Final (2001) User Reviews

alternate title: "One Who Flew BEYOND The Cuckoo's Nest

[bonepilot · 6/10 · 9 August 2005]

In this off-beat psycho-drama, Denis Leary slowly comes to the realization he is being kept in a state psychiatric institution for reasons that are both confusing to both him AND the audience. Under the watchful eye of Dr. Ann Johnson (Hope Davis), Leary careens from one flashback to another.

He is convinced that his short, ill-fated marriage, the death of his father, and his drinking binges somehow unhinged him. But can those items explain the paranoia he suffers about a coma, cryosurgery, and a conspiracy to keep him under Government control?

The relationship between patient and doctor plods along slowly, and there are some holes in the logic that continue to badger even the most casual film critic. However, in the final analysis, Leary and Davis are appealing as a tragic couple. There is that confrontation with the truth at the end that makes any of us ask, "What is sanity... and to whom should we trust this sanity?"

Showcase for Independent movie-making

[Ant_Lan · 7/10 · 15 March 2008]

Final provides a great movie-watching experience when considering it as an exercise - a self challenge by director, cast and crew to film a compelling story on a shoestring budget, and an attempt to show what you can do with great performers to showcase what no special effects will.

Waking up in a hospital room (where most of the movie takes place), Bill Stark can't seem to decide if he's delusional, paranoid, or on his way to death row; he hears inexistent blues music, rants about having been cryogenically frozen, expects to be executed shortly, and gradually sifts through memories of the grim events that lead him to his current state. His only beacon towards sanity and truth is a mild-mannered and cryptic therapist, whose relation with her patient becomes too close for comfort, and slowly reveals that the insane man might not be so insane after all.

The one thing that works against the movie is what it tries to attain - showing that a no-budget film can effectively thread on Kafkaesque territory as well as science-fiction. Pacing and intensity would be better achieved if it restrained itself and kept things more mysterious, as the shift from one genre to another two-thirds into the story feels like a let-down instead of a real dramatic twist.

It does however succeed in relying on a surprisingly rich and nuanced performance by bad boy Irish-American Dennis Leary, whose journey to the inevitable whisks the viewer along with great interest. Even more surprising is the improbable yet strong chemistry with his co-star Hope Davis, whose un-eccentricity of character plays wonderfully against Leary's supped-up testosterone. The two actors are all the more impressive when given limited locations, and absolutely no visual effects, as they manage to paint the world they live in with livid and tangible colors.

Definitely recommended for Leary fans to rediscover the man in a new light, and for aficionados of psychological, no F/X Sci-Fi the likes of "Cube" or "12 Monkeys".

Good film, even if a little odd (spoilers)

[jerronspencer · 6/10 · 28 September 2004]

Dennis Leary may have started a comedian, but he is becoming a top-notch actor. His TV work just keeps getting better, and Final shows how good he can be.

****SPOILER****

In this film by Independent Digital Entertainment, Leary plays Billy, a man who wakes in a mental hospital with no clear memory of why he is there. Billy is lead to believe it has only been one week since he had an accident, but he thinks it has been four hundred years and that he is slated to be killed. As things progress, it is made increasingly clear that there is something unusual going on. Billy remembers more and more of the events leading to his accident and finally discovers the truth.

This film was well shot on digital and had good acting and great dialog. All in all, a good movie with a decent take on the whole coma/cryogenic/future/past combo.

Denis Leary gives in near Oscar caliber work in a good movie

[Quinoa1984 · 17 April 2003]

Campbell Scott's Final is a semi science fiction story about a man who is cryogenically frozen in 1999, due to medical reasons, and is revived twenty-eight years later inside of a psychiatric ward in a hospital. The man Bill, played by Denis Leary, is a little delusional, but he has no misconceptions about what his fate could be via his doctor, played by Hope Davis.

As a psychological/character study of a man's past and mental state, Leary shows off his acting chops- his character is a bit deluded, yes, but he is never unbelievably so. This is the part of the picture that Scott gets right, and if he focused on this squarely (and not included a quasi Austin Powers plot-line) it would be a great film. There's something endlessly intriguing about Bill's story, and about the doctor who treats him. Too bad it wanders sometimes, like the lead character itself. Worth a look, mainly for the fans of the lead, but also for those looking for a different sort of independent/sci-fi experience where the world isn't that far ahead in less than thirty years. B+

Lovin' Denis but............SPOILERS!

