Yes, stylized, imagery, and technically okay. But the plot holes and many details make no sense. 1> Charlie would have little knowledge of India; since he was locked up as a child, well before she was born, he would only know of her by what his brother might have mentioned to him. 2> Not liking to 'be touched' is a sign of serious issues, like warped familial relationships (her mother, okay), sexual abuse, or mental illness. Why would such a girl 'love' her father dearly? IF that condition WAS known to Charlie, that's why he felt 'connected' to India, because, as it turns out, both characters are sociopaths, and he had and recognized that trait. But he started writing to her just after she was born, so how would he know? 3> Almost ALL Hollywood writers/directors/producers have little real knowledge of weapons, as do most 'low information' folks, and this film is ridiculous, 'as usual'. EVERY hunter knows you don't hunt birds with rifles, because, as shown @ end, you hit a bird with a rifle bullet, the bird explodes -- pretty hard to either stuff it or eat it after that!
I could go on, but why? If you want to see a flash of Mia's right nipple during her masturbating scene, fine, but that's about the best this picture has to offer. To compare it to Hitchcock's masterpieces does the rotund fellow disrespect. 'Stealing' his ideas and techniques is for student films. We don't need any more 'homages'.
28 out of 59 found this helpful