Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

punishmentpark I saw this before a long while ago, and mostly remembered the really good atmosphere (those small town views are priceless), which was still there this second time around. The story is really interesting for a long time, but when a lot is revealed in the scene with the characters Adamson (he is some sort of police chief or judge) and Peter (and one other guy - also police), it all becomes quite inane and uninteresting. In my mind, things stayed much more unclear and dark when I first viewed it. Too bad.The atmosphere still stands though, and the two stories of two men (families) in different, distant states is still interesting up to a point. The little mysterious and arty bits that director Nicolas Winding Refn put in here and there (a red lit hand, a face pressing through some piece of clothing and some special effects kind of thing) really added little or nothing to the whole. The acting is pretty much perfect, though.Another film that has quite a few qualities, but is ultimately rather inane. In such cases, I am mostly lenient; 5 out of 10.

kluseba "Fear X" (2003) is a quite weird psycho-thriller by the highly experimental Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn who is known for other controversial art house films like "Valhalla Rising" (2009) and "Only God Forgives" (2013). "Fear X" feels like an unfinished movie that seems to offer a lot of food for thought at first contact but only leads to two possible conclusions after the almost abrupt ending. Many viewers will be disappointed by the lack of a proper conclusion while others may find exactly this aspect very creative. In my opinion, the movie lacks the detailed descriptions and out-thought storytelling qualities of comparable art house directors like David Lynch. If you are not into slow paced art house movies, you are going to waste your time. If you are honestly interested in this genre, there are other classics like "Aguirre, the Wrath of God" (1972), "Lost Highway" (1997), "Audition" (1999), "In the Mood for Love" (2000) and "Memento" (2001) you should have watched and appreciated before you venture into the more liberal territory of "Fear X".As for the story, I invite you to discover it by yourself and don't want to give any more details than these: A depressed security guard can't forget about the murder of his wife that happened at his workplace some time ago when the young woman was gunned down along with a police officer by an unknown in the parking lot of a shopping mall. The desperate man is still looking for any possible detail to reconstruct the mysterious murder in order to understand why his wife had to die. A mysteriously discovered photograph leads him to a place where his wife and him had been on vacation several months earlier and his arrival will create a lot of nervous tension in town.As a fan of the art house genre, there are several things I appreciated and disliked about this movie. The first negative aspect is that the movie has a complete absence of crime scenes. The movie would have kicked off in a much more dynamical way if the director had shown us the initial crime that is later shown on blurry surveillance camera footage only. An even bigger problem is the lack of details in the plot that could have delivered some food for thought. Apart of the two main characters, all other appearances remain peripheral even though some of them actually had some potential. Many little scenes don't add anything to the plot at all. These scenes aren't there to confuse us either or to tell us more about the characters, I feel like them being really unnecessary. As I said before, there are two ways to analyze this movie in the end but I don't want to spoil this film for you as you need to experience it on your own to make up your own mind about it. One of these two options would induct a couple of massive plot holes though which would make this film appear quite amateurish.The movie also has its strong points though. The movie doesn't feature too many dialogues and the actors have to work a lot with their facial expressions. This approach is experimental and intriguing and the actors and actresses actually do a very convincing job. The movie's strongest point is its bleak and slightly surreal atmosphere. This point is supported by a minimalist soundtrack by Brian Eno, a clever choice of settings including many dark rooms and the use of the colour red in many scenes and the slow paced acting and storytelling. Even though nothing really happened in some scenes, the movie got me on the edge of my seat like an atmospheric horror movie. Some surreal elements of the film also added a nice psychological suspense that turned somehow out to be the main guiding line of this film.In the end, this movie pretty much offers as many positive as negative points. I liked to experience this movie once but I guess I wouldn't watch it again or recommend it to many people. I felt that this movie had a lot of potential and especially the first two thirds of the film very actually intriguing but the last third and the hollow ending were a negative surprise in my opinion. This movie is for patient art house cinephiles and fans of the controversially discussed director only.

LCShackley I was drawn into this movie because of the moody atmosphere and the desire to see John Turturro's character resolve his personal mystery. He's a very interesting actor to watch because he's a bit off-beat and he knows how to use his face to reflect a wide range of emotions. (Watch him, for instance, in the scene where he views tapes of his wife's murder over and over.) As further elements were added to the film (the cop conspiracy) I thought, "OK, we're going to find out that the mystery is a really bigger thing than just a local accident." Although the idea of guys from Montana chasing a bad cop in Wisconsin seems a little far-fetched. But then the movie goes haywire and the director chickens out of a resolution with a lot of arty shots underscored by Brian Eno's typical hash of drones and blurps.I was not surprised to see at the end that this was a movie produced by a young European director, because there's a plague of them out there making senseless films (La Moustache, Saint-Ange, Cache, etc.) but hiding behind their pose as "auteurs." Maybe "hauteur" would be a more appropriate word. Directors who are funded by loads of EU organizations and don't have to rely on the free market dump out tons of garbage like this for the world to wonder at. If they had to compete in a Hollywood-style studio system they would be gone in a flash.Whatever you do, don't bother with this film. Like the French films I mentioned, the first hour leads you to believe that it might be worth watching. But it's not.

dgrobinson-1 I loved this movie.I thought the character played by John Turturro was about coming to terms with the death of his wife. His wife dies in a random way, and we want there to be some purpose for every thing in life. Sometimes, there isn't a purpose.Harry (John Turturro) copes with the loss of his wife in his own way, burying his grief under layers of denial.The movie is about him coming face to face with that denial.I give this movie 9.5 out of 10, if only because it was lacking some production value that more money would have given it.The movie went into distribution hell after completion. I'm glad that it has surfaced in DVD so that others may enjoy it.