This 2013 teen drama is a film adaptation of the novel by the same name, which Jane Mendelsohn had written 13 years prior. I am not sure if the novel itself is categorised as Young Adult Fiction; but the film, without doubt, belongs firmly into that realm. It followed directly in the wake of the Twilight phenomenon and the filmmakers appear to have modelled many of their stylistic choices on the blockbuster franchise.

Beckett is a teenage girl who – having lost her mother 4 months earlier – moves with her father from some seaside area into New York City. They are looking for a fresh start. Her father is a celebrated author, and his publisher secured a place at a prestigious girls’ school for Beckett. This hallowed institution is run by a council of women who are all descendants of the school’s founders. But there are off-limit areas; and there are mysterious deaths and disappearances. Beckett develops visions, and in spite of therapy and medications she has frequent “episodes”. While she seems at times unsure what is real and what is imagined, she tries to do as much snooping around as she can.

Innocence is “almost a vampire film”. It is based on the ancient classical myths of the lamiai, blood-drinking creatures. The horror in this film works on two levels: there are Beckett’s visions which are often thoroughly Gothic and at times work as jump scares. Then there is the constant underlying atmosphere of a conspiracy, of a net getting inevitably closer with no hope of escaping – all fed and amplified by Beckett’s worsening mental state.

The surrounding subplots – even those connected to the mystery – are typical, generic teen-drama stuff involving disaffected teenagers as well as teachers and school staff. There are school cliques, friendships, first love, and the question whether Beckett’s father is dating again.

In terms of quality, almost everything in the work of the technical departments as well as all the story elements that are of a more generic nature are unassailable. Nothing here may be inspired, and all looks a bit like being designed by committee, but there is nothing to criticise here as flawed. Everything is technically solid, and if anyone would set out to tailor a mystical horror film specifically to a teen-girl audience, this is pretty much what it would look like.

The cinematography looks good, and the picture has (probably in post-production) been given a mild soft touch that gives the film a certain “supple richness” but that keeps well away from being sugary. The supple richness of the imagery is also the result of the sets and locations: the school building is of the old, haunted mansion variety; and the apartment of Beckett’s father is roomy and nice. And since this is an expensive school, it follows that the houses and apartments of her friends’ families are also roomy and luxurious.

As I said: although the novel was published in 2000, the film adaptation is no doubt a direct result of the Twilight success story. Now, the plot and story of Innocence are pretty much their own thing, and I also don’t think that Twilight ever managed (or wanted) to create the creepy atmosphere and scary images that Innocence uses. But the fact remains that this film is targeted at the exact same audience, that there is an undeniable overlap in themes, and that this film seems to have been designed by committee – and all of this inevitably leads to “Twilight-clone” moments, the most painful of which is Beckett’s web search of the lamiai. And I believe the musical choices are the one element that will remind people most of Twilight. But, as I just pointed out, with both Twilight and Innocence playing in the same genre and targeting the same audience, and with both certainly having their style elements (including the music) tailored to that target audience, there can be little surprise that the music ends up being similar.

The cast includes actors with a strong presence such as Linus Roach, Perrey Reeves, Stephanie March, Kelly Reilly, and Sarita Choudhury; but the younger cast-members – those playing the schoolgirls as well as their male friends – are a painstakingly handpicked assembly of generic-looking young people who were just not generic-looking enough to be employed by the Disney Channel. That doesn’t mean they are doing a bad job. Sophie Lane Curtis in the lead role is giving a good performance, and she is selling Beckett’s visions and confusion as adequately as the writing and directing allow her to. She is overshadowed, however, by Sarah Sutherland (as Beckett’s new best friend) who revels in the opportunities that her role afford her – opportunities that are not necessarily given to Curtis or to male supporting actor Graham Phillips (who also does a good job).

One of the film’s problems is that you never feel you get to know Beckett as a character beyond what you’d expect to hear at a pitch meeting: “teenage girl who lost her mother and has to go to a new school.” And so much time is spent on showing Beckett’s visions and nightmares, as well as her investigative work, that too little time is devoted to other aspects of her character and to her character development. We see friendships and relationships happen, but we don’t understand why they happen.

Another problem with Beckett is that, although Curtis does a good job acting out Beckett’s various visions and “episodes”, the film does not manage to tie them together into a picture of an overall worsening mental state. More importantly, the film misses the opportunity to blend Beckett’s visions, her nightmares, and the things she actually sees in a satisfying manner. In my plot summary, I said “… she seems at times unsure what is real and what is imagined …”. That maybe true for her, but not for us. And I am sure that the film would have benefited if we as an audience had felt unsure as well about the reliability of Beckett’s perception. After all, it is an interesting story-telling method that many films employ, including Stoker and The Moth Diaries.

Nothing of the above is Curtis’s fault. The problems more likely lie with Hilary Brougher’s directing and the screenplay that Brougher wrote with Tristine Skyler – but of course we will never know if studio guidelines or the editing contributed to these problems as well.

The film is sufficiently creepy and appropriately scary, and it has some PG-13-goryness. As mentioned, many of the non-horror elements are generic and by-the-numbers, but they are all very well executed at the same time. And yet, it is difficult for me to judge this film accurately. I feel that it does everything it needs to do in order to appeal to a teenage girl audience. But then, I never have been a teenage girl, so what do I know.

From my point of view, a rating of 5.5 out of 10 seems to be in order. This “vampire-adjacent” film is a rainy-day watch if ever there was one. You’ll have no desire to ever re-watch this film, but if you are not expecting much you will not feel cheated out of the 93 minutes. Innocence might be a good choice for teenagers who like a spooky film rather than real horror. And it might be a good film to introduce teenagers to horror. Just keep in mind that Beckett is a teenager and the film may or may not show her taking questionable decisions; so PG-13 notwithstanding, an age limit of “15 or older” might be advisable?

PS: In a film full of shy, mumbling teenagers, whispering adults, and nebulous visions – not to mention a sometimes drugged, semi-delirious lead character – there were many scenes in which I could have made good use of subtitles. Unfortunately my Region1-DVD does not have any, nor does it have any other kind of useful options or bonus material.