Clinical (2017)

Every horror site I visited the last week(s) showed me the trailer of this netflix original. Netflix do make good series but for horror you don't have to go to them. Trailers did show some nasty shots so I gave it a try.

Is it worth watching, well if you are into action or horrors that give you the creeps then this isn't a good choice but if you do like psychological horrors with a twist then I recommend it.

The opening sequence of Clinical offers some nasty shots because it involves a child doing awful things. Once after that this flick turns into a flick about characterisation and psychology. I can't go too deep into the story because I would be spoiling.

Here and there it do gives some bloody scenes but it's at the end that the real horror comes back and the red stuff do sputter around. The ending will leave you with a few questions.

Overall i enjoyed it but I solved the puzzle quickly. Some say that a lot of scene's were too dark and I agree here and there. The effects used were above mediocre and done on-camera without CGI.

This flick will have his pro's but also a lot of contra's because it's a mixture of horror (begin and ending) and a thriller. Not for the gorehounds but for those who can dig a good riddle mixed with red stuff.

Gore 1,5/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

Fmovies: I would consider this psychological horror rather than thriller and I think it works quite well in this respect. I am now more afraid of the human psyche and I know for sure that I would never want to be a psychologist. However it is very repetitious in the first half and so it gets boring very quickly. Also there is not much going on visually in style, colors, shots, camera movement, etc. Overall I think it does a good job within its obviously small budget.

I'll admit to being drawn into "Clinical" for its first 45 minutes. The plot, centering around a disillusioned psychiatrist reluctantly taking on a PTSD patient after her last go-around with an "intensive" client ended badly, offers up enough questions and mystique to lock you in. Then, somewhere around the hour mark, the film dives headfirst into a cheap plot twist that signals the film's narrative decline. The film dispenses with logic and heads into the rabbit hole, offering up a preposterous conclusion that destroys anything it previously had going for it. Twists in stories can often be used to wondrous effect, or they can derail your narrative into muck and make you wish the writer had played it straight. Often, you'll find it would have been a much better film had it dispensed with the shock factor and stuck to its guns. Such is the case with "Clinical."

I won't consider it a spoiler to say that, towards the end, things happen that beg a big "Huh?" from viewers. It's probably not a good sign for the writer when the character discovers a dead body and the viewer has to stop and ask themselves who the person is. Nor is the film in any way forthcoming about providing coherent answers to many of these questions. I'm not a lazy viewer. I don't demand a long, complicated piece of exposition to tell me everything, nor do I think all films should answer every question. But when so much of your story hinges on certain plot elements that you don't bother to fully elucidate in your narrative, the viewer can be left feeling a bit cheated. Much like the feeling one gets when a film ends before we see a proper conclusion to various plot threads that the writer has asked us to care about. Really, it's just not nice.

"Clinical" could have been something worthwhile, but ultimately the script lets the entire venture derail into frustrating ambiguity and lazy writing, offering up no compensation for the befuddled viewer who, by film's end, is left wondering why they even cared in the first place.

Clinical fmovies. Okay 60 second review begins ... NOW ...

I admit to not having high hopes for this movie, after having seen the trailer, but overall I am a fan of Netflix's original productions so I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Unless you're bored to tears, just skip this movie. I thought it *might* go into Martyrs territory, but it didn't. The horror aspect is fleeting and feels cheap, but at least doesn't resort to jump scares.

I thought maybe the flick would end with a satisfying Shyamalan- esque resolution, but instead I was just surprised that the movie was over. Like ... that's it?

Still giving it 5 stars because it gave me hope for an hour and 30 minutes.

Started out optimistic that this might be interesting, but quickly became disappointed. I know this film is supposed to have elements of both a psychological thriller and horror, but in all brutal honesty, I felt like this movie made light of mental illness and does not take it seriously almost using horror to make fun of it. That's what bothered me the most about it. Certain things were too stereotyped (inaccurately stereotyped too) and the plot went nowhere. The plot moves slow and then takes a quick turn and everything unwinds rapidly, almost like watching 2 separate films. Little character development. I would not recommend this film, especially not at night if you are alone.

The first half of the film seemed promising enough by giving us a mystery that unlocks as we progress with the viewing. However, the ending totally destroys any sense of impressive writing by the creators. Not only is the supposed twist easily predictable, but there is almost no logic to the progression of events in the end. Nor is there any satisfying explanation which brings us to the one major fault that overshadows all others: there is no closure to the story. Are we just supposed to assume on our own how the story of our protagonist actually ends? At least other non-closure endings like inception were intentional and meant to make the viewer think. This one however doesn't. Its as if the story has a beginning, middle, almost done, but no real ending. Did no one teach these writers how to close a story out? I'm guessing not, and hopefully in the future they may go back to school and actually finish 8th grade writing.