MovieChat Forums > I Know You're in There (2016) Discussion > Ha ha Tom now you're going to get it

Ha ha Tom now you're going to get it


He shouldn't have slapped Chloe.

Started ok but then got really bad.

4.5/10

reply

I agree. It's too bad, I really liked the premise.

reply

This wasn't good at all. It came off as a man abusing his mentally ill sister, and it turns out he's crazy, too. They did try to imply at the end that there was more to it, but it really wasn't effective. It's a shame. The basic plot could have worked with a real script.

http://www.sims2workshop.com

reply

Yah, I agree... The premise had promise, it could've possibly done something we haven't seen before, but it ended up being a pretty bad re-envision of the shining.

reply

The brother wasn't crazy. The sister was indeed ill, but she also possessed supernatural abilities such as mind control and the ability to drive people mad. He did abuse her though. I don't believe he was under her influence when he hit her, that was all him. That's one aspect of the movie that I deeply hated.

reply

It was deeply shocking when Tom hit his sister, but she wasn't a total innocent at that point, either. She was already messing with him (moving the spoon, the creepy noises that drove him outside at night, shoving him down the steps by slamming the door in his face). The film makes very clear that she either has supernatural abilities on her own and is just evil, or else she is possessed in some way. While I don't condone hitting helpless people, we know that she wasn't actually helpless and was, in fact, evil. That sort of mitigates Tom's act without fully excusing it.

We know Tom wasn't completely crazy because we see a few things happen when he isn't looking - Chloe appearing at the window is the most notable. The film also strongly implies - although it's not proven - that Chloe somehow provoked Tom into the unwelcome rough sex with Jamie. However, some forms of mental illness have a genetic component. It's possible that the trauma of his experiences did send him into some sort of psychotic break by the end of the movie. So it could be both - evil Chloe and crazy Tom.

I liked the movie, although it was certainly flawed. The acting was good. I can't find much information on Will Hurst (or his other professional name, Trey Dudley), but he did an excellent job and basically carries the film. From the shallow end: He's quite easy on the eyes, even with the man-bun, and has a deep, sexy voice. I'd like to see more of him.

Grainne McDermott gets props for being able to act so creepily still all the time and managing to looking menacing while barely changing expression.

The scenery is gorgeous and the setting both beautiful and creepy.

The story starts off very well, as others have said, and stays quite interesting until Tom goes completely off the rails. At that point, it edges into cliche territory. The ending was predictable, although I excuse that somewhat since most horror films have predictable endings these days. There only so many plots to go around, after all. I think the writers erred by not giving us more background on Chloe's story. It was also flawed by the wildly unlikely role of Dr Jorgenson, who is apparently doctor, lawyer and judge rolled into one, given her ability to distribute Mom's estate and award custody of Chloe to Tom over her own objections. That's all part of the weak backstory, which I think was the film's biggest flaw.

Overall, for me, I Know You're in There was definitely worth the rental. I'd like to see more from the filmmakers.

reply

ANSWER ME GODDAMMIT!

reply