IMDb > Whispers in the Dark (1992) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Whispers in the Dark
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Whispers in the Dark More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 19 reviews in total 

20 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Thinking man's thriller

8/10
Author: ScottyB from Surrey, England
3 January 1999

I'm glad I stayed up to watch this one - I'd actually turned on the television to watch the previous movie that night and fortunately decided to keep on the same channel. I wasn't familiar with any of the cast before this movie, but the script was well written and the actors portrayed all the characters well.

This is definitely a movie where you have to keep your brain switched on to "thinking" mode to enjoy properly. Hardly surprising when almost all the characters are psychiatrists, detectives or patients on the therapists couch. The main theme of the movie is what happens when love is blind and you trust your instincts rather than the sober voices of friends around you. In a rather chilling twist, you are also made to consider just how much you should trust your friends who may have their own ulterior motives behind their apparent concern.

I along with, I imagine, most people watching this movie had the ending all figured out in my head - or so I thought until one of the best twists I can think of in a thriller - and was just waiting to see how and when they were going to prove me correct. I was, of course, completely wrong and a dramatic turn of events towards the end made this a thoroughly enjoyable movie which left me analysing the analysts long after the final credits had rolled. For those who enjoy this genre, I would highly recommend "Whispers In The Dark". I rated it at 8 out of 10 after one viewing, although I may have to watch again to decide if I should have rated it a 9. Definitely worth a night in.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Intense thriller

7/10
Author: Raul Faust from Joinville, Brazil
27 October 2011

Wow, who'd thought it. A 90's underground thriller with unknown cast and title; nobody would expect a big thing out of it. But that's when we're wrong.

This film is hugely entertaining; the story develops very quickly and intensely, the writer/director is really professional on how to get the spectator. The story is original and unpredictable, you never know what is gonna happen next. The outcome is the most impossible to guess, I really doubt anyone can find it out before the last 15 minutes. The whole thing is similar to "Never Talk To Strangers", both have a great twist in the end. It's really such a shame that there aren't even 1000 voters on this title's page, this film deserved to be much more recognized. See it if you like an intense suspense!

Edit: I have to complaint about Brazilian's title. They translated it to something like "Whispers of Pleasure", and I saved this film on my television after it was on a cable channel. My parents saw it's title and surely thought I recorded some kind of porn, when actually it was just a thriller.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Who's the doctor and who's the patient here?

Author: JOHNBATES-1 from Vista, Ca
18 July 2002

Entertaining story. But hopefully it's not indicative of the world of psychiatry. Some real on-the-edge folks here. Even the police lieutenant is a ripe candidate for analysis - though to judge from the film you wonder if analysis accomplishes anything useful.

For the most part good acting work put in by a first rate cast. Leave the analyzing to the movie and enjoy the ride.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

An underrated compelling and sexy thriller

9/10
Author: Damien Anthony Rossi from Australia
22 March 2008

I think this movie was incredibly underrated. I thought there were many standout performances..Annabella Sciorra, Deborah Unger and Jamie Sheridan amongst others. Annabella Sciorra gives a beautifully sensitive performance. If you liked her in The Hand That Rocks The Cradle you will love her in this film. Deborah Unger is absolutely mesmerizing in her role. Her best performance ever. Jamie Sheridan is very credible as the romantic yet mysterious male lead. I thought it was beautifully directed and worked very well on many levels...suspenseful, sexy, dramatic. I thought the ending was totally unpredictable. For a 'small' film that most people have never heard of I think it was fantastic and would highly recommend it. I can never go past it when it is on cable. Must have seen in at least 15-20 times. Check it out!

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Contrived but absorbing.

6/10
Author: gridoon
10 April 2001

A pretty standard mystery thriller, but absorbing nonetheless. The sometimes impossibly contrived plot is chock-full of strange coincidences and red herrings, but the film is so competently and professionally made that you can ignore the script's weaknesses and enjoy the work of a director who seems to have a genuine feel for the genre. Most of the performances are also very good, giving weight to their roles and making the movie more respectable. (**1/2)

Was the above review useful to you?

slow moving erotic thriller has better 2nd half

6/10
Author: SnoopyStyle
2 February 2015

Psychiatrist Ann Hecker (Annabella Sciorra) has two particular patients; artist John Castillo (John Leguizamo) and sexually adventurous Eve Abergray (Deborah Kara Unger). Sarah Green (Jill Clayburgh) and her husband Leo (Alan Alda) are her colleagues. She's Leo's patient since 7 years ago as a medical student. She wants to break up with her boyfriend Paul (Anthony Heald) but he beats her to the punch by moving out. She goes out with new guy pilot Doug McDowell (Jamey Sheridan). She goes to spy on Eve and find Eve's S&M boyfriend turns out to be Doug. Eve explodes after discovering her relationship with Doug. Eve steals her files and then she finds Eve murdered. Police detective Larry Morgenstern (Anthony LaPaglia) investigates.

