Recently in Suspense pg.2 Category

Starring: Ewan McGregor, Ryan Gosling, Naomi Watts, Bob Hoskins, B.D. Wong, Janeane Garafolo. Drama/Suspense Synopsis: A young substitute psychiatrist is thrust into a surreal life that is a combination of dreams and reality, dealing with the living and the dead, as he attempts to find, understand, and stop a young patient who has told him that he is going to commit suicide at a specific day and time.

Stay is a movie that is hard to describe in depth and hard to critique with any brevity without spoiling it, so I will just keep it simple: this is an outstanding movie that will evoke feelings of looking at a David Lynch movie, only with a slightly more realistic feel. The story begins with psychiatrist (Ewan McGregor) pinch hitting and meeting a troubled, enigmatic patient (Ryan Gosling) who indicates off hand that he is going to commit suicide the next Saturday at midnight. Well, as you might guess, McGregor immediately seeks to try to stop this, not to mention understand why a young, intelligent college student would want to kill himself, and why wait until a specified time in the next few days. We find that the issue of suicide is especially sensitive for the doctor because his girlfriend (Naomi Watts) previously tried to end her own life and was, apparently, saved by McGregor, which served as the beginning of their relationship.

McGregor shares his concerns with his cynical and burned out supervisor (B.D. Wong) who we soon will view as the only completely grounded main character in the film. At one point, MaGregor confronts Gosling (who is, for some reason, still attending his classes leading up to his date with suicide) and learns that both of Gosling's parents are deceased, and that Gosling seems to feel that he is the cause, although the time and manner of their respective deaths are not revealed. This is a key point in the film as we will soon be introduced to both of Gosling parents-well, maybe we are- as MaGregor, in an attempt to track down Gosling, finds his home on Long Island,  a stately place that is completely empty except for a dog and a woman claiming to be Gosling's mother (superbly played by Kate Bunton). Further, McGregor's long time blind chess partner (Bob Hoskins) is identified by a suddenly appearing Gosling as his father.

If you are not already saying to yourself, "what the hell is going on here?", you should also consider one other point, such as the increasing propensity of characters, including his girlfriend, to call McGregor by Gosling's name. There is also the recurring appearance of Gosling's former girlfriend, also supposedly dead, as well as a terrific cameo appearance by Janeane Garafolo, who seems to be sort of a creepy savant in her role.

Listen, you will figure out very quickly that this movie is not the typical chronological story. On the other hand, it is a little more involved than the end-at- the- beginning-begin- in- the-middle flow of a Tarentino movie. (Not to diminish the brilliance of Tarantino). Stay is more of a surreal feel, where you are wondering if what seems to be happening is really happening, or if the characters are really who we, or the main character, perceive them to be. Those of you who were smart enough to figure out the Sixth Sense prior to the ending the first time you saw it will be asking yourself questions regarding the relationship between McGregor and Gosling within minutes of the opening scenes.

Now, before those of you who have not seen the film holler, "You just spoiled it, dufus!!!", hold on a second. Maybe I did, probably I didn't. Because this film ends in a way that allows you to tie up some of the strings and symbolism, but there are many different interpretations and conclusions you can draw. In other words, you will have to think about what this means and see it more than once. Since we all see things a little differently, this means that you will probably have a different take on the film than whoever you watch it with. Which is always a lot of fun if you like to think about things.

Of course, the thing about films like this is that they only work if you are entertained when you are watching it, and you will be. All of the main characters bring their "A" game, and the supporting characters (Bunton, Garofolo, Hoskins, Wong) all energize the mysterious plot in their relatively short time on screen. McGregor is superb, we empathize with him as he tries to find out what is going on with his patient, all the while we suspect that his is descending into his own psychosis. Watts is brilliant, as always, and she is building a portfolio that may make her remembered as the best actress of her generation, if she is not thought of that way already.

Directed by Michael Caton-Jones. Starring Sharon Stone, Michael Morrissey, David Thewlis, Charlotte Rampling. Action/Drama. Synopsis: Writer Catherine Trammell has moved to London, where her love of the dangerous adventure implicates her in the death of a soccer star, and introduces her to a troubled psychologist and an aggressive detective.