[lisamccoy · 6/10 · 19 June 2005]

I have loved Denis Leary since he was on MTV rambling about Cindy Crawford, so I of course love Rescue Me, which shows the depth of his acting and writing skills. If you enjoy watching Denis Leary in his non-comedic acting, this movie is for you. He of course throws in his usual smart comments, but the outright, gut busting comedy of his stand-up and movies like The Ref are not here. I knew the man could act, but this movie really shows that he has been serious for awhile. I thought all the acting was great, but the movie story itself really didn't thrill me,and him***** ( SPOILER)***** just dying without even kissing her was very disappointing. Very intense scenes with his co-star. Worth a watch.

Almost like watching paint dry ...

[Vic_max · 4/10 · 16 August 2007]

... but better - thanks to great character acting from Davis and Leary. However, the movie is just too long for what it delivers: a 2 hour, 2 person talk-fest in which nothing really happens.

This story involves a man who wakes up in a psychiatric ward / hospital and thinks it's the future and that he's going to be given a (final) lethal injection. The entire movie is basically about his interaction with his doctor in the patient room and hospital yard.

The only saving grace of this movie is the strong acting performances by both Leary and Davis. Leary is very dynamic and energetic (it's actually very impressive) and Davis does outstanding counterplay as his restrained, even-toned psychiatrist.

This makes them interesting to watch - to listen to. The memory flashbacks also help break up the dialog.

However, almost NOTHING happens in this movie - it's huge talk-fest and the story could have been shrunk to 30 or 40 minutes max. If it weren't for the quality of acting (which induced me to think the movie may get better), I would have quit watching early on. In the final analysis, I also realized that I didn't even get anything out of the great performances beyond recognizing the skill of actors.

If you're a Denis Leary or Hope Davis fan, you'll probably enjoy watching them act. For the average movie-goer, see something else.

This is a peculiar little film...

[celr · 7/10 · 8 December 2006]

I rather liked it. Its spooky quality is maintained by you never knowing exactly what's going on. Is the patient really deluded or are his 'delusions' reality? I think they did a very good job of keeping the audience guessing and the performances were very believable. If I understand correctly the reason they're trying to get him to think it's 1999 is that he has to sign a consent form for his immune system to be used. They're trying to trick him into signing. It's suggested that there must be some sort of ethical or legal reason that they need a voluntary signature even if they have to deceive him. The ending is puzzling if you're looking for a coherent logic behind events. The ending suggests that nothing in the film is real...they're playing with our minds. This quality of never being sure of reality is one of the things I liked about the film. The 2 main actors are creating a reality between themselves--but the rest of the world is a bit tenuous. Of course there's a lot of people who won't like that at all.

Interesting, but no big twist, and no big deal.

[denos-3 · 3/10 · 27 October 2004]

The Good: Given the Bad (see below) this film is surprisingly good at hooking you. If only it had carried through. Also, from reading the other comments, it appears that fans of Denis Leary can't stand Hope Davis and visa versa - yet they both have excellent moments, if you're a fan of either, you might want to see this film just because.

The Bad (SPOILERS!): The story and its staging promise dark complexities, revelations and an emotional ride. It does not deliver -- worse, it doesn't really try. The story is illogical on almost every front.

Illogical Plot 1: The patient wakes from a coma with 'delusions' that are in fact what's really going on. But how does a coma patient know what happened while he was out? (we never find out). Given that this is not an action or mystery film - what are these delusions supposed to be setting up?

Illogical Plot 2: Perhaps we're supposed to be asking ourselves "is he sane or isn't he?". Yet the truth is revealed in a straight forward manner over the course of several scenes 2/3 of the way through the film. Denis Leary does a decent job with the material, but the script and the director portray his character as exactly what he is - an average person who's heavily disorientated and distrusting in a situation that, what do you know, induces disorientation and distrust. {He's also emotionally disturbed by the personally trauma that led to his being in a coma - but that's another thread that is never fully explained or incorporated into the plot.} So where's the tension in a documentary like presentation of a distressed patient who bares no emotional secrets and who's broadcasting the end of the film in his first scene?

Illogical Motivations: The patient was frozen three years into his coma, and is then thawed 25 years later, specifically so that his body's natural immunity can be used to fight a horrible plague. Naturally, this requires a medical procedure that will kill the patient. So why do the doctors spend weeks trying to cure his delusions? Especially as they know he's not actually delusional? Why don't they chop him up day one? Its never explained.