It's an erotic thriller that tries too hard with the cheesy eroticism. It's slow moody music with fuzzy sex dreams. The whole thing moves like molasses. Christopher Crowe is not as good as a director. It doesn't have enough tension. The subject matter is intense and should translate better onto the screen. The movie turns into a nice murder mystery midway through. It gets better going away from the silly eroticism turning into a twisty mystery. There is probably one too many twist but that seems like it was setting up that move from the start. Sciorra's role has some juicier acting choices later on. It's too bad that the first half is so tired.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Trust is hard to come by

6/10
Author: sol1218 from brooklyn NY
26 May 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

(There are Spoilers) Psychological thriller that takes a while to unwind with young 27 year-old psychiatrist Ann Hacker,Annabella Sciorra,getting involved with one of her patients Eva Abergray, Deborah Kara Unger,lovers. We find out early in the movie that Ann herself had been under psychiatric care when she was in college by her professor and good friend Leo Green, Alan Alda, after her fathers suicide. Leo and his wife Sara, Jill Clayberg, are always around and helpful to Ann who seems to need more therapy then any of her patients in the film.

Trying to help Eva overcome her wild and kinky sexual fantasies and obsessions, that tended to be very destructive and S&M-like, Ann decides to see Eva at the Tavern on the Green restaurant where she told her that she meets her lover every Wednesday. Ann is both shocked and flabbergasted to find out that he's her new boyfriend the aw shucks and boyish country boy, he originally comes from a small town in Iowa, fly-boy Doug McDowell, Jamey Sheridan.

When Eva finds out that her doctor Ann Hecker, who she was very open with, was secretly having an affair with her lover Doug she blew her stack and made a scene in the lobby of the office building where Ann had her practice that left Ann & Doug feeling a bit embarrassed. The worse was yet to come when Eva is found hanged in her apartment by Ann, who came over to apologize, the very next day.

The movie then goes into the whereabouts and actions of another of Ann's patients John Boy Costillo ,John Leguizamo, a prime suspect in Eve's death. John Boy who after having a long record of beating up and abusing women became a well known inner city artist due to Ann's professional help in having John Boy overcome his violent nature.

John Boy is taken into custody by Det. Morgenstern, Anthony LaPaglia, who works him over with Ann present ,on the other side of a two-way mirror, who then leaves in disgust in what Morganstern did to her sweet and sensitive patient. John Boy, who feels that Ann betrayed him to the police, pays Ann a visit the next evening tying her up and threatening to burn Ann with cigarette butts. It not long afterword that John Boy suddenly loses it and jumps on the window ledge loudly proclaiming his innocent to Ann and the whole world in Eva murder. With the police being called to get the disturbed and hysterical John Boy off the window ledge he slips and, with Det. Morganstern trying to pull him in, falls to his death.

You would think that Eva's murder was finally solved with John Boy's, the only suspect in her murder, death but it later comes out that John Boy's alibi, on where he was the day that Eva was killed, checked out! This causes Det. Morganstern to hit the bottle and drink himself silly. But there was a major clue that the police and Ann overlooked and it had to do with a tape that was recorder by Leo Green, when he was treating Ann for depression, some seven years ago. That clue turned out to be the key to who not only killed Eva but would later murder Det. Morgenstern when he was getting too close to the truth.

The movie "Whispers in the Dark" kept you guessing to who the killer was and when he finally revealed himself his actions were so eerily slow and psychotic that it took you a while, like Ann, to realize that he was at all capable of committing the sick and murderous acts that he did in the film. The ending was a bit too hard to take with Ann, who was anything but a match for this crazed and uncontrollable psycho, being able not only to outrun but also, when cornered, fight and finish him off after getting an ice pick stuck in her leg.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Weak Predictable Disjointed Film

2/10
Author: Jim Johnson from Rhode Island
13 March 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

(Spoilers) I have to agree with all the negative analysis posted already. Saw this movie on cable last night and it was disappointing (but hey I watched the whole thing).

First, it was obvious Alan Alda would be the killer. He was too interested in the psychiatrist and kept meddling in her life. But like every transition in this film, he was revealed in a totally heavy handed way. And how believable is it that he was totally obsessed with her for years, was killing people to protect her, and then when she says he is frightening her that is enough for him to instantly snap and try to kill her on the spot in a rage? Boy he sure got over that crush in a hurry! After committing all these clever crimes he admits to the murders in front of his wife and immediately smashes a wine bottle over her head. How was he going to deal with that? Also, she was such a poor psychiatrist, the best she could do was immediately reveal her revulsion and run away in fear? Not an ounce of cleverness in dealing with an obvious psycho who she knew was in love with her and who she could have manipulated.

The way she discovers he is obsessed with her! He tells her to go in the music cabinet to put on a song and there he has his audio notes of all his sessions with her neatly labeled so that she, his wife, anyone, can pick it up and hear him saying he is obsessed with her. The tapes themselves were as corny and unbelievable as his coming back home and just hearing her playing them at full volume.

