onlythusfar

This was a wonderful short film, very professionally done. The cinematography very beautifully displayed the amazing scenery in which the story took place. The acting was very good: a beautiful mother/dancer, her fantastic toddler and a grumpy old man. The idea of the story was quite unique and more of a fairy tale, than a horror movie. For such a short film it felt very solid and had some "gravitas", which I always appreciate. I felt very satisfied and full after I finished watching it unlike many other films, short or long. A surprising little gem. Very talented film-makers.

Unlike the other reviewer here I found this movie entertaining, I guess, I'm not too hard to please. By the way the one critic's review also gave it a 7/10. It was not a great film, but not a bad one either. The idea was quite good and rather unique, to my experience. I found the leads quite good and Nasanin Nuri, was certainly alluring. I won't give away the plot, which I didn't really catch on to until late in the movie. It's a well-worn idea, but here it was done very differently, than I've seen before. It's basically a light piece of entertainment and it certainly never bored me.

After this film ended, it reminded me of how I feel, after I've watched some weekly TV show. EMPTY. That's why i no longer watch TV shows. Their clever, fast-moving melodrama keeps your eyes glued to the screen, but after it's over you are left with NOTHING. There's really no heart nor soul. It would be difficult, to produce something meaningful week after week, so the writers/producers rely on a repetitive formula. This film was a well-produced, well-acted TV show, but nothing more.

This film, was difficult to watch after recently seeing "Despair". Both portrayed the insane brutality, of which we humans are capable. While "Despair" was obviously a contrived work of fiction, "Birdshot" showed a very real situation in the world, where groups feel threatened enough by those in power above them, to abandon their ethical or "moral" principles to survive. It makes me ask,"Who started this chain of submission and why did no one try to stop it, before it got out of control ?". I think of Soviet Russia and how "Party" members murdered so many of their own citizens under Stalin's orders. How far down the hierarchy did this have to go , until it was too late to reverse it ? Are we so needy for social standing and recognition, that we will go along with hideous acts to satisfy this ? Do we value our brief and inconsequential lives so much, that we will not risk them to save so many others, from "immorality" ?. This film, within a very small milieu brings up these difficult questions very powerfully.

This film started out interestingly enough, with a family in a cabin in an isolated area beset by a winter storm. In the beginning, there is a couple and a bright little girl. The girl's mother comes to pick her up, leaving the couple on their own. They seem like a very loving couple. Shortly after the girl leaves, the couple come across a woman outside their home, half- frozen in the snow. They bring her in and revive her, but with their car on the blink and also their phone. they cannot summon medical aid for her. With no means of transportation, they must keep her as their guest, until better weather arrives. The interloper, begins displaying unusual behaviour, which over time becomes more and more concerning. The movie is well-acted, and shot, slow ,but with enough tension to hold one's attention. The music is very well done. In the end, it turns into a depressing nightmare, which I found difficult to bear.

In this futuristic movie, the gender roles are relegated to the Neanderthal days. Women are either victims, who need to be saved by the hunky male lead, or are sex toys, who service said hunky male lead, or also service each other. It's like someone decided to stick a "porn" film in the middle of a "sci-fi" film. Now I can appreciate both, but mixing the two distracts from the more interesting ideas of the latter. The most annoying part however; is that the protagonist spends the whole movie hunting down a murdering female, who in the end turns out to just be another "damsel in distress", that he is obligated to save from the real killer, who of course is a male. You can see the "lovey-dovey" ending coming from the middle of the film. It's a like Disney film with a little "porn" thrown in. By the way, the "sci-fi" idea is quite interesting, but unfortunately gets buried in romantic cliche.

This movie is actually, like a classic Greek tragedy. People are put into impossible situations, where whatever choices they make, are going to lead to crushing sorrow. I am surprised, that many commentors , don't seem to be emotionally affected by this film. That to me is very sad and chilling. Have the plethora of disaster films in recent years, inured us to the pain of our fellow humans; the irresponsible violence, which permeates both our imaginary world and our reality ? This movie was basically about the relationship between life (survival) and the quality of life (love and brotherhood). I thought it was very well done, emotionally powerful. Thank you to all involved.

This film reminds me of David Lynch's "Eraserhead" ; Incoherent and tedious. I don't think this one will be proclaimed a "masterpiece" though. Wrong signature. I suppose, that it was well done, for what it is. I love the photo on the cover art. I can only watch this kind of nonsensical weirdness for so long, as I need more clear communication, than these films offer. David Lynch did OK with them however. So maybe these folks will too!

How different we humans are ! One sees something valuable, where another only sees trash. I think, that it all goes back to our upbringing; what our parents valued, our religious indoctrination, or lack thereof, our schooling. I actually found this short film very tense and scary. Everything starts out so normal; a man's sadness, his loneliness, a difficult day. He tries to console himself by doing normal things; listening to his favourite music, making himself some food. I feel his pain.

