Clinical
- 2017
- 1 h 44 min
AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
5,1/10
9,5 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Um psiquiatra tenta recompor sua vida após um ataque violento, procurando reparar a vida de um novo paciente, mas ele tem sua própria história aterrorizante.Um psiquiatra tenta recompor sua vida após um ataque violento, procurando reparar a vida de um novo paciente, mas ele tem sua própria história aterrorizante.Um psiquiatra tenta recompor sua vida após um ataque violento, procurando reparar a vida de um novo paciente, mas ele tem sua própria história aterrorizante.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesVinessa Shaw (Dr. Jane Mathis) and Aaron Stanford (Miles) had previously starred together in the 2006 movie "The Hills Have Eyes" as a couple, playing Lynn and Doug.
- Erros de gravaçãoWhen Vinessa Shaw's character leaves a message for medication as the movie starts, she gives a 5-digit NPI (National Provider Identification) number. Real NPI numbers are 10 digits long.
- ConexõesReferenced in Flix Forum: Clinical (2019)
- Trilhas sonorasJingle Bells
Composed by James Pierpont (uncredited)
Original Publishers Extreme Music Library Ltd
Courtesy of Extreme Music
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Clinical?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Tempo de duração1 hora 44 minutos
- Cor
- Proporção
- 2.39:1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente