Persona1986 Santiago is a successful interior designer, married and with one daughter. But his life falls apart after the family suffers a terrible car accident while he was driving. After that, a time ellipsis put us on southern Patagonia, a white-winter desolated airstrip where Santiago is now working, in what can be considered as a self-pursued purgatory. He's haunted by nightmares and day delusions. The fire marks in his body are a permanent reminder of what happened. He's a man on a search: a search for self-forgiveness, a search for courage to face the life he pretended to leave behind. The raw way of life he has chosen and the not less raw Patagonian environment that surrounds him, that envelops him, works as a mirror to his soul, but also as a cathartic path.

mrmarkiem The film is an allegorical story of self-abnegation and emotional purgatory. The idyllic, privileged realistic urban story of a happy family is shattered, and the audience slowly comes to understand that Santiago is stationed at a rural airstrip in an unidentified place. The transition is not explained. Is it before? After? The only thing concrete in this mens' world is the remoteness of the place and the earthly comforts of alcohol, music, and dance – the visceral pleasures – and a clear absence of responsibility. As if in a mirror image to his other life, Santiago in this new place is working-class; he smokes and somewhat misbehaves. It is suggested that his employment and future hangs on the whim of a supervisor – out of his control. By choice? The film beautifully presents personal purgatory as a literally de-natured arcadia in contrast to the self-possession of his former life. It is a prison of the mind from which Santiago gradually emerges to ultimately find himself again walking with his wife to reconcile his guilt and ameliorate his self-alienation.

Kim Morgan This move hangs together very well, with a simple story of tragedy and loss with a journey through the pain to emerge at some kind of acceptance at the end. It is not a feel-good movie by any means, but for me it made sense and worked as a whole.The characters, dialogue and story are well done, if going over well-trodden terrain. What sets this film above many others of its genre is the desolation of the setting for most of the time - Patagonia is beautiful but empty. Yes, lots of analogy with the lead character who has run away from a family tragedy, for which he feels responsible.However, whereas something like "We Don't Live Here Any More" has the annoying cloy of intellectuals whining and bleating about their interactions and attempts to get under the skin of people undergoing huge changes in their lives, this achieves it.What was interesting was the quality of the film, which was low-quality digital. If you ditch your preconceptions of film stock having "musical" distortion and grain, and all other types of visual degradation being wrong, you may find the artifacts quite stunning. I thought that it was an amazingly shot movie and the director deserves plaudits for the look of it.To be honest, I would not have seen this film out of choice, the subject matter is an area that can be too sentimental and introspective, but I am very pleased that it was an excellent piece, sympathetically and, at time, humorously shot and with a great deal of humanity on show. If you get the chance to see this gem, take it.

dumsumdumfai The explanation near the ending really got me - to dislike this movie that is. But what was in between did not prepare me to do much the opposite anyhow.And at TIFF, the programmer who introduce the movie gave me such hope.. "the new Argentina cinema" ...etc ..etc. OK, technically good, acting good (but not great. supporting cast was impressive), cinematography good, editing good, exceptional location ... yes, the light, almost overexposed white-furnished airy home in the beginning reflects well on the patagonia sequences and doubles as a symbol for the happy family ..yes, the lead male actor was good, his emotional isolation, and desolation plays well of patagonia. the people and events that took place in this segment is well pace and never hurried...but please someone check the story !!!! Not just for probability of a certain kind of response to traumas, but also plausibility, even a bit of reasoning for would help. The reason of this outrage ... ********* spoilers ahead ********* is that the lead male character mistook "a fact" in the trauma that caused his emotional shut-off to the outside world. And that fact is not far more signifigant then, for instance, a typo, or mistaking a number '5' for a number '8'... but he mistook a life or death situation.. that to me ... for a responsible person just does not make sense ... ************** end of spoilers *******so if the story is fictional, sometime, you can't based all of the movie's validity (justification or power of the narrative ) just so that you want to convey emotion itself. Everything, must come together as a whole, including gaps in the story. This I find is the most common flaw most(maybe 1/2 the time) movies suffers from.