Then, there's an unexpected knock on the door at ten o'clock at night.

The man is surprised. He goes to the door,and there sees a small child

on his doorstep, his face hidden by a "hoodie". The man attempts

to find out the little one's needs. But this is no ordinary little one. Oh no ! The mood of the film completely changes.

I thought, that this was a very good short.

The atmosphere was strange and dark.

The acting was very good.

I found the ending a little difficult to decipher, but eerie in its implications.

The main character was sympathetic.

The Female character was easier to take seriously, than in many films

The make-up was very good.

I have mixed feelings/thoughts about "The Best Offer". I'm surprised by the number of people who said, that they could see the ending coming early on. Did they know, that this was supposed to be a caper/crime film ? I knew nothing about this and being raised on "Disney", most of the way through I fully expected this to be a sweet or possibly tragic love story. I found the "twist" at the end to be so abrupt, that it was confusing and seemed unfounded to me, based on what had gone before. I obviously didn't pick up any of the hints people say were so blatant

Accepting the ending, I can see this film, as a psychological study of the power of emotion over intellect in a person's life. The main character, it seemed, had been running from emotion his entire life. To protect himself, as many of us do, from uncontrollable emotion, he adopted a very strong intellectual approach in his dealings with others. We see, that he hid a very strong vulnerability to romantic love, which displayed itself in his private gallery of women's portraits. "His" women were delicate, aesthetic works of art, with none of the inconvenient messiness of reality. I think, that he possibly had been raised on "Disney" princesses also. When, in the film, he met a woman, who piqued his intellectual interest, his defenses were lowered and he believed, that one of his fantasy women had manifested in physical reality. This left him vulnerable to his hidden emotional desires and in the film to his downfall and humiliation.

If the aim of the film, was to show this character study, I think, that it needed to be more introspective and subtle and dispense with much of the melodrama and gimmicks, that it embraced. I found the "caper" plot, to be too intrusive and abrupt and in that, it overshadowed and preempted the man's inner struggle.

This is why, I saw the film as being at odds with itself and thus a little "wonky". I found it very well done until the final scenes, which I found rushed and lacking in redemption a man of this intellectual capacity may have experienced. The art direction and cinematography were wonderful. The acting, especially by Geoffrey Rush was touching.

This is a sad and scary story about a young man, not much more than a child really emotionally. Also, he was very frail physically, and though he was eighteen, seemed quite child-like.

Convinced by the news media, that Donald Trump was an evil racist, he became obsessed with the idea, that Trump had to be prevented from acquiring power. The young man lived in Britain and he had a history of mental illness. His mother had tried many times to get psychiatric help for him, but to no avail. He left home and lived on his own in the United States, where it seems,that his mental health deteriorated further, being away from his family's support.

Obviously, he did not succeed in his mission. As I am a Donald Trump supporter, I am thankful for this. The story concentrates on his family's sorrow, for his actions, and his incarceration in prison. They come to the U.S.A. to attend his court sentencing, only hoping to take him home, to get him treatment. I feel for them, but it is also very scary, that in a country, where guns are easily accessible, that a disturbed person may be able to unwittingly do something terrible. I was pleasantly surprised, by his treatment from the authorities.

This reminds me somewhat of the story of John Lennon's killer, who also came a long way to commit a horrible, delusional act, Unfortunately in that case he was able to complete his very sad mission.

I found "Skim Piff's" review, entitled " Nocturnal Animals misunderstands what its focus should be" to be the most illuminating comment on why this movie/story didn't work well. I found the unnecessarily sensational parts of the film (from the novel within the film) to be too much in the fore, and as Mr. Piff says, it takes away from the character study, which seems to be the intent of the film. Also, I think "love" is portrayed in an adolescent manner, with a man obsessing over his "lost sweetheart" for twenty years, even though in reality, she was/is a very superficial, immature person, who was/is incapable of supporting a real loving relationship. To hold on to his longing for this woman for so long is very unrealistic, or indicates, that Edward has a serious psychological disability. This sort of "undying love" pulls at our sentimentality, but looked at critically it only indicates stunted emotional development on the part of the obsessive lover. Also, the supposedly "great novel" the ex-husband has written, comes across, as tawdry exploitative melodrama, with no subtlety or human realism. This film reminds me of "Gone Girl", an over-hyped slice of sleazy nihilism. I don't know if this was the responsibility of the film-makers or of the source material. The imagery was bold and interesting and the music was beautiful, although it was used in a terribly manipulative manner. This film was more like a painting to me, than a movie, which has merit, but I did not find living humanity in it.