When I say disjointed, the quirks of the detective, the female patient, the boyfriend are never explored they were just weird characters who didn't really fit in the movie. Were we supposed to care about Paglia's detective? Was he attracted to her? All of a sudden we're watching a troubled cop movie (briefly) as if this were a different movie.

After Leguizamo obviously thought it was her behind the mirror (Paglia absurdly keeps showing her pictures through the glass and asking her rhetorical questions about psychoanalysis) they just let him go and surprise surprise, he next appears at her place to take revenge. And no one saw that coming? Then we have Leguizamo who has spent his life torturing women, has her tied up and he cant do a thing to her, suddenly we are supposed to sympathize with his troubled character and of course she is completely worried about a psycho who moments ago hog tied her.

This is the kind of film that is so cheesy, so illogical, so obvious you really wish they would give you all these stars and a budget and let you make the film because yes most people would have insisted on doing a better job. This was a real waste of potential.

Parting shot, the closing scene of her so happy with the boyfriend as if this were a happy ending to a romantic comedy, trivial fake conversation between two people with no chemistry, didn't even need to be in the film. The boyfriend wasn't an appealing character, was too old for her, and it was like saying hey if this movie wasn't corny enough, let's make you watch several minutes more of something pointless between two people who were never believable in their parts.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

This is not reality, nay-sayers. It's entertainment.

7/10
Author: willist1 from USA, Texas
2 June 2010

Earth to whomever? This movie is fiction. Like fiction on the silver screen, TV, or a book, it is not meant to educate. It is meant to entertain. Anyone failing to grasp this fundamental truth should not rent this movie or watch TV or watch 99% of the movies ever made. They should, instead, watch documentaries.

Of course the killer is obvious from the beginning. He and the other actors turn in average (at best) performances.

Annabella Sciorra was 28 when this movie was made. She was a good choice for an entertaining movie. Yes, she would "supernova" in The Hand That Rocks The Cradle when compared to this movie. Yet that means not that her performance was poor; indeed, she shines in Whispers In The Dark.

Overall it is an enjoyable movie for those that realize that fiction is almost always predictable when it appears in a movie.

It entertains, and that is what it should do.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Sciorra's Sudden Crash

4/10
Author: nycritic
18 June 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If only the role Annabella Sciorra played hadn't been given the profession of a shrink, then her role in this awful, quasi-erotic thriller in the vein of BASIC INSTINCT would have had a more engaging approach. But shrinks getting themselves into a lot of unwanted heat and possibly even death by some unpleasant way was the raison d'etre of many "thrillers" capitalizing on the success of Paul Verhoeven's smash hit between 1992 and 1994, respectively, and this was one of the worst of the bunch.

The premise isn't bad. Actually, it's a distant relative in its elements to the premise of Anais Nin's "Spy in the House of Love" and in Marguerite Duras' "Moderato Cantabile", just with an update to bring a strong sensibility to the erotic mores of the times and the necessary potboiler plot that looked like something Joan Crawford could do in her sleep in the mid-Fifties when her career consisted of women falling for the wrong guy and being in mortal harm from their ulterior motives and unpredictable mood swings.

The problem herein lies not in the story itself but in the mode of execution. The introduction of the thriller mode in which a troubled woman is killed had been done with better success. If not, all one needs to do is take a peek at DRESSED TO KILL where Angie Dickinson's character, in looking for sex with a stranger, found quite a wallop but of something nastier in the place she least expected, and from the last person on Earth whom she would have guessed capable of such a thing.

The key phrase is "the last person on Earth ... capable of such a thing." It's a problem for thrillers because it sets up the viewer for a "surprise" which may or may not work. I don't like surprises, when it involves a character revealing him or herself to be the baddie all along and doing their own impression of a Jack-in-the-box, complete with a "Gotcha!" moment. It's too easy, it's the oldest trick in the book ("Maybe... the butler did it," quoted a certain butler from Robert Altman's nearly flawless 2001 movie GOSFORD PARK, but with a wink in the eye), and one that even a movie as exploitative as BASIC INSTINCT was knowingly playing on as bait with its tongue firmly planted in cheek.

No. I don't care for those surprises. It's what made me deny ever going to M. Night Shyamalan movies once it became patent and not actual cleverness in action. I want something more textured, a person's reaction to another person's dysfunction which may or may not have a conclusion, and even if there is the subject matter of a killer on the loose... why not play it up for the hell of it and perhaps let the story surprise the creator, and ultimately, the viewer? It's too bad. WHISPERS IN THE BARK, a title closest to romantic-suspense of the Avon category, falls apart at the seams and reveals it was a poorly built structure all along. Not a single performance can save this movie, and what the hell is Jill Clayburgh doing here of all places? Where did her career go, for crying out loud?

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
Newsgroup reviews External reviews Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history