It´s a shame somebody was able to attract lots of talented actors (and quite some money) to turn a very flat, clicheed and uninspired script into a movie. Furthermore, the director makes his movie even more unwatchable by relying solely on flashy, shaky camera effects (and very drab, dull photography) which he thought were stylish, but they only make this boring mess more confusing.
The beginning is interesting, but of course the basic idea is nothing new. Right after the second murder (the woman in the bathtub) the script completely looses focus and we are thrown into a muddled and unfocused mixture of a unanswered serious topics (Is mercy killing murder?), pretty pathetic clairvoyance mumbo jumbo and routine car chases, gunfights, explosions etc.
Since every character is so flat you wonder they even have a name, dialogue is sparse and the general mood is one of depressed lethargy, you are very relieved when the somewhat surreal and pointless (but deliberatey "meaningful") last scenes are finally over.
The only lively scenes were the sex scenes connected to the bathtub murder, as we get very hot and steamy gay (and straight) sex thrown into our faces for not much of a reason. (Who was the actor who plaid Davids lover btw?) Since everything must lead to cancer, hereditary diseases or other tragedies in the curiously nihilistic worldview of this movie, the scriptwriters just dished out another flat stereotype and portrayed the affair as some sort of HIV related death sentence. The interview leading to this "confession" by the husband David was equally cynical, as the clairvoyant would not simply stop at the fact the husband was having an affair and wanted to leave his wife, but turned the whole thing into some sort of confession of a shameful secret (he runs away with another guy) which inevitably had to lead to the death of everybody by HIV (in 2015?!).
I wondered whether the script was actually quite old, maybe from the 90s, as it had the same cynical, misanthrophic but very superficial quality a lot of other thrillers had back then. If that´s true, they just should have left it in the drawer.
The beginning is interesting, but of course the basic idea is nothing new. Right after the second murder (the woman in the bathtub) the script completely looses focus and we are thrown into a muddled and unfocused mixture of a unanswered serious topics (Is mercy killing murder?), pretty pathetic clairvoyance mumbo jumbo and routine car chases, gunfights, explosions etc.
Since every character is so flat you wonder they even have a name, dialogue is sparse and the general mood is one of depressed lethargy, you are very relieved when the somewhat surreal and pointless (but deliberatey "meaningful") last scenes are finally over.
The only lively scenes were the sex scenes connected to the bathtub murder, as we get very hot and steamy gay (and straight) sex thrown into our faces for not much of a reason. (Who was the actor who plaid Davids lover btw?) Since everything must lead to cancer, hereditary diseases or other tragedies in the curiously nihilistic worldview of this movie, the scriptwriters just dished out another flat stereotype and portrayed the affair as some sort of HIV related death sentence. The interview leading to this "confession" by the husband David was equally cynical, as the clairvoyant would not simply stop at the fact the husband was having an affair and wanted to leave his wife, but turned the whole thing into some sort of confession of a shameful secret (he runs away with another guy) which inevitably had to lead to the death of everybody by HIV (in 2015?!).
I wondered whether the script was actually quite old, maybe from the 90s, as it had the same cynical, misanthrophic but very superficial quality a lot of other thrillers had back then. If that´s true, they just should have left it in the drawer.