There is something missing from this movie. It has potential but just misses the mark with so many unanswered questions.

Why does the only user review of Wreckers on IMDb so far look as though it has been written by Benedict Cumberbatch's mother? I would have thought a lot of people had seen this film?

So, the good parts. Wreckers has a promising plot that belongs to a classic horror movie or a psychological thriller: A newly married couple wants to start a family. They move to the (on the surface) idyllic village where he grew up, and his brother shows up soon after. Soon enough the wife starts discovering unsettling things about her husband. (Yes, it is symbolical. He moves back + the brother shows up = symbolizes his childhood traumas being triggered by them wanting to have a child.) As the story unfolds the husband starts to show violent tendencies and it is ultimately suggested that the couple have an abusive relationship they don't really address (I might be wrong, but why would she otherwise end up in a hospital?). Overall there are all sorts of denial going on through the film but it is not clear whether the denial in it self is a good or a bad thing (this fact actually works to the film's advantage).

Technically, the acting is really good all around - Cumberbatch does "Am I gonna have to choke a bitch?" almost as well as he does "crying valiantly" and the meager script is carried as far as it ca go by the actors (Shaun Evans needs more recognition imho).

When all that is said: The film did not convince. It lacked suspense and character depth to such an extent that I was left, not only not caring about the characters, but also bored with them. The script was heavy handed and the pictures were dark beyond reason (yes, I get it, something lies hidden in the darkness etc. etc. but it still felt as too much darkness).

All in all I guess -i would recommend this film to anyone on the look for a not-so-thrilling-but-well-acted thriller with a psychological subplot.

A dialogue dependent movie, but unfortunately the producers were too cheap to provide subtitles for non-Brits around the world who have different English dialects; or those with little or no English; or those hard of hearing viewers. To make matters worse the audio levels as well as enunciation by the actors were inconsistent and uneven.

The acting was minimally acceptable given there wasn't a whole lot going on throughout a film that has the camera obsessed with looking at walls inside the house or out the window. The camera continued the preoccupation with focusing on non-essential scenes for prolonged periods e.g. chickens in a coup; figurines on a shelf; tree leaves blowing in the wind; pond lily pads; spider crawling up a window; the inside of a church both with/without singing.

Outside of that there is a sleepwalking visiting brother; two brief sex with someone else's partner scenes and a party.

Maybe this is a day-in-the-life storyline?