Do not read this review if you wish to see the movie without advance warning of its plot - but please feel free to come back and answer the simple question that follows: SPOILERS FROM THIS POINT ONWARDS!!! Imagine that you are a frustrated and unpublished male writer - you are married to a woman who has a string of bestsellers to her name (plus a vast collection of plaudits from critics and public alike). Your envy of her success and resentment of living in her shadow bubble under your skin without much disguise, no longer really restrained by any feelings you may once have had for her. Perhaps the only thing which keeps you together is the little boy you have both produced.
One day your son is drowned when your wife is busily dividing her time between tapping out her latest blockbuster and cooking pasta. The last bond being broken, you decide to kill your wife and pocket the 4 million pounds she has just received for being the best writer on the planet.
She decides to demonstrate her tender regard for you by cutting you out of the grieving process completely; before long, she is heading off alone for the kind of remote, rustically unsophisticated part of Britain which only exists in the minds of Hollywood screenwriters who have never ventured further than Central London. Your wife intends to resume writing in this isolated bolthole.
Do you: A) Quietly sneak to her rented cottage, drown her in the nearby ocean, type a suicide note on her portable typewriter, slip away without leaving any witnesses and then pretend to learn the news of her sad end from the police or press? or B) Create witnesses to your crime by enlisting her best friend - a lady journalist who also envies her - to be your evil henchwoman (her exact function being vague), hire an actor to pretend to be the ghost of a lighthouse keeper and make the colourful local characters think she has lost her mind - thus drawing attention to your victim and dragging out the plot - before you do everything already listed under 'A' (above)? For what it's worth, I see 'A' as the logical answer - the death of an only child is already a sufficiently convincing explanation for suicide. The husband's chosen plan (B) is stupid and implausible.
The star of this picture simply does not have the charisma or ability to shine very brightly in the presence of other actors of even moderate ability or fame, so she has been surrounded by little known, uncompetitive players. Many of the supporting actors are miscast - the 'ghost' is played by a small man who is so much shorter and younger than the star that their love scenes together are embarrassingly like watching a schoolboy being fondled by one of his mother's friends. The local police sergeant is in danger of dying of old age (the budget didn't even stretch to hiring a uniform for him). The actor playing the husband seems to be bored - as, I suspect, was most of the audience.
The photography was good, the acting was mediocre, the script and direction were abysmal. This 'mixed bag' is reflected by a vote of 4 - higher than it probably deserves, but the camera-work and lighting are better than the rest of the package and they save this drivel from an ever worse rating.
One day your son is drowned when your wife is busily dividing her time between tapping out her latest blockbuster and cooking pasta. The last bond being broken, you decide to kill your wife and pocket the 4 million pounds she has just received for being the best writer on the planet.
She decides to demonstrate her tender regard for you by cutting you out of the grieving process completely; before long, she is heading off alone for the kind of remote, rustically unsophisticated part of Britain which only exists in the minds of Hollywood screenwriters who have never ventured further than Central London. Your wife intends to resume writing in this isolated bolthole.
Do you: A) Quietly sneak to her rented cottage, drown her in the nearby ocean, type a suicide note on her portable typewriter, slip away without leaving any witnesses and then pretend to learn the news of her sad end from the police or press? or B) Create witnesses to your crime by enlisting her best friend - a lady journalist who also envies her - to be your evil henchwoman (her exact function being vague), hire an actor to pretend to be the ghost of a lighthouse keeper and make the colourful local characters think she has lost her mind - thus drawing attention to your victim and dragging out the plot - before you do everything already listed under 'A' (above)? For what it's worth, I see 'A' as the logical answer - the death of an only child is already a sufficiently convincing explanation for suicide. The husband's chosen plan (B) is stupid and implausible.
The star of this picture simply does not have the charisma or ability to shine very brightly in the presence of other actors of even moderate ability or fame, so she has been surrounded by little known, uncompetitive players. Many of the supporting actors are miscast - the 'ghost' is played by a small man who is so much shorter and younger than the star that their love scenes together are embarrassingly like watching a schoolboy being fondled by one of his mother's friends. The local police sergeant is in danger of dying of old age (the budget didn't even stretch to hiring a uniform for him). The actor playing the husband seems to be bored - as, I suspect, was most of the audience.
The photography was good, the acting was mediocre, the script and direction were abysmal. This 'mixed bag' is reflected by a vote of 4 - higher than it probably deserves, but the camera-work and lighting are better than the rest of the package and they save this drivel from an ever worse rating.