Before us is an unknown, but curious English thriller, shot in a leisurely manner, reminiscent of a TV show, where you should not wait for the rich action characteristic of Hollywood. Here is a completely different specific approach to the frequent genre theme of a certain maniac terrorizing the city. Quite recognizable British actor David Hayman, who took the director's chair, explores the template of the thriller from the inside and from an unusual angle, predominantly leaning into the everyday psychological aspect. The police investigation appears on the screen, but only as a background supplement, not being the key to resolving the conflict. And the conflict here is moral, played out in the coordinates of a single family with all its pitfalls and small joys, where crazy evil grows. But where does its roots come from - try, guess.
The average English family living in a similarly exemplary house in a quiet neighborhood consists of two school-age children, a father and a mother. They are mature people and therefore the fuss of the newlyweds has dried up, because of which the husband often spends evenings in the pub, flying out of the house without any explanation - there is fun, alcohol, greasy jokes, flirting, and the wife conceals internal irritation, humbly with British stiffness passing mandatory rituals of the housewife, for example, a periodic exam on meeting and accepting her mother-in-law, interfering in the kitchen, and her husband's brother, which always flavours with a stupid sense of humor. However, their union is strong and the couple lives peacefully with mutual understanding, leaving time for love. The genre of the thriller initially intervenes in what is happening from afar, flashing new reports from television or newspapers about the next brutal murder of a woman on sexual grounds at the hands of a mysterious maniac with a hammer, nicknamed Hawk, going hunting in bad weather. Frequent media interventions with eerie details keeping the city at bay are gradually affecting the mind of the hearth keeper on some strange purely subconscious level. Maybe this is just a crisis of relationships, a new round of family life, depression on domestic soil, dissatisfaction with the obvious growing up every year - a kind of well-known drama? However, no one canceled the sensitive female intuition. And our heroine, driven by her, begins to suspect her husband. It is from here that a curious moral conflict is born purely intuitive without any obvious evidence and evidence, going against common sense to consider a loved one insane, to look for tricks in his behavior, to start conflicts with him, when even the police, conducting surveys of the male population, declares that all this is groundless.
The film very subtly uses the suspense of the situation, not allowing the viewer until the very end to adhere to an explicit point of view, confusing us with ambiguity when it is difficult to determine the true nature of things. Is a man sick, without knowing it, turning in the pouring rain from a decent father and husband into a maniac whose mind is enveloped in a thick fog of involuntary insanity, or is a woman unnecessarily susceptible to the hype of the media, experiencing a mental disorder on a nervous basis? But could stress have been a catalyst for her intuition, awakening a natural clue that felt unmistakably in her heart instead of a pragmatic mind? Up to the final climax, the story maintains an intriguing balance, prompting the desire to know the answer to an atypical detective, complicating the mystery with some radically sharp plot twists that increase the stakes in the confrontation of female intuition against direct evidence.
However, the film has shortcomings. Perhaps the most noticeable blunder will be some fluency in the presentation of those very cardinal plot twists mentioned above, which I would not like to disclose for reasons of preserving intrigue for future viewers. The judicial machin of the United Kingdom looks too implausible, hastily and simply justified the radical act of the heroine of the tape, categorically taking her side, but there should be a lot of claims from other participants of events who have an interest in punishing for what they did, seeing what is happening from a different angle, and the resonance of the public should not be forgotten. Artistic freedom, alas, smoothed out some sharp corners.
In general, the film is curious, which can appeal to all connoisseurs of thrillers in the coloring of psychological drama and detective. A lot here rests on the performer of the main party, which manages to portray the emotional throwing of the wife, a purely intuitive husband, and a mother fearing for the fate of her children. Helen Mirren is a talented actress, so it would be wrong to doubt her true acting abilities. The rest of the actors are also in their place, acting out the necessary images to pleasantly brighten up our evening at the screen.
7 out of 10