By the way, you'd think what with the plague and the intent of killing their patient and all, there would be lots of emotional complexity with the staff, right? And that the patient (who dies more or less willingly) would have a complex internal dialog going on, right? Particularly in a film that uses the style of a dramatic character study, right? Wrong. It's not that they attempt it and fail - its not even in the script.

I wish there had been some big revelation in the end. Even a really bad one. Some justification for my staying up an hour past bedtime to see this film through.

A good movie that I did not expect

[bbbl67 · 9/10 · 25 January 2004]

Okay, it is a not a sci-fi movie in the sense of laser gun battles or travelling through time warps, or anything like that. In fact, you almost have to be told that it is science-fiction, it plays out more like a subtle love story, but mostly like a psychological drama. Another interesting thing about this movie is that it is a slow movie, but it absolutely grabs your attention.

Denis Leary turned in a great performance, such natural speech, and without his usual foul-mouth on top of that too! Him and Hope Davis convince you that there was a bond that developed between them, and under any other circumstances this bond could've led to a quiet comfortable life together. There is a scene at the end which is touching, it almost reminds you of an elderly couple who know their life together is coming to an end and are saying their final goodbyes to each other.

good watch

[boowho-26417 · 6/10 · 13 July 2019]

Excellent casting, characters believable, well played out and I stayed well tuned to see what came next. Ridiculous time warp depiction of character using walkman to play an ancient flag waving tune was so tacky. Great for low budget tho and in that sense, I changed my mind and up to a 6.

Intolerable first hour, but then everything changes

[alanjj · 3/10 · 11 December 2001]

The first hour of this was a really minimal mental hospital movie. Instead of the usual cast of intermingling crazies, you just have one guy. But, like in every mental hospital movie, you are supposed to wonder who is really sane, and who is insane.

It took at least an hour, maybe more, for this film to grab me. I'm sure I would have walked out and seen something else at the multiplex except I was being blocked from my exit by several large women voraciously eating ribs to my left, and a couple of snorers to my right. So I sat.

The first hour is mostly a dialog between the mental patient (Denis Leary) and his young female doctor. Leary is babbling about many things, but within his babblings there is more truth than he knows, or than the audience knows. Like "The Others" and "The Sixth Sense" and "Fight Club", a basic premise changes in the middle of the picture, and all that you thought was true changes.

The movie has a great performance, almost a solo performance, by Denis Leary. He place a variation on the Denis Leary fast-talking wiseguy character, but his perceptions and body language carry the movie. Everyone else is so underplayed, they are not worth mentioning.

This is mostly a one-set movie. It would work as well or better on stage. It's a brave choice for Campbell Scott for his first solo-directed movie. I recently saw Lumet's 12 Angry Men, and Scott is not nearly as adept at portraying claustrophobia as Lumet. But ultimately, the movie is frightening, it's poignant, and it works. But it's also a downer. See it on Christmas Day.

Haunting.....

[bhaktigirl · 8/10 · 26 September 2006]

I saw this movie twice, in a theater. I saw it the first time due to my fondness for both stars, and ended up loving it so much I went back 3 days later. There's not much sign of Leary's usual persona- he's excellent as a dazed & confused but maybe not all that delusional patient. I liked Hope Davis in it, too, but Leary was really the center, and the film keeps you guessing as to how accurate his memories are, and his paranoia. The end is so simple and yet one of the most emotionally powerful & devastating I've ever seen. It's a pity more people haven't seen this. It shows what you can do with a bare minimum of scenery/sets but also a great script with actors up to the task....

Slow moving, not boring

[afeinman · 6/10 · 3 March 2003]

A reasonably well-orchestrated mind game film, with the sanity of the patient the burning question throughout. Issues of morality are dealt with quickly, however, leaving me with the feeling that a more thorough denouement would have helped the film overall.

I can understand why viewers expecting an action-fest would rate this kind of low -- it's very lingering, and all the action is internal to the characters. And that works, for this story.

Boooooooooooooooring!