Well, here we go again with the sequels. Basic Instinct 2 was largely panned by critics, much of it coming even before the release of the movie. As always, I try to talk about remakes/sequels apart from the original, and stay away from things that really don't have to do with the movie itself (e.g., pretending that I'm offended that Sharon Stone is doing a nude scene at the age of 48, etc.)

I have to say, given the general negative buzz about this film, I am pleasantly surprised but pleased to say that it carried itself pretty well, in my opinion. The first thing that you have to come to grips with, if you are a fan of the original (and aren't we all) is that this is different film, you will only see Catherine Trammell (Stone) from the original, although there are some references to the first movie. Those of you who did not see Basic Instinct, or who have forgotten some of the plot points, don't worry, you will be able to follow and appreciate this one fully.

Stone is masterful in reprising her role as Catherine, even more sinister and wickedly seductive than she was in the first one. To me, this makes sense, as the movie is told in current time, e.g. its fourteen years later in the movie, too. 

The film starts out with a bang, no pun intended, as we see Catherine and her paramour speeding through the streets of London in a car that cost more than the average three bedroom home. And, well, while they are driving they are....enjoying each other. Well, no good deed goes unpunished and they soon swerve off the road into the drink (or did driver Catherine do it on purpose?)...as you might guess, she survives, he doesn't, the fit hits the shan, and soon Catherine is under suspicion throughout the whole of London as a suspected murderess who, in case you hadn't heard, also writes best selling novels about murders and had the habit of being around people who happened to die violently in San Francisco a few years back.

Well, the only way that old Cath is going to be considered for bail is after she is evaluated by a psychologist (David Morrissey). It also seems that there is a police detective (David Thewlis) who is particularly anxious to keep/put Catherine behind bars and makes no bones about the fact that he believes Catherine murdered before and will again.

Without being a spoiler, Catherine does make her bail, takes a shine, as they say, to David Morrissey, and people begin dying violently. But, as in the first movie, its not entirely clear who is the murder(ess). However, Catherine seems more on the edge here, even more enjoying of the suspicion cast upon her for the crimes, even as facts crop up that point the finger elsewhere, including the psychologist who is treating her and the detective who wants to see her behind bars.

As in the first Instinct, much of the killing happens off screen and none of what we do see involves Catherine. The plot is a little far fetched-as it was in the first one- and the ending will leave some of you hanging, with the possibility of the killer not being who we thought he/she was. Again, this is similar to the first one, but, for me, I thought it was clear who did the killing in that one, as well as this one.

As a strict comparison to the original, this comes in second best, but not by as much as you might be led to believe. Part of what made the original so good was that it was so different from anything that most of us had seen up until that point, and Sharon Stone bursting into the big time with that movie also helped considerably. In this one, although its clear that Morrissey is a fine actor, he doesn't have the star quality of Michael Douglass, who was really the star of the first one, though everyone (rightfully) thinks of it as Stone's movie. The changing of the setting from San Francisco to London didn't bother me at all; as far fetched as it would be that Catherine Trammell would still be running around free with all those dead bodies connected to her, it would have been even more far fetched-too much so for me-if they tried to have her still at home in San Francisco. Another city in another country works well here, and you will see a sleeker, sexier, more modern London than is usually portrayed in flicks intended primarily for American audiences.

The supporting cast is very good, particularly Thewlis as the do-whatever-it -takes cop and Charlotte Rampling as Morrissey's more experienced psychological mentor. On the negative side, the plot was a little choppy, with too much happening outside the story that we need to follow to fully appreciate the story we are seeing onscreen. Also, there is more skin and less implied than in the original, which may be hard to believe, but I think it was overdone in this case. There is a fine line between classically erotic and late night cable raunch.

On the whole, I can't see anyone who liked the first one, likes Sharon Stone, or likes psychological thrillers not finding something that they like about this movie. If you saw the original, you probably will still prefer it, but there should be room for a less appreciated but entertaining sequel, shouldn't there? 

Directed by Dennis Iliadis. Starring: Tony Goldwyn, Monica Potter, Garrett Dilahunt, Riki Lindhome, Sara Paxton, Martha MacIsaac, Michael Bowen. Horror/Gore/Suspense/Remake. Synopsis: A gang led by an escaped convicts abducts two girl, brutalizing both and happen to end up staying at the home of the parents of one of the victims, who take out their revenge when they realize who their guests really are.

