The Hand That Rocks the Cradle

Felt like a Lifetime television movie,the quality was average.

One of many problems was casting,plus also their acting.

Cinematography was fine,but not great & any soundtrack was poorly done.

Unlike the original movie,this nannies motives was clichéd.. Both versions are based on revenge this however,lacked any real suspense.

Why does every movie like this have the partner,quickly doubting the person they love over a stranger.

Found this movie boring,it actually dragged & just wanted a conclusion.

Was hard caring for anyone,including the kids.

If this is the type of movies/remakes being made,why even bother doing them.

Go watch the original version,you won't be disappointed.

There was no reason for this to be called "The Hand That Rocks The Cradle". It is just like any hundred other psycho nanny movies that have hit Lifetime or streaming in the last 30 years. They have used the title of an existing IP to entice some extra eyeballs for an in-name remake only. This has ZERO relation to the original film and is inferior in every way.

In the original, the viewer understood the nanny's motivation to infiltrate a family, gaslight the mother and destroy the family unit from within. That helped invest us in the story. We could sympathise with the nanny, if not condone her actions, while also fearing for the safety of the family. Every single scene contributed to the plot and moved it forward.

Here, we do not know the nanny's motive. The movie relies on our familiarity with the original to deduce she has a hidden agenda, but we cannot get on side with her or understand her actions because we don't know why she's doing it! It saps the suspense as we wait and wait and wait for the big reveal. This also saps our investment in the family's safety. Why are they being threatened? Surely one of them did something bad.

This approach simply doesn't work. Revenge thrillers require an understanding of motivation, otherwise what are we doing here? When all is said and done, you end up not having much sympathy for the supposed protagonist anyway. The husband here has to be one of the most useless plot devices in a thriller in recent memory. The husband in the original was supportive and understanding (and about 20-odd years ahead of his time for a 1990s thriller.)

As a standalone psycho nanny thriller in a sea of similar movies over the last couple decades, this is perfectly serviceable. It is a slow burn with too many extraneous scenes that lead nowhere, but all of the acting is on point and there are a few fun spots along the way. The climax is violent and whacky enough to almost feel like the venture was worth it. But with the talent and budget involved, this should have been much sharper, tighter and more exciting.

Is this even a remake? I don't know. It sure lacks anything that made the original so memorable. In fact if it didn't have the title as its predecessor , this would not even be in the same conversation as the loved 1992 thriller.

Sure it has the nanny from hell, but that's really really the only comparison. Truth be told it's a very unrealistic thriller, that likely wouldn't make any noise in the movie business, but tie a much loved movie to it and it gets us all watching.

It's hard not to compare it to the original obviously, as it is advertised as a reboot, but I will try judge it on its own merits as well.

Honestly the whole story and script is really poor, I respect the fact it's almost got a independent feel to it, not every movie needs to look like a blockbuster. But these movies, specificity thrillers need a captivating story, and it felt so out of touch with reality that it lost all credibility early on.

Mary Winstead is a likeable actress, but I never felt any connection to her character. There was no real chemistry with her on screen husband Raul Castillo, who may just well be one of the most useless husbands on a movie, incapable of normal family interactions. I'm also struggling with Maika Monroe (Polly), a actress I'm a bit on the fence with, she does have a unique style of acting, but I'm still not seeing a lot of range from her.

But truth is she will be compared to Rebecca De Mornay, I admire she hasn't tried to replicate her, but Mornay had a excellent performance playing a cold hearted nanny. This new nanny is, well less cold hearted more kind of frosty with dead stares. Not very memorable.

And aside from the acting and some really weak written characters (Martin Starrs' Stewart) this movie just ends up being not very memorable. I'm not going to lie and said it's anywhere near the worst movie from even this year. But when you're rebooting a decent movie, you need to at least attempt to make it as good or better. And ultimately I'll forget about this movie by next week.

Also, before I forget. What the hell was the DNA tampon scene all about. Yikes.

Everything that made the 90s version of this film so incredible, is 100% lacking in this trainwreck.

Not only is the casting bad, there is absolutely chemistry among any of the actors. The writing is juvenile at best. The "twist" was utterly ridiculous and totally unbelievable.

The only redeeming quality of this mess, is that it mercifully ended.

Reviews on here are either based on comparing it to the 1992 original or assessed as a stand alone movie.

In both cases this movie was just dreadful.

The plot was twisted up to the point it became sporadic, nonsensical and meaningless, the cast felt like they all wanted to be somewhere else and the characters they played were all so unlikeable you didn't really care about what may happen to them or the reasons why.