[=G= · 4/10 · 25 January 2003]

"Final" tells of an institutionalized man (Leary) and his psychiatrist (Davis) who sort through his confused mental state only to find the aberrations are more outside his mind than in it. An unfortunate film with much unrealized potential, "Final" starts slow, builds slow, and then fizzles. What could have been a darkish psychodrama or a gleaming love story becomes, in the "Final" analysis, little more than excessive tedium in spite of the best efforts of two well cast actors. Recommended only as a last resort for the bored channel surfer or fans of the players. (D+)

Didn't know Leary could act.

[SILENCEikillyou · 8 July 2002]

Well, other than the usual wise-cracker we're used to seeing. NOT HIS fault; I assure you. The roles he's played up till this one have een -for lack of a better phrase- tailor-made for him. Or visa-versa. He's played each of his roles deftly and just the way they should be played.

That said, I feel -more than ever after seeing this film- he's under-cast. Apparently, there's many other more challenging roles out there that he would have, and will be great in. Hollywood, expand this man's range of choices for lead roles. Great job to Denis Leary.

The movie had no action. None. And it was spell-binding nevertheless. A truly great and rare totally plot-driven movie. The direction and Leary's wittiness carries the whole movie and pulls you into the plot, once the plot is finally revealed.

The actress, Davis was it? She could have played in 'Artificial Intelligence' perfectly. She carried a blank expression throughout the entire film. Now, she's a great actress, though this film wouldn't be a testament to that. ON PURPOSE I'm sure in that the director, no doubt, wanted her to almost be a painting, slowly coming to life.

AND, I might add: SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER. P.S. I'll try not to make it too detailed: The character obviously had her reasons for keeping her emotions out of the equation, since she knew all along...

Okay no more spoiling. Watch this movie when you're wide awake. I think if it had been late and I sleepy, I would have had trouble, not because the movie is boring, but there's no bell's or whistle's and I would have been cheated out of seeing the entire piece of art.

overall 8/10; I just need a little more action, but that's my problem.

Denis Leary's greatest performance.

[outspoken · 7/10 · 5 December 2002]

Honestly at first the idea for the film does not sink in, you don't get the whole outline of what to expect from this film simply by tuning in and not paying attention. There is a brief moment where they let you know what type of a world they are living in. Denis Learvy and Hope Davis (Myth of Fingerprints, love that movie) give a great performance in an off-broadway type stage performance, if there was an adaptation from or to the theatre it would be seemless as there is nothing more than a room and their dialogue. Shockingly impressive performance from Leary who simply blew my stereotype of him away. Must see movie if you enjoy the concept the movie has to offer, I won't spoil it for anyone who has not seen it but it's a good one.

Explain to me what I missed.

[alanjj · 3/10 · 28 October 2004]

I felt as though I should watch it again to figure out plot elements that I really didn't get, hints of things that may or may not have happened. But I didn't, because I just wasn't that interested.

I guess that mental hospitals are popular as sites for movies because there must be lots of vacant sanitoria lying around the country that you can rent for cheap. And this movie seemed quite cheap.

What is it about Denis Leary? He so unsympathetic, such an overactor, such an emoter. He has the right to exist, but I've never seen him in anything where I enjoyed watching the guy act. And when he speaks as himself, as a guest on a talk show, he's even less sympathetic.

Hope Davis was her usual bland self.

But there are a few elements of the plot that I didn't get, and I didn't go back to figure out: (SPOILER)

1. Is there a prior relation between Bill and Ann? Specifically, is Bill the father of Ann?

2. Is Ann an unfrozen person, who once had some relation to Bill?

3. What's with Ann's sister? Was she frozen, but now having troubles? Is she really Ann's sister, or her mother, via Bill?

As you can see, I missed something. I'm not good at sci-fi mysteries. So blame it on me.

Jim McGaffin as the orderly was perfect.

Odd, yet engaging

[claibe · 7/10 · 26 February 2003]

Odd, odd movie. It's a movie defined by the last twenty or so minutes. If those last twenty minutes had gone in a different direction it would have been an entirely different movie, though I'm not sure if it would have been a better one.

I caught it on TV and it was interesting enough to make me keep watching, so I guess that says something. I don't know what my feeling about it would have been if I had rented it instead, but I think it's worth watching. Yeah, I guess I'd recommend it. If you're feeling in the mood for a decent small-budget movie then check this out. I can't really talk about it too much without giving away the ending, which is pretty daring for a psycho-drama... if you can define the movie this way.

