Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Overrated

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Excellent film for the given budget and cast. The movie is very slow paced but the climax and overall message makes it worth a watch. There are only about 5 characters in the whole movie besides a couple of run of the mill office scenes with yuppies passing in and out of the frame. I would recommend this to people who are into Independent Films and enjoy non- traditional types of movies. Its not supposed to be scary at all it leans heavily towards suspense but falls quite short of edge of your seat. Don't watch with your children, the nudity isn't very graphic but the whole movie in general just isn't for kids. I also wouldn't make this movie a prime time weekend watcher, maybe 3rd choice at best. If you like this one you should also check out Anti-Christ with Willem Dafoe. Well I hope that this was helpful, take care.

Rolf de Heer both wrote and directed this strangely fascinating and equally disturbing 2003 film for a cast of two. It takes chances (both male and female full frontal nudity among them), relates a tale that will likely make the viewer cringe and have some bad dreams, depends solely (well, practically solely) on two actors to pull this off, and in the end brings to the table a story of a terminally dysfunctional marriage.Steve (Gary Sweet) and Alexandra (Helen Buday) live a middle class existence with their two children in Australia. After a strangely cold beginning - today is Steve's birthday and his two children and Alexandra have plans for an evening's celebration. Steve seems to start the day in an amorous mood but Alexandra is surprisingly unresponsive: Steve's attention is disturbed by the fat, ugly security systems installer neighbor (Bogdan Koca) who is constantly watering his garden. Steve is off, and at work his colleagues present him with a surprise birthday party AND an advancement in his company. When Steve returns home, his house is deserted and darkened with almost all the light bulbs missing, all easy access outside cut off and a videotape waiting for him, a videotape labeled 'play me'. Plugging the tape in Steve is instructed to get a beer and sit and watch what is about to unfold. On the tape Alexandra lays out her complaints about their marriage - Alexandra's feeling of abandonment, lack of sexual fulfillment, lack of intimacy, no control over the direction of her life. One of her biggest complaints is that Steve 'married her body' and made love at her, not with her. In an attempt to regain control of her body and her life Alexandra does some sexually perverse things on the tape to humiliate both Steve and the 'body' he married. She explains her grievances with him, her reasons for disappearing with the children and her revenge for how he treated her in a way he would never forget. The proceedings on the tape become real-time and the result of how Steve and Alexandra cope forms the surprise ending to this little sour film.Both Sweet and Buday give convincing performances and the progress of the tape watching keeps the viewer's attention. Much of the back story for the film is left to the viewer's imagination but as far as the experience the script offers, it is a tough and strongly acted experience. Grady Harp

This film is skillfully made: good acting and a setup that allows for some some suspense and surprises. Otherwise it's a piece of garbage. I say that because I can't divine any intent or purpose for what is little more than a tale of psychological torture. Steve is a married guy with a wife and two children and after receiving a promotion at work he comes home to find his wife and kids gone and him locked in his apartment without means of escape or communication. Conspiring with a swinish technician neighbor his wife has contrived to imprison him in the house. She has left him with a videotape of herself. He plays the tape. At first she does a strip tease for him and then abruptly changes course and launches into a hate-filled rant about how she's been abused by him for their entire marriage and that she's taken the children to parts unknown and he'll never see them again. There are a few more twists, but that is the essence of it. Steve, who thought he had a loving family is reduced to a wreck, tearfully having to listen to his wife's raving accusations. According to her he is an insensitive pig, and she the helpless victim. But the entire setup is false. First of all, in the beginning we don't see Steve as anything but a loving father and husband. And what really does she accuse him of? Of being insensitive to her needs and making unwanted sexual advances. She complains that he's always trying to grope her. Evidently he wants her body but doesn't appreciate her mind. (From what we see of her mind, with its insane vengefulness and cruelty, maybe he was better off having nothing to do with it.) The whole thing doesn't make psychological sense. We are supposed to believe that for 12 years she submitted meekly to his clumsy and repulsive advances without complaint or protest then suddenly she becomes this aggressive, sadistic mastermind of a diabolical plot to humiliate and destroy him. I know it is a fantasy of the feminist left that women are helpless to resist the abuses of their men and any sort of bizarre revenge on the offending males is justified. But it's impossible to believe that this woman was so unhappy and angry with her marriage and submitted for so long, then suddenly became a calculating, avenging Valkyrie. We aren't talking about a woman living under sharia law but a liberated Western woman who would have plenty of recourse in an unhappy marriage long before she had to go literally insane with hatred. The movie gives no real sense of justice or balance. We see a man reduced to rubble, very likely a decent man for all his faults, but we see no moral resolution or even a moral center. The only justification for the wife's actions is her own self-serving, mentally warped rant, much of which may be pure fantasy. Some reviewers have suggested that the movie is actually a condemnation of the wife and her uber-feminist world view. But that isn't clear. That's why I don't think this is a good film. It reminds me of another movie, "Antichrist", a nasty European product in which a wife also goes off her rocker and tortures her husband. Neither movie makes any clear moral point except to fill some voyeuristic need in sick minds to see cruelty in action. In neither movie are we shown men who would by any means merit the cruelty inflicted on them.

After watching this movie, I read reviews here that were very tough on Alexandra. I was two (I'm male), but upon rewatching the early scenes, I realized I missed some important clues, many of which I haven't seen in a lot of the reviews.1) Steve is clearly a sex addict. His marital behavior indicates that, as does the brief scene in a cafe with a young woman. While he did not beat Alexandra, he was pretty tough on her, and I question whether she had organisms. As I considered this, I felt more sympathy for Alexandra. 2) The symbolism of the scene where he fast-forwards through her speech on the tape is obvious in the sense that he didn't care to hear what she said. But some commented that he did not know how she felt. Perhaps he did. Perhaps she had told him, he didn't want to hear it then, and he doesn't now. 3) I believe the items in the drawer had to do with passports. Note then that as the taxi with the kids pulled away, Alexandra said good-bye with finality. I don't think she was joining those kids. The neighbor sounded German. Perhaps he arranged for them to be sent to Germany. Obviously, if she joined the kids, it's likely that somewhere along the line the kids would give away what happened. This is still a plot concern, but not as much if she never joins them. 4) The shower scene makes it pretty clear that she hates what she's doing and/or is about to do. On several levels, possibly. Her expressions make this clear, as well. It reinforces my thought that she never expect to see her kids again. It may even reflect on what she may be expecting in the future--perhaps even on the failure of her marriage. 5) On the other hand, it's hard to see how she got away with being a prostitute in that housing complex with men coming and going all day. 6) I agree that it's hard to believe Steve could be so crushed as not to call the police. Unless he has had some issue with them over his sex addiction (nothing indicated, though). 7) The cancer scene was effective, but superfluous. 8) It does seem hard to believe the kids were so well adjusted and never picked up on the tensions. All told, I'm not sure Alexandra was crazy so much as simply fed up and consumed with hatred over what she had become because of her marriage. As I said, I had more sympathy for her after rewatching the early scenes. Taking pride in being a prostitute, which she did to some extent, is not a great way to live or value oneself.