ChuckTurner

This a show that in the opening minute of Episode 1 (of 8) tells us through the protagonist's breathy voice over exactly what's going to happen. Then marks time throughout Eps 1 to 4 (that's as far as I got, and no one can say I didn't give it a chance) observing the clearly dim protag wonder whether the creepy new boyfriend who lets her down every single time might be 'the one'. Why on earth did Paramount Australia trash its own reputation by green-lighting this vacuous non-event? All the actors perform v-e-r-y slowly and quietly, to extend the absence of incident as far as humanly possible. Half-written scenes follow one after the other, clearly not knowing what they're supposed to be about, except refusing to reveal any motivation or thought-process in any of the characters. David Wenham is a decent actor, but his performance here is embarrassingly bad; so we cannot assume that the other actors cannot act, despite the evidence here. Even so, everyone involved in this fiasco has good reason to be embarrassed by it. And why on earth did ITV buy the UK rights? Are they really scraping the bottom of the barrel?

For a thoughtful, adroitly-written and directed movie, supported by persuasive performances from the entire cast, AFRAID doesn't half get a bad press here. I suspect the reason for the obvious critical split, balanced 75/25 to thumbs-down, is age-related. Although I'm sure the picture's trailer emphasises the youth aspect, this movie's principal point of view is the parents'.

Most teens will think they know all about this stuff: AI deep-fake social-media manipulation etc. Adults (especially parents) will identify not just with the dilemmas of the well-played family in the movie, but after their curious infatuation with AI, will also identify with their growing sense that AI represents a developing but unstoppable problem for families and for society more generally.

Fact is, most teens know about (the existence of) AI. They know especially its enhancement powers, which can transform essays with a limited frame of reference into a wide-ranging and potentially persuasive thesis. However - like almost everyone in society (including tech-kings) - don't know where it's going to lead, at all.

So this is a 'moral panic' movie; and an unusually intelligent one. Its first acts is off-angle and disconcerting; the second act is creepy and doom-laden. If the film almost jumps the tracks at the start of act three, jolting into teen-shocker territory in a strangely unresolved way, it does pull itself back for an ending of quiet power that will remain with most viewers after they leave the theater. Because the movie's punchline is that it's already too late to stop any of this stuff. (Many comments suggesting that the conclusion is a crude set-up for a sequel are way off the mark.)

Yes AFRAID is about AI; it is also a metaphor for unstoppable turbo-capitalism, that puts it in the same bag as ROBOCOP (the original) and alongside Blumhouse's previous political pictures GET OUT and THE HUNT. Those last two pictures are about race and class. AFRAID underlines how the family unit, even though forged by love and care, is leveraged to keep workers (including managers) contributing to, and developing an economic system that exploits them.

And like GET OUT and THE HUNT before it, AFRAID explores politics in a highly engaging and entertaining way. Keep going, Blumhouse!

First let me declare that I dislike the bizarre belief of many French filmmakers that to make a 'political statement' all that is required is to set your film in the banlieue and have at least half your characters non-caucasian. INFESTED is invested in this belief. The film's political position is utterly incoherent, as are almost all its characters.

So the film spends its first hour presenting squabbles between characters who live in a high-rise, yet those characters change their motivations and attitudes at the drop of a hat. We have no idea who any of these characters are, what they want or how they are motivated, so have no possibility of empathising or connecting with any of them.

Contributing to this lack of connection is the sheer murkiness of the cinematography, and the incompetence of the camera operation: we literally can't see what the characters are doing, and even those shots that reveal the first attacks of the spiders are so brief and their movement so fast, that they are unreadable. (Viewed on a very large-screen TV on Shudder; but I seriously doubt that cinema projection would make the slightest difference).

This picture is all grunge and grime attitude, 'edgy' characters (ie shouty and aggressive, always challenging each other over trivial issues) and no competent definition of the specifics of jeopardy that they face, or why we should care.

I'm afraid that one commentator's claim that 'This is how debut films ought to be made... Well acted, funny, well-shot and keeps you in suspense from start from finish' made me laugh out loud.

This picture is utter junk, so inept that it made me forget my own fear of spiders!