I guess I don't have much more to say without going in more circles. Check the movie out and then I can really talk about it. Yeah, but at least check it out, although I'm guessing your only gonna be reading this if you've already seen it.

Thank GOD there WON'T be a sequel! SNORE!!!!

[boinnng · 1/10 · 20 August 2004]

****POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT**** I've just finished watching this on DVD. I got it as part of an auction lot some time ago...I just never got around to watching it. I wish i hadn't bothered. It seems that some guy (Denis Leary) walks up in some psychiatric institution. He is convinced he was cryogenically frozen and is about to be killed with a FINAL lethal injection. His doctor (Hope Davis) tries to help him with his unstable mind, trying to convince him it is still 1999 and he's just been in a coma. How he initially ended up in the coma is hinted at, but never really explained. What we ultimately find out (after a solid HOUR of NOTHING but tedious doctor/patient chit-chat) is that (GASP) he was frozen and they are going to kill him to take something out of his brain stem to save the world! HUH? Why BOTHER "waking him up" and then go to all of the trouble to make him believe it's 1999---just so they can turn around and kill him? Since he is/was clinically dead to begin with, couldn't they just thaw him out and harvest what they needed withOUT waking him and going through the whole elaborate theatricals of it being 30 years earlier? Someone else on here compared it to a long episode of "THE TWILIGHT ZONE"...I agree, I suppose... It is VERY LONG (zzzzz), and would be much better formatted to a half-hour in length. But the difference between this and "THE TWILIGHT ZONE" is that "THE TWILIGHT ZONE" is/was GOOD! This was NOT that involving or interesting, sorry to say... Someone needs to cryogenically FREEZE this movie and make sure it is NEVER revived! BLAH!

captivating and enjoyable

[mvecera-1 · 8/10 · 6 April 2007]

Although Denis Leary, the male lead, and Jim Gaffigan, who plays a prominent supporting role, are best known as professional comedians, make no mistake. This is a fine, science fiction drama.

The movie is driven by the dialog and the slowly unfolding plot of a great screenplay. There are essentially no special effects other than the flashbacks, and they are really more a product of good editing. The story is compelling and captivating, pulling you along as the larger plot points are revealed.

I'm sure this movie made no real box office, but it is absolutely worth the rental. Leary is shockingly good in this movie and proves that he has the acting chops of an Oscar winner. Davis' performance is solid, but very demure. One could argue that she had a supporting role instead of the female lead. Although Gaffigan has a lot of screen-time, he does not have much dialog. Regardless, Gaffigan delivers a stalwart and believable performance.

Life is too much like a pathless wood.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 13 November 2014]

I have to say it doesn't start out pregnant with promise.

An amnesiac, Denis Leary, is being treated in the private room of a Connecticut hospital by a psychiatrist, Hope Davis. Leary wisecracks a lot and there are flashbacks of memory. (Ho hum.) They can't leave the grounds but Leary and Davis walk around on the autumnal lawns and get to know one another, and we sense a bond building between the patient and his psychiatrist. Will she help him overcome whatever demons drove him into a state of amnesia? Will the revelation be a shocker? (Zzzzz.)

But then, two-thirds of the way through, the character of the story changes completely into something resembling science fiction. There have been interpolated incidents in which Davis dons some kind of oxygen-breathing apparatus and visits her sister in another wing of the hospital, evidently suffering from one of those diseases that are always called "dread." The visit is distracting and pointless, until the movie approaches its end. I don't think I'll say more about the plot because there are surprises in it, some of which I couldn't get my head around.

I've always liked Denis Leary -- rough voice, nothing face -- because he reminds me of a guy I met in a bar just off Pershing Square the night before I was to make a long sea trip many moons ago. Both Irish, both from Worcester. Leary might have been a fork lift driver or had some job that left his hands black with grease. He's an appealing actor, if not a powerful one.

Hope Davis. Is that a WASP cognomen or what? She isn't striking at first. Her role as the psychiatrist who sheds some of her objectivity doesn't give her much wiggle room. But there is a wistful quality about her. She's a pretty blond with an endearing weak chin. Her features evoke an image of one of those little fishes just about to be eaten by a bigger fish. Yes, she could pass for a caregiver. Gradually, she and her character grow on you, and it's easy to see why Leary would become, not just fond of, but dependent on her by the very end.