The Last House On The Left, in its original 1972 version, is one of the seminal movies of the wonderful movie- making decade that was the '70s, in my humble opinion. So, in this era of remakes, it only made sense that we would see this story updated to the particular way of life we experience now in the early 21st century, which is both very similar to 35 years ago...yet wildly different. Those of you of a certain age know exactly what I mean.

The basic premise is still the same, for those of you familiar with the original story: a group of ruthless young thugs, led by one who has just been illegally freed from the chains of the law, abduct and brutalize two young women in all manner of ways. After this, they find themselves in need of shelter while on the lam in a heavy rainstorm and happen upon a nice couple who have a comfy, warm house. Its just that the couple happen to be.....that's right, the parents of one of their victims. When they find out who their guest really are and what they've done, well, as you might guess, there is hell to pay.

Now, lets get something out of the way early. There are two kinds of people who will watch this flick: 1) those who have seen the original movie 2) those who haven't. I know what you're thinking: "Of course, doofus, you can say that about every remake ever made, tell us something we don't know!"

Point well taken.

I mention it, with full knowledge that it will do nothing for the image my already suspect intelligence,  only because I think the lines of who really likes the flick versus those who don't will be drawn starkly along the lines of who has seen the original and who hasn't. Again, that is often the case with remakes, but I think it is especially true in the case of this one.

So, you might ask, did you see the '72 original?

Yes, I did.

Well, did you like the original?

Oh, yeah.

O.k., so, let's cut to the chase. Did you like the 2009 version?!?

Not particularly.

Now, understand what I mean. The newer version is not a bad flick, in fact, its pretty good. Gore fans will be satisfied if not ecstatic at what they see (head stuck in a microwave, yes!!!) and, as we all know, who doesn't love to see a little justifiable revenge. The acting is good, as you might expect with the parents, Tony Goldwyn (Nixon, The Pelican Brief) and Monica Potter (Saw)  as well as the rest of the cast, especially Dillahunt as crazy ringleader Krug, Lindhome as sexy/psycho Sadie, and Sara Paxton as the victimized daughter.

My issue is, knowing the original, this one just didn't measure up as much. And, part of me thinks its because it couldn't. Look, seeing the original is one thing, but if you either saw it during the 70s or have vivid memories of that time period, you understand that there was in that flick an element of shock and "Wow, I've never seen that before!", that you're not going to get telling basically the same tale in the 2000s. And, the original Last House, in my view, went further than this one with less (e.g. budget, FXs, etc.).

Look, not to be a spoiler for those who haven't seen either, but the original has some unforgettable lines & scenes in spite of its low budget campy feel...just to give you an idea, what do you think about lines like "Piss your pants!" and dialogue exhangle like "Oh, poor little guy". "He's not little, you just scared him". That's right, those lines refer to just what you think they do in your nasty little minds and its wonderful.

Rightly or wrongly, I'm judging the current version by that standard and its not as good in spite of superior acting, FX, and cinematography...the more I think of it, maybe its because of those superior things that the remake is not as good.

So, now for the 64 thousand dollar question: is it worth seeing? Of course it is. Just because I wasn't blown away shouldn't mean anything, what the hell do I know anyway? I have a feeling those of you who did not like or did not see the original will like this just fine. I can't look at this flick from that point of view, so I won't try to. You'll just have to watch it yourselves and make up your own minds.

Which is likely what you were going to do anyway, no matter what I said.   

Directed by Scott Weber. Starring Helene Joy, Jennifer Beals, Ed Begley, Jr., Luthaine Bluteau, Ian Tracey, Emily Hirst. Synopsis: A wife and mother who has moved with her husband to a beautiful, remote location when her old friend unexpectedly shows up and brings with her some secrets and opens old wounds, resulting in a potential tragedy. Drama/mystery.

Desolation Sound is an intense story that makes you think of a modern day film noir result. It is shot on location in British Columbia and the cinematography is beautiful to see, and the story is not bad, either, though the ending was disappointing for this watcher.

Laurel (Helene Joy) is a mother of a young child (Emily Hirst) who is happily married to her husband (Ian Tracey) and does not miss the hustle and bustle of the big city, living in relative isolation in the beautiful environment of the sound. The only thing that might be troublesome is her daughter, who has a penchant for doing things such as climbing out of her window to sleep on the roof.

