dissident320 It's set in the 60s and it definitely has that look of movies from that era. It's very-well shot and the locations throughout Greece and Turkey are gorgeous.The performances from the main cast are pretty good too. Ocsar Isaac, Viggo Mortensen and Kirsten Dunst all do a fine job. I've seen them in better films doing stronger work but they carry this story smoothly. It feels like a classic movie that my parents would probably like more than me. The story is not breakneck speed but feels concise at 90 minutes.By the end I found myself enjoying everything but aware I was not going to be engrossed or surprised by it. I probably won't remember much about it a month from now but the director did an above average job for his debut film.

natasha I thought that the story told might be to do with Chester therefore the story of a man under high pressure and what high pressure does to a human being how he sees things that are not there, his troubled not trusting mind due to his bad circumstances/ stress regarding his business and financial situation, impressing Colette, keeping them afloat. The film was telling a story about the psychology of being under life altering pressure and what it does to people's minds? What happened led Chester to drink and feel insecure about himself,( putting Colette in danger through all of that, feeling a failure, bad husband....) and see things that were not there, Colette was not interested in the young man but Chester felt so low in himself that he thought the young man was actually competition ? The film was shot from Chester's view point from after the hotel room incident, we follow how he felt from this point onwards.... and the audience are purposefully put in to a situation where they feel there could have been a feeling there from Colette also towards the younger man, it is filmed in a way that could lead us to believe she was interested in the young man.How one feels negative towards everything instead of positive due to a bad situation which created an inferiority complex... Colette's free spirited nature allows us to think she is cheating, but to her a bedroom is just a room, she is sparklingly charming misread as flirting, Chester does not see her for the special person she is at this point, that she wouldn't cheat, that she is free spirited, that she loves him so much, that she did stand up for him in fact by saying 'he isn't himself sorry' but that is seen as, 'she shouldn't be apologizing for me to him'... he behaves as a child in his negativity and fails to see her maturity and her belief that they are a solid couple and that this young man is a young man despite her age, she does not see him as an equal but in a slightly motherly way, certainly a detached boundaries way.

Asxetos This couldn't have a better title since the basic character trio always wears two faces, and most of the time it's hard to tell which one is the mask. Hossein Amini directs this so good that it almost doesn't matter that it's quite light on plot. A rich American couple gets involved in murder, and a small-time con man, who works as a tour guide in 60s Greece, will help them, while trying to bite more than he can chew. It's a pretty simple storyline, with no major plot twists or memorable events, yet it's also a pleasure to watch as the tension between the three protagonists begins to rise.Dunst's role as the young wife gets a backseat halfway through this journey, since this is mainly a power struggle between the two men, but, luckily, their performances are great, especially Mortensen's, whose character is the most multilayered one, and, strangely enough, the most likable despite him being the least innocent of the bunch – not to mention that he oozes vintage charm from every pore, whether he lights up a cigarette, drinks whiskey, or just sits casually.The only flaws here? #1 we never get to know more about our characters #2 the surface of the father\son theme that seems to be explored here is barely scratched – and mainly towards the end – which is a shame because this could surely be one of the film's strength's. One thing that's great, though, is how good they've managed to portray 1962s Greece, (and Turkey), which looks as it's supposed to, but in such a subtle way that it never feels… artificial. In conclusion, great movie for those that are more into characters and less about action, (or plot). It's not perfect, yet it's certainly something worth watching at least once.

ken558 Tonnes of folks seem to infer "Hitchcock" for this move. This movie is way too shallow for such an exaltation. To me I would be very happy if it met the farcical fun of Poirot, but even that it did not meet.What started out with a promise of good old-fashioned thriller/mystery (a la Poirot), soon gave way to a lazy insipid plot that doesn't work. Good acting by the three principals coupled with the old charms of Greece (and some of Istanbul) could not salvage this movie beyond nonsensical couldn't-be-bothered eye- candy.Too many things do not make plausible sense. Motivations, decisions and actions of the main characters are a mishmash of 'huh?'. If it could not deliver a smart thriller/mystery, then it't could have worked if it had stuck to a dramatic premise which all three key actors would have the capacity to deliver, and focused on the human strains of having to run from the law, and avoid the trite pretense of who-out-smarts-who.What a shame … could have been pretty good.