In reality it's a pumped-up two- or three-person play. Nothing dramatic happens. Nobody's head gets torn off. And the introduction, Act I, is sluggish. "Final" would have done nicely as an episode of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents." It's competently directed by Campbell Scott, George C.'s son.

From the beginning, I kept wanting to get up and walk away but Hope Davis' quirky nose, not the plot, kept me in my seat for an hour or so, and when Leary starts looking for "The Alexandria Quartet" in the hospital book store, the film more or less had me. I mean, after all, here is a quartet that isn't a rock group. On top of that, Leary wants Frost's "Swinger of Trees" read at his grave, poem I used to read to my kid when he was about eleven. It became imperative at that point that I find out what the hell was going on.

Wretched, Rotten Writing a Stinky, Sickening Script Makes

[lizamayyyy · 1/10 · 26 July 2002]

A movie to be avoided at all costs. This writer (Bruce McIntosh) must be forbidden from being in the same room with pencil or keyboard ever again. What came over director, poor Campbell Scott? Big Night was a delight, so was Day Trippers. Maybe the exquisite lousiness of this script putrefied his brain with septic ineptitude? What a waste of two good actors. Altogether a fetid offense of a film. Gangrenous story, nauseous dialogue, and worst of all: interminably, forehead-disfiguringly, butt-bendingly BORING.

Good character driven movie

[BigGuy · 9/10 · 3 September 2002]

Many people would not like this movie because so much of what is going on is never revealed. In a way the situation even seems a trifle contrived. Had the same story been done in standard big Hollywood fashion, there would have been special effects of the freezing and other SGI's galore. More attention would have been paid to the background situation and not just the main two characters.

I am very glad that this movie was not done that way. Hope Davis and Denis Leary do an amazing job in this film. Usually known for his caustic small screen/comedy special personality, Leary plays a man who lost everything in his life, and his sense of reality. He does an excellent job, particularly early in the movie, establishing a man on the verge of breakdown. Hope Davis plays his therapist. She portrays a soulful character who is stuck in an incredibly difficult position.

Together they have great chemistry that isn't forced. The love that blossoms between them is the obviously dictated by the story, but in seems to unfold naturally. Early on they spar verbally, but eventually start to trust each other. When the finale rolls around, the scene doesn't seem forced but rather is poignant. And although Davis really sells the finale, Leary also does a fine job.

Again, this movie is not for everyone, but many will appreciate it.

Sci-fi rolled in a Soap Opera wrap

[Aristides-2 · 5/10 · 29 October 2007]

In trying to "humanize" the story, unprofessional behavior takes place between a couple of the key psychiatrists, in small as well as large occurrences, that remind one of soap opera reality: 'emotionality as a substitute for dramaturgy.

Too, the difficulties filming science-fiction cheaply are having visual loose ends take place that imaginative (or merely competent) directors take care of as a matter of course because of budget largess. Sci-fi writers are obsessive and brilliant and cannot brook 'loose ends'; if a story includes observable 'state' surveillance everywhere, for example, then between production design and computer effects, you will see it on the screen. "Final's" budget shortcomings unfortunately prevail and sink the story's need for a airtight, highly controlled production design. Emphasis on the word controlled. With the possibility of human survival at stake, would there not be complete surveillance of what's taking place.....everywhere in the facility, since there are only two unfrozen humans available? Security was highly negligent throughout the institution.

I also wondered why they would cast an actor such as Dennis Leary? His personality is so abrasive and unlikable. Bill doesn't have to be a dullard but he shouldn't alienate the viewer. Goodness, once his eminent demise was spoken of I on several occasions wished the toxins would start dripping into an IV. (Hope Davis's Dr. Ann at least showed some human attractiveness within her quandary about participating in the harvesting of this guy's body for medical science and/or the race's survival.)

Five stars because some of the story's main and imaginative ideas survived to keep me interested.

A Gem for Dennis Leary

[Bronco46 · 8/10 · 25 April 2004]

I always knew Dennis could act. He just never had material this good. There is no action in this film, about 80% of the film is in one room. But this is a well written, that is well acted. It's not easy to see where this film is going. I can recommend it enough to some who liked a film like My Dinner with Andre'. Not that there is any similarity in story, but if you can enjoy a film that's strongly driven by the writing and acting, you'll like this film. And if you can't do that don't watch this, I don't want you writing a bad review if you don't like it, and possibly turning someone

off.