder, was this inserted later on to patch up a script hole (that likely resulted from all the rewrites) as a way to explain where the gun comes from?

Ugh, so frustrating.

In the end, the main thing to keep in mind here... anyone who thinks Bear is the victim are telling on themselves.

Bear’s unwillingness to be a friend and a good person is what destroys everything good that the four friends had, right? But while it’s obvious that Bear is the entire fucking problem, the film doesn’t paint him as the obvious creep, he 100% is. Bear is the fucking villain here, and the film acts like he made an innocent mistake, and sure, it’s weird magic, I get that, but once he understand this… he keeps going. This means that Bear is a rapist. And an unrepetant one too.

Which really exposes Obsession’s biggest blind spot.

The film is either incapable or just unwilling to address the sexual and psychological violence done to Nikki by Bear. This is a character who basically gets roofied and kidnapped and loses all agency of her own body, and is then forced to do some terrible things, the least of which is to fuck the person responsible, and in the end, is left all alone, with her entire life ruined, with only jail, a death sentence, or suicide in her future. You would think that this would mean that this was her story, and yet, she is completely sidelined the whole time, treated not as a person or a victim, but as an object, a plot point, while we’re supposed to feel sympathy for the person who does this to her, and the tragedy is that he wasn't able to find a way out of the bad situation.

That really bothers me.

Granted, the most amazing part of Obsession is Inde Navarrette‘s incredible performance. She throws everything into it. She's all in. She’s incredible, both in her physicality and her emotions. Just amazing. She is the film's redeeming factor. She saves it, frankly. Her performance helps to mitigate the way the script ignores Nikki by clearly reminding us that there is a human being caught within this horror show. But still, the lack of her voice, or even just the female perspective, in a story about gender and relationships really takes the film out at the knees for me. Yes, it's scary. Yes, it's tense. Yes, there's some insane shit here. But really, for me, the place where the film ends is the moment where the most interesting story of this whole situation is found.

And so, that is the film’s whole problem.

Obsession puts a little too much effort into guys suffering from the “male loneliness epidemic” instead of at least being honest with them and telling them that they’re pieces of shit and should try sucking less. In general, it gives Bear too much sympathy, when he is the clear, absolute, and irredeemable bad guy.

But all that having been said, despite it’s issues, despite my issues, Obsession was still good. Creepy. Tense. Scary. Weird. Like I said, Navarrette was awesome. And I did like how the local crystal shop was completely aware that magic was real, and that, yeah, it could be really dangerous, but… there's warnings on the box, man. That was funny. I like that "magic in the real world" angle. And the film looked really good too, so I am very interested in seeing what Curry Barker does in the future. But on it's own, Obsession is a flawed "good first try" for me.

So, thumbs up…