Circumstances become a lot less ideal when Laurel's best friend, Elizabeth (Jennifer Beals The Book Of Eli) shows up unexpected and uninvited, basically inviting herself to stay with the family in the wake of her father's death. Its clear that Elizabeth is, shall we say, much more of a free spirit than Laurel. Even though the two are best friends they have not seen each other for a while and it is evident that there is some past tension between them.

Also evident is that there is some, as they say, history between Elizabeth and Laurel's husband, though Laurel is apparently unaware of this. With hubby conveniently gone for an extended period of time, Elizabeth's presence and behavior make her more and more unwelcome, resulting in Elizabeth's matter of fact revelation to Laurel that she had slept with Laurel's husband. This goes over about as well as you would expect and there is an immediate falling out between the two in public, with Laurel slapping Elizabeth and telling her to get out.

Somehow, the enigmatic Elizabeth talks her way back into Laurel's home, just for the night of course, and as Murphy's Law would have it, Laurel's daughter picks that night to have one of her sleeping on the roof episodes, which, of course, gives both women reason to be out on the roof.

They resume their disagreement and one of them is pushed off the roof to her death in an apparent accident.

From here, the story gets more interesting as the survivor quickly realizes that she has to cover up this death and enlists the help of Bennie (Luthaine Bluteau) a creepy, ex-con who lives near the house and works as a sort of handyman for Laurel, in addition to making creepy puppets.

Also thrown into the mix is the town constable (Ed Begley, Jr.) who has an eye for Laurel, which obviously affects his investigation into the "disappearance" of the other woman. The interesting psychological aspect of this story is how the surviving woman slowly but unmistakably takes on the characteristics and even the appearance of her dead friend.

Clearly, more plot details would make me a spoiler, but you've got enough now to decide whether you might be interested in this one or not.

For me, the film had a pervasive dark undertone, even before the accidental (or was it?) death that kind of hung heavy over the flick and made it a little of a downer for me. Its a small cast, with only five characters having any serious or important scenes and dialogue. They do well, especially Beals in her role as the "trouble waiting to happen" one, though Joy's character is portrayed with more depth, solely due to the script. I've never been a big Begley fan, and it was hard for me to buy him as a seasoned law enforcement officer here, but, in fairness, I think this is what the plot intended, making him come off as a weaker, non threatening version of a cop, who might just be willing to put justice behind his own feelings.

Desplation Sound is a decent movie, not one I would give a strong shout out for, but definitely a good artsy type film for those of you who might be interested in seeing something that tries to take on normal human feelings and emotions instead of looking at things blowing up or people being tortured by psychopaths for an hour and a half.

So, if you are looking for a relatively quiet, thought provoking flick, I can say that you could do worse than this one. 

Directed by Simon West. Starring Camilla Belle, Tommy Flanagan, Kate Cassidy, Tessa Thompson. Horror/Suspense. Synopsis: A remake of the 1979 film  of the same name telling the story of  a young teen aged girl who is terrorized throughout the night ,while babysitting, by  threatening phone calls from an unknown stranger  who ultimately finds his way into the home.  

I'm not one who is always down on remakes. Sometimes they work (Scarface), sometimes they don't (The Longest Yard). I do believe that, most often, you can't go home again. What I mean by that is, if you are going to remake a movie that was fairly popular and very memorable in its time-and was itself based on an urban legend that dates back in many forms at least forty years-you had better bring something new to table, whether its a different twist, feel, ...something, because we all know the story, and it is going to take us being enthralled with the character and sympathetic to her situation to have us jumping out of our seats like we did in '79. ( Not to mention the fact that we're no longer in 5th grade)

This version of When a Stranger Calls doesn't work for several reasons. First, it is updated to the present day, using the same characters, for the most part, as the original. Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) is a high school student who has just run afoul of her parents by going 800 minutes over her cell phone limit. (Hey, we've all been there. A little chit-chat, and the next thing you know, 12+ hours in the red)  This was due to her cheating boyfriend...who had the nerve to actually kiss Jill's erstwhile best bud Tiffany (Kate Cassidy). As if that weren't enough, Jill's upper-middle class suburban hell gets a little hotter when Dad insists that she is going to have to babysit to pay off her debt for the overuse of the cell phone.

