So, this starts out interestingly enough: The wayward, troubled veteran brother comes back home for a visit and threatens normal, stable brother's happy marriage. Not wholly original, but interesting. A solid dramatic premise.
As several reviewers here have pointed out, the movie is unnecessarily slow. Actually, it isn't unnecessary. It's slow because a feature has to be a minimum of about 90 minutes, and the screenwriter who--surprise--is also the director, seemed unable to come up with enough story to fill this thing out. So, there are a lot of filler shots of wallpaper, curios, cobwebs and--as someone has already mentioned--characters staring blankly.
I don't know who D. R. Hood (the director/screenwriter) is but, apparently unable to think of any actual story events having to do with the returning brother, she decides about halfway through the film to turn it into a story about the couple's inability to have a baby. She starts a half-baked plot thread about a childhood "friend" of the brothers who has (unknowingly) been cuckolded by his wife and the wayward brother. The cuckold makes a pass at Claire Foy (the supposedly happy, stable bro's wife) which she brushes off.
But then, discovering that her husband (normal brother)is the cause of their inability to conceive, Claire immediately turns to the cuckolded friend for a quick shagging. Up until now, she's rebuffed his advances, but after all, she wants a baby so what the hell. I guess adoption was not an option.
What has this to do with the returning brother, you might ask? Not much. The obvious plot development would be to have *him* be the sperm reservoir whom Claire turns to for a good shagging--at least keeping the baby within the same, general gene pool as her husband. Why drag in this fourth, barely developed character to serve that function? And then give him a major part in the movie's final scene? Meanwhile, returning veteran brother is nowhere to be found. He just disappears from the last five or eight minutes of the film.
Oh, I almost forgot: There were some murky hints that the brothers shared some kind of incestuous, carnal relationship that were never quite clear to me.
Anyway, there was a serviceable premise and some really good acting here. And I like the gradual revelations about the crazy deeds of the loopy, AWOL brother turning out, in fact, to be deeds of the supposedly stable brother. But the story--as slight as it is--is a mess, in my opinion.
This director should probably leave the script writing to someone else next time.
As several reviewers here have pointed out, the movie is unnecessarily slow. Actually, it isn't unnecessary. It's slow because a feature has to be a minimum of about 90 minutes, and the screenwriter who--surprise--is also the director, seemed unable to come up with enough story to fill this thing out. So, there are a lot of filler shots of wallpaper, curios, cobwebs and--as someone has already mentioned--characters staring blankly.
I don't know who D. R. Hood (the director/screenwriter) is but, apparently unable to think of any actual story events having to do with the returning brother, she decides about halfway through the film to turn it into a story about the couple's inability to have a baby. She starts a half-baked plot thread about a childhood "friend" of the brothers who has (unknowingly) been cuckolded by his wife and the wayward brother. The cuckold makes a pass at Claire Foy (the supposedly happy, stable bro's wife) which she brushes off.
But then, discovering that her husband (normal brother)is the cause of their inability to conceive, Claire immediately turns to the cuckolded friend for a quick shagging. Up until now, she's rebuffed his advances, but after all, she wants a baby so what the hell. I guess adoption was not an option.
What has this to do with the returning brother, you might ask? Not much. The obvious plot development would be to have *him* be the sperm reservoir whom Claire turns to for a good shagging--at least keeping the baby within the same, general gene pool as her husband. Why drag in this fourth, barely developed character to serve that function? And then give him a major part in the movie's final scene? Meanwhile, returning veteran brother is nowhere to be found. He just disappears from the last five or eight minutes of the film.
Oh, I almost forgot: There were some murky hints that the brothers shared some kind of incestuous, carnal relationship that were never quite clear to me.
Anyway, there was a serviceable premise and some really good acting here. And I like the gradual revelations about the crazy deeds of the loopy, AWOL brother turning out, in fact, to be deeds of the supposedly stable brother. But the story--as slight as it is--is a mess, in my opinion.
This director should probably leave the script writing to someone else next time.