Vanessa Haynes This movie had potential, mainly because of the 4 principal adult actors. All four of the so called kidnappers, were believable in their roles, and gave solid performances. However, if a child is really the devil, then I need to be afraid of this child...and I wasn't. So, even though the script was fairly well written, and the adult actors played their parts to perfection, I was constantly thrown out (of my suspension of disbelief) by the bland, normal 8 year old boy, who was supposed to be the devil. His performance couldn't even be helped by the evil CGI facial expressions. If your looking for a good horror/thriller, there are definitely better choices. But if you've got a few hours to kill, and there's nothing else on, you could find worse movies.

Nat Cahill Whisper has the potential to be a really good movie. The interplay between all the kidnappers is very interesting, the scenery is beautiful and most of the actors are really good - Sarah Wayne Callies and Joel Edgerton especially.The main problem seems to be that the film is trying to be too many things at once - Omen, plus a kidnapping film, plus some sort of cop thing. The result being that none of these elements are played out to their full potential. The film ends up relying too much on jump scares, the rivalry between the two cops doesn't really add anything to the plot, the character of Max (while Josh Holloway is a good actor) is kind of boring compared to the other kidnappers and the soundtrack is ridiculously overwrought at times (also, Dulé Hill's moustache looks ridiculous) While it is still an interesting film, it doesn't really stand out from the crowd.

Nitzan Havoc To be honest, I'm too sure what to make of this film.Acting, footage, story... all were OK, can't point my finger on anything specifically wrong, but neither on anything great. Nothing innovating or breathtaking, yet nothing bluntly disappointing.The kid is creepy, true. However, he's not creepy in any way we haven't seen before in the classic "creepy children" films like Children of the Corn and such. Also, it felt to me like there were some continuity holes in the story. Nothing visual (therefore nothing too blunt), but rather story-wise. All through the film the kid is presented as this diabolic creature with supernatural powers. Then how come the movie ended the way it did?Again, I can't say there was anything particularly wrong with this film, but there was nothing about it that would make it memorable. I'd say its worth watching if you come across it, but not worth going to trouble for.

davis2000 Ordinarily I wouldn't have watched this movie since I hadn't heard a thing about it and the cover looked a bit cheesy. But there wasn't much else available so I took a gamble. We sat down to watch it with low expectations and after a somewhat shaky start it became so scary my wife bailed out and I had to watch the last half alone. Overall the character development is adequate for this type of movie but a bit implausible at times.** spoiler ahead **There were some familiar faces in this, when Sydney (Michael Rooker in a minor but well-done role)died I felt like I did when I watched Deep Blue Sea where Samuel L. Jackson bought it early on. I can see that Josh was played by a guy who was on Lost but I've never seen that show. I was pleased to see Gus from Psych in a serious role and his fate was a bit of a surprise, too. And Teryl Rothery from Stargate was good as the adoptive mother of "poor little David." The methods used for the killings is typical, heart attack and falling thru the ice which is good since the kid never wants to be connected to any of the deaths. The kid playing David who forces the deaths is eerie right from the start. It looked like David not only expected abduction but was happy to go along. They did telegraph the identity of the "mastermind" or at least I figured it out before the show was half over, but the reveal was still fun. The ending was quite clever with Josh deafening himself to obviate the kid's whispering and the final blow was surprisingly not upsetting. By then David was not a kid in my mind at all so they could have blown him up and I wouldn't have cared. It was done more or less in shadow so it's not explicit at all.They don't waste time trying to explain the kid's abilities, probably a mix of his artwork and whispering, so it's left up to the viewer to decide how he can do what he does which makes plot-holes much less likely. If it's whispers how can he control events miles away or even know about them? But if it's partly his drawings then who knows what he can do which was smarter than I expected.Acting, sets, wardrobe and script were all well-done and the SFX with the wolves was subdued but effective. I'm glad they didn't explain how the kid does things or how he got his abilities so it's not necessarily the "evil angel" he seems to suggest. Well worth the rental and if it's on TV for free I'd recommend it. It's unusual to sympathize with the bad guy/kidnappers but compared to the creepy-eyed kid it's not hard to do so with the exception of the third male kidnapper, Vince I think. He's so thoroughly unlikeable that I had hoped he'd be the first victim. A tiny complaint is that the girl, Roxanne, appeared to mother the kid too much and too early but that could be explained by her guilty conscience. 9/10 and I'll look for it again in the future.