SPOILERS AHEAD ! I found the atmosphere in this film quite wonderful. The persistent rain on the lonely, deserted road through the woods was isolating and very melancholy. The movie combined a powerful family drama with a nightmare-like story of a marauding, dark, monstrous threat. I like how reviewers framed the monster story, as a metaphor for the troubles in the mother-daughter relationship. I think, that the film would have been more successful, if the film-makers had chosen to emphasize this aspect of the story. I was confused at the end, when the child wakes up, and appreciates her mother's presence, after losing her in a nightmare. Or so I thought.

I thought, that the monster story had just been a dream, as in "The Wizard of Oz". However the story then continued with the monster story, with the mother gone, and the little girl on her own. Why she was walking out into a field in the middle of nowhere, instead of walking down the road back

to civilization was also confusing. I suppose, the film-maker wanted to show her waking into the light, to emphasize how she had changed her life. I saw this movie, as a child's fairy tale, in which she gained new strength and wisdom and was able to become independent from her mother's troubles and let her go. As another reviewer had mentioned, "A coming of age story". I found the acting wonderful and it really encouraged me to invest emotionally in these characters. I found the "monster" very apt, except, it seemed rather small in stature, when the little girl confronted it. I think, that this was a good story for thoughtful, empathetic viewers, rather than thrill seekers.

This story does pull you in initially, but by the end turns into mush, with its pseudo-philosophical outlook, which another reviewer astutely summarized, as " a combination of arty arrogance and teenage angst". The story of a Nazi concentration camp victim, which the protagonist was making a documentary about, was the most interesting part of the film. The film presents love, as the biological relationship between members of the opposite sex. I believed this in my adolescence ( "teenage angst" ), but have mostly managed to get beyond this, thank God. The monologue near the end is delivered in such a solemn, pontificating manner, it initially sounds profound, until you think about it for a couple of minutes. You then realize, it is totally concerned with an adolescent's viewpoint of love/lust. The movie would have been much better, if this speech, was omitted. I did find it represented women as conniving and irresponsible, through the female lead. It gave the pathetic, popular excuse, that if the woman is sexually attractive enough, this is OK.

The acting was quite good, as well as, the cinematography.

This film has tons of positives going for it. On first viewing, I wasn't too impressed by it, but on later viewings, I grew to appreciate it more and more. The art direction/special effects, were outstanding, including of course Giger's amazing designs. The acting was very good on all accounts, especially by Sigourney Weaver. The direction, was very well done by Mr. Scott, whom it is said convinced the studio to give the film a bigger budget. The music was excellent, paying homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey. The atmosphere was fittingly sombre and realistic, unlike the rather puerile, operatic "Star Wars". I was disappointed by some dumb horror-movie character decisions in the plot near the end (eg.; threatened with imminent death, Ripley goes running around the ship looking for a cat ! and the tough Black man doesn't blow away the creature along with the inept Veronica Cartwright character. He didn't seem, like such a stupid softy throughout the movie. My main disappointment however, was that the "Alien" wasn't given more explanation. Did it actually eat the people, that it killed, and if not, why did it kill, if it wasn't necessary? Also, it displayed no particular intelligence, not even, as much as, the cat. I know, it was just meant to be a killer monster, but it would have been interesting, being an alien, if it had a bit more depth. None-the-less an excellent film. James Cameron's sequel was also excellent, if a little over-blown. Even the third sequel was good. I think, that the excellent actors really gave life to all three movies, especially having the consistency of Ms. Weaver, as the main character. She's one smart lady.

The "summary", refers to the film's weirdest line, at the climax of the film.

It goes something like this, " Education used to be easy, but these days everyone has an opinion." ???? Was that supposed to be a joke? The film- makers seemed to concentrate on the looks of the film and the actors, more than the story. All the actors were "pretty", as was the scenery. I liked listening to the rich Irish accents. Unfortunately, the story seemed quite amateurish, as it contained bits and pieces from other movies, stuck together haphazardly. It jumbled "Carrie", "Who can Kill a Child", "Village of the Damned" and another recent Irish horror story,"The Daisy Chain", in which a little girl/elf burns her parents to death. The imagery was well done, but the plot was basically incoherent, with very little real story.

I was surprised to read the highly negative reviews for this film. I found it creepy and intriguing. The theme of child abuse pulled at my heart strings. The strange mixture of politics and intimate horror, was quite unusual and interesting, as such. The fact, that the film is British added to my pleasure, as I generally find British films more realistic/serious, than American films. I appreciated all the actors in their roles. The tough female cop, although not unattractive, didn't look like a (ridiculous) fashion model, as so many do in American crime films. I thought, that she had a realistic edginess. This wasn't a "great" film, but I appreciated its dark quirkiness.