So, in addition to missing the big bonfire, Jill is barred by Dad from driving and using her cell phone as punishment as he drives her way out to the middle of nowhere to babysit for a rich couple who live in a house only slightly smaller than a small mid-western town. As if this was not already an all too evident recipe for disaster, what real life empathy we might be able to muster is hard to bring up because it is just so...obvious. Jill's Dad actually asks her "if she is going to be all right out here..." showing that he also has some concerns about his daughter. But, that doesn't stop him from dropping young Jill off to babysit for people she doesn't know (By Goodness, that bill has to be paid!!!)

O.k., you're thinking I'm being a little too tough here, but it gets better. Jill meets the Mandrakises, a rich power couple who are so busy and important that, even though they are only going to dinner and a movie, they almost forget to tell Jill where the kids are. Further making the set up just a little too unrealistic to get us where we need to be is the fact that, apparently, there is a live in maid upstairs, so Jill shouldn't worry if she hears "some bumping around up there"  O.k., I'm an open minded guy, but the movie started to lose me here. I know that set up was put in there for two reasons: 1) to have there be another potential explanation for the noise Jill will surely hear after it gets dark and to add to the psychological terror she (and the audience) will feel and 2) give Jill a dead body to find later on. Fine.

But, I hate to state the obvious: if they have a live in maid why do they need a babysitter for six hours?   

There's more. There is a guest house that their adult son sometimes stays in, but he has the bad habit of not telling them when he will be there. O.k., now its getting to be too much. Maybe I can deal with a young man needing to get away from his parents to the extent that he needs to crash in the guest house even though the main house is only slightly smaller than Dubuque, Iowa.

But, again, wouldn't you at least check on the guest house...maybe big bro could babysit? By this time, I'm saying to myself "Unless the couple are in on it, this is just too unreal....", whether that observation is accurate or not I will leave to those of you who have not seen the film.

Well, it quickly gets dark and, (surprise!!!), its a windy and rainy night when the calls start coming in, interspersed with crank calls from Jill's buds (calling from the bonfire where the cell reception is so bad that it always cuts out later when Jill starts asking for help). Jill is the first teenager in a half-century not to have the TV and/or stereo going the whole time as she starts to field the calls.

Later, when best bud Tiffany shows up at the house (That Tiffany is something isn't she? Jill is no longer talking to her, but she manages to track Jill down at a house Jill has never been before) and the two engage in girl talk for a while. Jill, already uneasy about the calls, does just what anyone else would do in that situation: alone except for two kids she hasn't seen , no car, cops won't help you until you are already under attack, nasty storm outside, nobody answering their phone, homicidal lunatic calling every 10 minutes. So, when her best friend comes, what does heroine Jilly do? Well, she asks her to leave, of course, damn near pushing her out the front door.   

I could go on, but you get the point. The set up and plot are just too far fetched and the circumstances too unrealistic. I'm not familiar with Camilla Belle's work outside of this film, but I think she has some talent. There just isn't much too work with in this script. Hey, Tom Hanks was in He Knows Your Alone, Kevin Bacon was in Friday the 13th, and Johnny Depp was in Nightmare on Elm Street  , so there is life after teen age slasher flicks and I think Ms. Belle may do just fine.

I think the big problem here is that, unlike the original, in this version the entire movie is attempting to focus only on the calls throughout the night with no background or serious character development. Really, the best part of the film is the house, its wonderful looking and is best described as what those in the 70's probably thought all modern houses would look like by the 21st century. 

Look, there may be some who will enjoy this, but its hard for me to see anyone over 18 with any real life experience being scared or enthralled. (I mean, this family is superrich, and you're telling me someone calling from that palace can't even get the local cops to send a car over...c'mon. As a former law enforcement officer, I don't know whether to laugh or get mad)

And, it should be said that the film at least tries to scare you without resorting to cheap gore, although there are other cheap cliche scare tactics (a black cat....I'm not kidding) If you go see or rent this one, understand what you are getting. Unrealistic camp without the usual good parts and cheap titillation which we all decry yet can't get enough of. Its a film that made an honest effort, which is what keeps it out of the Dud category, but took itself way too seriously and didn't give us enough credit. 

Starring Michelle Nolden, Kett Turton, Gabriel Hogan, Katherine Isabelle, Allegra  Fulton. Synopsis: An upper class woman is abducted by two squeegee wielding young couple who take her to a remote cabin north of Toronto. Held there over a period of days, she develops a surprising bond with each of her abductors amid the growing sexual tension with each.

