The Boy movie full length review - This mediocre dummy had potential at greatness, but end up being kinda dumb.
Originally titled 'In a dark place' and previously known as 'The Inhabitant', 2016's 'The Boy' is an surprisingly step up, for director William Brent Bell, considering his last widely released film was the universally loathed, 2012's The Devil Inside.
Most general consensus see the American psychological horror movie as decent at best, however, for me, I saw it as below average. Yes, I like how the film is focusing less on cheap jump scares and more on the story, however, this Gothic horror is nowhere near watchable. First off, the dreadful story reads like a script going through a lot of studio interference. First off, the title for this movie is way too broad. There has been, way too many movies titled 'The Boy' in recent years. I don't know, why the studio thought the title 'the boy' would be better. It's clear, in how this movie flows, that the original story was written, sometime in the year 2011/2012. It match well, with 'The Inhabitant' title, however the studio change it, when the 2014's horror film, 'Annabelle' became a hit. Not only, did they forgot to change or update a lot of the 2011 original story, but there are plenty of parts, in this movie, that seems like they stole from the 'Annabelle' horror concept. If it wasn't that film, then it had to be from another 2014's film, call 'Housebound'. Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, while, I'm glad, the movie had a quick pace. I just didn't like, how the movie move in a very incoherency way. It really didn't match the tone. Very odd character behavior comes and goes with the main character. Written by Stacey Menear, the movie tells the story of Greta Evans (Lauren Cohan), an American woman on the run from her abusive ex-lover, Cole (Ben Robson). She winds up in England and accepts a job as a nanny for an eccentric old couple, Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire (Jim Norton & Diana Hardcastle). But the interview are apparently turn out, a lot creepier than it seems; for it turns out that Greta won't actually be taking care of a real boy, but rather a porcelain doll who represents Brahms, the couple's long deceased son. Rather than reject the job, Greta is grateful for the safe haven, the mansion provides, and the enjoyment, she gets from the flirtations of Malcolm (Rupert Evans), the local grocery boy. Unfortunately, the spirit of Brahms think otherwise of her visit. Her recent actions has violating a sacred series of strict rules of his, and now a series of disturbing and inexplicable supernatural events has come to make Greta's life, into a living hell. At least, whatever, a low-budget PG-13 rating can muster as scares, such as loud noises, and really pitch black scenes; which in my opinion, fails to scare me. The movie is so dark that you can barely see anything. The loud noises sounds very clichés and recycled. The movie is not overly gory, but characters do die. Not only that, but some of the supporting characters like Malcolm seem useless. Honestly, besides, playing Greta's love-interesting, there is barely any reason to keep him, around. I really, maybe, he would have a bigger part, toward the end. You know, be related to the twist. Sadly, he isn't. Even, Brahms himself, doesn't seem as scary as the film makes it out to be. I thought, the twist toward the end with him, didn't make much sense. After all, it's hard to believe, that movie thought, 1974's 'Bad Ronald' and 1989's 'Hider in the House' was a clever way to end the film. I also didn't like how much of a man-child, the movie makes Brahms is. Are we really suppose, to take Greta ordering Brahms to go to sleep, serious? This is the high level of nonsense. Remind me of the killer mistaking his victim for his mother scene from '1981's Friday the 13th Part 2'. Trust me, when I say this, I was really dumb. Another thing, that kinda bug me, is how Laura Cohan is playing an American nanny. I really don't see her as that type of a character. Don't get me wrong, she's a fine actress, but I really don't see any sense of 'motherhood' with her performance, here. Also, doesn't it seem a bit odd, for her to want to take care of somebody else kid, after the recent miscarriage of her own!? I just, don't buy it. However, I was really hoping the movie would go, 1992's The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, with this sub-plot. Sadly, in my opinion, the miscarriage subplot comes in and out of the film, way too often. I don't know, if she wants to be a mother or not, with her, trying to screw the grocery boy. Also, why is Laura Cohan still doing her American accent rather than her normal British sounding voice? I know, she's an American playing an American, but she does hold a British citizenship as well. Wouldn't her normal English voice, sound a lot better, here since the settlings is in England?! The reason, why I say this, is because I just don't buy the fact; that this American is flying all the way to England from Montana for a job that she doesn't know, anything about. It makes no sense. It make more sense, if she was British. Overall: This movie was very disappointing. If you want to see it. Its might be alright for you. However, this isn't a movie, I'm willing to rewatch, anytime soon.