This review may contain spoilers
Yet another "psychological thriller"
I'm afraid I expected too much for better or for worse. The synopsis was interesting enough to reel me in, and so I went in with higher expectations than I probably should have.
I wasn’t utterly disappointed, to my relief, though, I must say the movie was nothing groundbreaking.
I have a personal beef with someone who labels a show psychological when it doesn’t have the content to back it up. That’s exactly what I felt while watching this. It’s not a psychological drama; it’s just a drama. But a decent one.
When it comes to the acting, it was fine overall, but inconsistent at times. I can’t say I hated the FL’s performance, but I definitely wasn’t impressed. I could, unfortunately, tell when she was acting. In the scene where the ml reveals the mystery behind her daughter’s change in behaviour, she didn’t seem fully in her zone. The reaction felt underwhelming, to be euphemistic. To be blunt, the scene felt poorly acted. Another instance is in the final scene, where she has a long back and forth with the detective; it felt unnatural and a little awkward to watch. As for the ml, his performance was consistent throughout. His role wasn’t particularly demanding, but he handled microexpressions well and did a solid job overall.
As for the story, the concept is intriguing, but this is my issue with screenplays with intriguing storylines: they often fail to execute it. A serial killer wanting a one on one interview with a journalist? What a compelling start! But did the movie sustain the intrigue throughout? Arguably, no. It ends up following the same thriller tropes of a benevolent psychopath. I'm afraid writers aren’t audacious enough to fully commit to portraying a true psychopath as a protagonist. Then again, you can argue that this isn’t that kind of story. Fair enough. Not everything needs to reinvent the wheel.
I have criticised the movie enough that my review is starting to feel biased. Can’t have that, can we? On the bright side, the cinematography was one of the film’s strongest aspects. There was enough interesting camera work to keep me engaged, and the use of multiple TVs to create tension was handled smoothly. It did a lot of the heavy lifting in otherwise dull scenes.
The consistent pacing was another good aspect of the movie, but that’s also its downside. For a psychological thriller that you claim to be, I didn’t feel that rush of adrenaline in the climax. Or can it be called a climax? The experience ended up feeling somewhat anticlimactic.
By the end, though, I didn’t feel like I had wasted my time. It’s a solid project, and I would still recommend watching it, especially if you don’t have any other psychological thrillers lined up. Just lower your expectations a bit, and you should be good to go.
I wasn’t utterly disappointed, to my relief, though, I must say the movie was nothing groundbreaking.
I have a personal beef with someone who labels a show psychological when it doesn’t have the content to back it up. That’s exactly what I felt while watching this. It’s not a psychological drama; it’s just a drama. But a decent one.
When it comes to the acting, it was fine overall, but inconsistent at times. I can’t say I hated the FL’s performance, but I definitely wasn’t impressed. I could, unfortunately, tell when she was acting. In the scene where the ml reveals the mystery behind her daughter’s change in behaviour, she didn’t seem fully in her zone. The reaction felt underwhelming, to be euphemistic. To be blunt, the scene felt poorly acted. Another instance is in the final scene, where she has a long back and forth with the detective; it felt unnatural and a little awkward to watch. As for the ml, his performance was consistent throughout. His role wasn’t particularly demanding, but he handled microexpressions well and did a solid job overall.
As for the story, the concept is intriguing, but this is my issue with screenplays with intriguing storylines: they often fail to execute it. A serial killer wanting a one on one interview with a journalist? What a compelling start! But did the movie sustain the intrigue throughout? Arguably, no. It ends up following the same thriller tropes of a benevolent psychopath. I'm afraid writers aren’t audacious enough to fully commit to portraying a true psychopath as a protagonist. Then again, you can argue that this isn’t that kind of story. Fair enough. Not everything needs to reinvent the wheel.
I have criticised the movie enough that my review is starting to feel biased. Can’t have that, can we? On the bright side, the cinematography was one of the film’s strongest aspects. There was enough interesting camera work to keep me engaged, and the use of multiple TVs to create tension was handled smoothly. It did a lot of the heavy lifting in otherwise dull scenes.
The consistent pacing was another good aspect of the movie, but that’s also its downside. For a psychological thriller that you claim to be, I didn’t feel that rush of adrenaline in the climax. Or can it be called a climax? The experience ended up feeling somewhat anticlimactic.
By the end, though, I didn’t feel like I had wasted my time. It’s a solid project, and I would still recommend watching it, especially if you don’t have any other psychological thrillers lined up. Just lower your expectations a bit, and you should be good to go.
Was this review helpful to you?