Have to admit that I selected this one solely because I liked the look of the box cover. Generally, one of my favorite things about being a movie buff is finding "hidden gems" like this one, a film I had not heard anything about before I got it.

The beginning of the movie just grabs you right away: we see the main character Sarah (Michelle Nolden) tied up and gagged with a narrative voice over saying "Some people are meant to be rescuers, some people are meant to be rescued". Right away, you know this is going to be interesting. When the story starts, we meet Sarah as she is stuck in traffic and trying to reach Sam, her significant other, who gives Sarah the disappointing news about being able to meet Sarah at their isolated cabin for the long planned romantic getaway due to a situation at work.

A frustrated Sarah then reacts harshly to two squeegee people who try to clean her windshield at a traffic light. After her harsh rebuke, the guilt ridden Sarah offers the squeegee kids some money, and within an instant is carjacked at the knifepoint by Jenna (Katherine Isabelle) and her boyfriend Jackson (Kett Turton). Quickly, they are off to the remote cabin where Sarah will be kept as a prisoner.

Early on, you might get the feeling that this movie will degenerate into predictable, campy, T&A schlock, but it never does. As the story unfolds and you start to empathize even more with Sarah's plight, there is a distinct twist when it seems that Sarah is becoming attached to her captors. Several questions develop and/or are present from the beginning, but will one burning at the back of your mind, if not the front, throughout the progression of the film. Exactly what, or who, are Jackson and Jenna running from? Why don't they take Sarah's car and just leave? Where is Sam throughout the multi day ordeal? Why is Jackson obsessed with swimming? What is the basis of Jenna's fascination with knives and film?

Obviously, there is a lot going on in the undercurrent of the story that the writer/director (Cassandra Nicolau) wants us to figure out on our own, and the way the film is put together she is successful in doing so. Of course, for any picture that is almost entirely character driven to succeed, we have to care about some or all of the characters, and in Show Me we do, thanks to the thought provoking and original script and the fine acting of the three main characters, who are on film for 95% of the movie.

Michelle Nolden is superb as the protagonist, we are irritated with her at first, but then grow to empathize, if not fully understand her actions and motivation, which start out as a desperate desire to get free from her captors but evolves into a sympathetic and then partner-like relationship. When it is most easy for her to escape, she chooses not to do so. Surely, the sexual tension between her and each of her captors is a strong element of this, but not the total reason. Nolden has a commanding presence onscreen and tends to carry each scene that she is in, which is not a criticism of her co-stars but a compliment to her performance in the movie.

Katherine Isabelle has the most difficult role. Her character is, at the same time, the most disturbed, the most violent, the most vulnerable, the strongest, the weakest, and the most vulnerable. Without her pulling this off as seamlessly as she does, the film does not work. She caught my eye with her brief role in Insomnia and this seems to be a young actress who will make her mark for a long time.

Kett Turton, while the least outstanding of the three stars, is nevertheless very good in his role. It is just the right level of simmering hurt mixed with rage that makes us like him, even though he is the one that eventually perpetrates the violence we expected to come from Katherine Isabelle. As the plot develops, we can see that Turton's Jackson is, in effect, the moral center of the story, if not the most troubled. I thought it was nice to see an implied love triangle, but with a different twist and more elements thrown into the mix.

To be sure, there are some negatives to Show Me, although none to make it less of a movie to recommend than it already is. But, the ending, while heavy on symbolism, does leave us with a few unanswered questions, especially given the decisions that Sarah has made throughout the course of the movie.

Also, the climatic scene featuring the onscreen murder stretches credulity a little bit. The scene is hastily pushed into the movie without a sufficient explanation to fully help us understand what is happening and why. Lastly, it was a little hard to grasp that Sam, business concerns or not, would not at some point come up to the cabin after not hearing from Sarah. This seems like a small point, but in the context of a film, its important and the believability of the movie hinges on our full appreciation of Sarah's situation.

This movie, which deals with elements of murder, drug use, homosexuality in the context of a story of three people, yet is not exploitative in any way. This is the increasingly rare film that is carried entirely by the script and acting, without a hint of CGI or special effects to be seen. Its low budget, for sure, but the directorial debut of Cassandra Nicolau is a success. This is simply a film you should see if you enjoy good movies, and a good film is enough for you.