Directed by James Ashcroft — Screenplay by Ben Jacoby and Chase Palmer.
Every once in a while, something goes straight-to-streaming that looks the part, so to speak, of something that, once upon a time, would not only go to theaters but also draw a crowd. As The Whisper Man is evidence of, a serial killer movie with an A-list star and an otherwise recognizable cast is now likely to land on a streamer and face the potential sad fate of being buried in a vast and ever-growing content library while the world moves on. Although The Whisper Man is certainly nowhere near as good as the stone-cold classics of the genre that it is clearly inspired by, it is, however, too watchable to deserve being fully ignored or be treated as background noise for your nightly doomscrolling. It definitely won’t wow you, but I suspect that thriller die-hard fans will feel that this is the kind of film that definitely scratches the right itch, even if it isn’t particularly memorable.
Based on the Alex North novel of the same name, James Ashcroft’s The Whisper Man is a crime-thriller flick that follows a widowed crime writer, Tom (played by Adam Scott), whose 8-year-old son, Jake (played by Acston Luca Porto), is abducted by a mysterious serial killer who targets children. This individual may or may not be a copycat of a serial killer known as — you guessed it — ‘the whisper man’ who is now incarcerated after having been caught by a retired police detective, Pete Willis (played by Robert De Niro). It just so happens that Pete is the estranged father of Tom — and grandfather of Jake — and he’s also the only person the convicted serial killer is willing to talk to. In an effort to stop this copycat killer and save his grandson, Pete must team up with the lead investigative detective, Amanda Beck (played by Michelle Monaghan), as well as try to mend his relationship with his son.
A lot is going on in The Whisper Man. My short description above didn’t even get into the fact that Jake has an imaginary friend (or is it?), that Tom has inherited a weakness when it comes to alcohol from his now-sober father, that the serial killer sends tapes to TV stations, or that there’s a certain nursery rhyme attached to the near-mythic, almost supernatural-seeming murderer. Some of these elements work better than others, some of which feel like superficial details that could enrich the film if it had been given more depth. Here is a film that, while certainly above-average straight-to-streaming fare, has quite a few blemishes or warts along the way. It mostly looks the part, and it even, in certain stages, presents itself with a Fincher-esque aesthetic. However, not as often as I’d like. And, frankly, it lacks the guts to go as deep into the pitch-black, gruesome darkness that Fincher likely would take you into if in charge of proceedings. It does feel like it often stays at an arm’s length from the culprit and his actions.
It is also a film that so clearly wears its inspirations on its sleeves and almost to a fault. Having so many of these crime-thriller serial killer flicks all more or less owing a lot to each other isn’t new. There are certainly plenty of somewhat generic crime-thriller films. However, in this case I think the filmmaker is sometimes almost too obvious about which filmmakers he looks up to and what films he wants The Whisper Man to feel like. The scene where one of the killer’s tapes arrives at a TV station is an incredibly obvious visual reference to Zodiac. Even more obvious is a scene when law enforcement shows up at the antagonist’s door. It’s clearly made in a way so as to resemble Clarice Starling’s climactic scenes with Buffalo Bill in The Silence of the Lambs. It’s always dangerous to remind your audience of films that are definitely better than your own, and I think some viewers may find it too familiar.
For me, the biggest issue with this film isn’t how generic or familiar it sometimes feels or how it feels surprisingly slow at times. Rather, the element that will limit this film’s impact on viewers the most is that it is written, or presented, in such a way that it is just entirely too predictable. Although there are examples of these in the film, I am not just talking about tropey writing or obvious pay-offs down the line (like the whole imaginary friend subplot, the payoff to which you can see coming from a mile away). The film has one of its characters utter a line of dialogue relatively early in the film, which just makes the identity of the ‘copycat’ extremely predictable. There’s also a line that De Niro says where the camera holds on his face a little bit too long, to the effect of emphasizing a certain theme so much that it has to be related to who the main culprit is.
Look, predictability isn’t necessarily an automatically ship-sinking problem, so to speak. But the extent to which this film is predictable did take away some of my appreciation for what is being done here. That’s because I genuinely felt like I was several steps ahead of the actual investigators in the film. So many steps ahead that they seemed strangely incompetent at times for not even entertaining the idea that maybe — just maybe — this one character just told you between the lines exactly who you’re looking for. One other notable issue here is the feeling of a ticking clock, or lack thereof. Since this is a film about trying to find and save someone who is abducted before it’s too late, you should feel like every second counts, but Ashcroft doesn’t do enough to make it feel that way. So while I don’t think its pacing issues ruin the film at all, I see it as an aspect that could be improved upon.
But again, this is a competently made and relatively solid thriller that holds your attention, and it looks pretty good. Also, for what it’s worth, I think the stylistic traits thrown in there do just enough without being overly distracting. Ashcroft’s film uses plenty of split-diopter shots, but they never feel excessive or take you out of the film. And, frankly, there are a lot of films released this year with scenes that are overwhelmed by an overabundance of unnecessary split-diopter shots.
This is the kind of film that is helped a lot by the star quality of its cast. Frankly, the cast, which also includes Michael Keaton, Hamish Linklater, and Owen Teague, elevates the film quite a bit due to their presence and the gravitas they add to the whole production just by being on-screen. Teague and Keaton knew exactly what kind of film they had signed up for. Indeed, Keaton adds a layer of unpredictability to certain scenes that makes you lean forward. Teague and Monaghan are given really thinly written characters, but they do the best with what they’re given to work with. Adam Scott’s performance is lively and passionate, and of the core trio in the film — i.e., Monaghan, De Niro, and Scott — it is the Severance and Parks and Recreation actor who impresses the most. Although De Niro does get better as the film progresses, it felt to me like he and Scott were not on the same wavelength in some of their early scenes together. Since they are playing a father and son duo that haven’t spoken in years, this mismatch in energy can be explained away, but there are a couple of scenes here that don’t reach their potential because of that mismatch. Frankly, I think De Niro’s performance is best in his scenes with Keaton and Linklater.
James Ashcroft’s The Whisper Man is the type of crime thriller film that exists somewhere in the territory between “not bad” and “not great,” and the degree to which you’re willing to excuse the film’s blemishes will determine whether or not you land on the, to borrow Rotten Tomatoes vernacular, rotten or fresh side of the territory. Although I’ve gone to great lengths to highlight its shortcomings in my review, there’s just enough about this film that made me genuinely engrossed by it. So much so that it, to me, probably tips the film over into a half-shrugged “it was, sort of, good.” That doesn’t make it a warm recommendation, but it is, warts and all, an above-average straight-to-streaming film that is sufficiently gripping, competently made, and that features a recognizable cast mostly doing solid work.
6.7 out of 10
– Review written by Jeffrey Rex Bertelsen.