This movie certainly did receive a lot of love; 90% on Rotten Tomatoes. I found it quite a depressing story, where a family, banished from their community in pioneer America move out on their own to an isolated area and seem to be under constant threat of starvation. To make matters worse, they've moved into a witch's territory. Bad luck. So one way or the other, you know they're in deep s**t. This dysfunctional family of seven doesn't last very long, although they manage to partake in a lot of grief and infighting before their demise. I don't like seeing little kids getting yelled at and winding up dead. . . Oh yeah! And there's a killer goat, who also talks! Sheesh! The atmosphere, imagery and acting are all well done, but there really isn't enough of a story to make the film very intriguing

This film was difficult to watch. Although it isn't the greatest film technically, its message is very powerful. It portrays the complete dominance, that adults have over children. As it has been aptly put, absolute power often results in absolute corruption. This story had a happy ending, but unfortunately, that's not how it often ends in real life. It reminds me of the residential schools, to which native children were sent, after being torn away from their families, so they could be indoctrinated, into the European conquerers' religion. These children were at the complete mercy of adult clergy, who were often corrupt and sadistic or sexually perverse. The children often were often the victims of unthinkable abuse at the hands of these adults. I guess, the only reason to watch this film is to remind oneself of the vulnerability of children and our job, as responsible adults to be vigilant with ourselves and others, to make sure, that we are advocates for their protection.

This movie, is very professionally done. Unfortunately, it follows the Hollywood formula of everything and everyone, being materially comfortable, squeaky clean and the ladies"made-up" to glamour standards. I think, that we've grown so habituated to these standards, that it would be difficult for us to watch, if it presented people and situations, as they really are in life. I'm mostly mentioning this due to the fact, that this is a "Christian" film. It is sad to me, that even people of faith feel, that they need to show this glamorized image of life, to find acceptance. I believe, that the film, gives a good representation of both sides of the "Creationism" versus "Evolutionary" debate on life's origins, although it is of course told from a "Christian" perspective, and somewhat heavy-handedly at some times. It shows, the rigidity of those on both sides of this question. I think, that the acting is well done. The script, however, is quite bland and contrived. It is certainly no profound work of art or ideas, which such a topic could lend itself to. I watched it for the ideas, rather, than expecting some "chef d'oeuvre" of cinema. I found it mildly entertaining.

This film has a pulse (echoed in the music), which just keeps getting louder and louder and faster and faster. Unrelenting, like a run-away truck down a hill. The focused steadfastness of "the stranger" is measured against the franticness of the rest of the cast. I find this film plays out a lot like "The Terminator" with a supernatural theme replacing science-fiction. Just like "The Terminator", it has no pity, no remorse and won't ever stop, until it completes its mission. The opening titles are great, arty and spooky. There's a lot of violence and gore, be warned. There are few movies, that I can watch over and over. "The Terminator" is one, and this film is another. Once I start watching them, it was like being on a roller coaster locked in , going up the ramp, waiting, anticipating the frenzied descent soon to come.

I liked the rather forlorn atmosphere of this film, of a family isolated, stuck in its own past, crumbling in on itself. A dearth of colour and chatter added to this effect. Into this dismal setting, walks the star of this melodrama, a forsaken traveller, whose voice gives more colour to the movie, than any visual. He (Patrick Breen) is the most charming homicidal lunatic, that you'll ever come across in film. The film moves slowly, but deliberately along, to the languid tone of his voice. His patter often results in some very dry, black humour. Surprisingly, in the end, the family's own dark secret is so bizarre, it actually outdoes and amazes our spooky stranger, which isn't too easy to do. Their are very few films, which I would watch multiple times, but this is one of them.

Ms. Ivlev really got into this part, as her acting seemed heartfelt. Her expression of pain and outrage was palpable. She seemed, like a real person not some prissy model, who needed her hair and make-up to be perfect in every scene. Mr. Tyson's work was also excellent. The direction, camera work and art direction were all excellent. The story line was generally good, although I did have to actively suspend disbelief over some details. However, the thrust of the action and Ms. Ivlev's powerful acting, made that easier to do. The use of flash-backs was very well done. This was a surprisingly good production for such a hackneyed subject.

5.5 ? Really ? When all that Hollywood crap is getting 7's and 8's ? Very sad indeed. I however never base my viewing on these skewed ratings. I always examine the reviews and try to pick out those, who seem to give intelligent reviews, before watching a film. This piece of cinema was wonderful. An intimate drama with realistic characters and a true female hero, as opposed to the Hollywood glamour model FBI agents. This film has great tension and suspense; one of the best police dramas, which I've seen in quite some time. The plot and setting are minimal, but the characters are great, as is the acting. Wow! I have to write another line, although, I'm sure, that I've seen shorter reviews on here. What gives?