This is a thriller about a young man (Leonardo Sparaglia) and a young woman (Maria Valverde) whose cars break down in the middle of a mountainous Spanish wilderness. They had bumped into each other briefly, so to speak, in a gasoline station rest room, but they're otherwise strangers. They are both lost.
They find themselves hunted by mysterious figures with rifles equipped with telescopic sights. And do those bullets make a racket on their arrival.
In Valverde's car they drive quickly away from the area where the bullets kept popping around them until they reach a dilapidated bar. The break in and Valverde is attending to Sparaglia's wound when two cops drive up, search them, and demand that they be taken to the scene of this so-called ambush. The two cops find the story believable but at a price.
Sparaglia and Valverde barely escape. Now without cars, they stumble through the damp woods and yellowed poplars, try to cross surging rivers, fall into pits, and do the usual things that pursued people in the wilderness do.
The movie is full of clichés. Let me mention a few without dwelling on them. (1) There are myriad close ups of sweating and terrified faces. (2) The camera wobbles as if it's had too many Anise del Monos. (3) Why did the fleeing couple decide to stop at a bar where it was obvious the hand of man had never set foot for at least twenty years? (4) When the two hostile cops accost the couple at the bar, why do they think the trembling couple are lying? Instead of asking if the couple had broken in, why didn't they ask to see Sparaglia's bleeding leg wound? (5) One glance at the cops and we know they are there for only two reasons -- to provide a sense of false hope and to be killed. (6) A cop is shot outside his car, within which the young couple of imprisoned, so why does he whirl about and aim his pistol at THEM? (7) Why did the two cops force the couple to take them back to the scene of the ambush in the first place? (8) When the second cop is popped, why don't they grab his pistol before scurrying off into the woods? (9) When escaping from a sniper, why not drive away in a car, even if it has a flat tire -- and to hell with the rim? (10) Why, when Valverde is trapped in a small pit and Sparaglia is out looking for a stick to pull her up with, and they both know that snipers are in the vicinity hunting them with a dog -- does she repeatedly shout his name at the top of her lungs? And what an unAmerican name it is -- "Quim." We can only be thankful than en Español it's pronounced "Keem." (11) The photography is in fashionable high contrast and draws colors from the ghoulish green area of the palette.
That gets the bad stuff pretty much out of the way. If the first two thirds of the film are exactly what you'd expect in this trashy genre, the same can't be said for the last third.
There is, for instance, no dead body that leaps back to life at an awkward moment, which is a refreshing change. I've been praying that, once dead, they stayed dead.
And -- I won't spoil this, but the heavies are not what you'd anticipate -- no skinheaded clowns in black leather with barbed wire tattoos across their chests. Nobody wearing a hockey mask or disguised as Karl Rove. Just a couple of empty headed refugees from a Middle School taking part in a kind of scavenger hunt in which everybody loses. And there are unexpected twists I won't get into.
The acting doesn't have to be particularly good in a movie that consists chiefly of people stumbling through the bushes or sneering at one another -- and it ISN'T particularly good -- but Sparaglia is believable as the young man scared spitless, and Valverde has great big moo cow eyes and an aquiline nose that falls just short of beautiful.
At the close, the hunting dog moseys up to the survivor and nuzzles him. I was glad to see that. There is nothing like the love of a good dog. I don't mean carnal love, of course, but fellowship, what the Greeks called "philia." A dog is a man's best friend. They're easy to read. You can tell when a dog likes you because he wags his tail, smiles, lets his tongue hang out, and drools. CATS never do that. Cats are too self contained. They're uncanny and know a lot more than they're letting on. If you and your cat traded sizes, your cat would eat you. Would your dog do that? No. No, your dog would not. Never trust a cat.
There's a lot of tension in this film, almost in spite of the stereotypes that are splashed all over the screen.
They find themselves hunted by mysterious figures with rifles equipped with telescopic sights. And do those bullets make a racket on their arrival.
In Valverde's car they drive quickly away from the area where the bullets kept popping around them until they reach a dilapidated bar. The break in and Valverde is attending to Sparaglia's wound when two cops drive up, search them, and demand that they be taken to the scene of this so-called ambush. The two cops find the story believable but at a price.
Sparaglia and Valverde barely escape. Now without cars, they stumble through the damp woods and yellowed poplars, try to cross surging rivers, fall into pits, and do the usual things that pursued people in the wilderness do.
The movie is full of clichés. Let me mention a few without dwelling on them. (1) There are myriad close ups of sweating and terrified faces. (2) The camera wobbles as if it's had too many Anise del Monos. (3) Why did the fleeing couple decide to stop at a bar where it was obvious the hand of man had never set foot for at least twenty years? (4) When the two hostile cops accost the couple at the bar, why do they think the trembling couple are lying? Instead of asking if the couple had broken in, why didn't they ask to see Sparaglia's bleeding leg wound? (5) One glance at the cops and we know they are there for only two reasons -- to provide a sense of false hope and to be killed. (6) A cop is shot outside his car, within which the young couple of imprisoned, so why does he whirl about and aim his pistol at THEM? (7) Why did the two cops force the couple to take them back to the scene of the ambush in the first place? (8) When the second cop is popped, why don't they grab his pistol before scurrying off into the woods? (9) When escaping from a sniper, why not drive away in a car, even if it has a flat tire -- and to hell with the rim? (10) Why, when Valverde is trapped in a small pit and Sparaglia is out looking for a stick to pull her up with, and they both know that snipers are in the vicinity hunting them with a dog -- does she repeatedly shout his name at the top of her lungs? And what an unAmerican name it is -- "Quim." We can only be thankful than en Español it's pronounced "Keem." (11) The photography is in fashionable high contrast and draws colors from the ghoulish green area of the palette.
That gets the bad stuff pretty much out of the way. If the first two thirds of the film are exactly what you'd expect in this trashy genre, the same can't be said for the last third.
There is, for instance, no dead body that leaps back to life at an awkward moment, which is a refreshing change. I've been praying that, once dead, they stayed dead.
And -- I won't spoil this, but the heavies are not what you'd anticipate -- no skinheaded clowns in black leather with barbed wire tattoos across their chests. Nobody wearing a hockey mask or disguised as Karl Rove. Just a couple of empty headed refugees from a Middle School taking part in a kind of scavenger hunt in which everybody loses. And there are unexpected twists I won't get into.
The acting doesn't have to be particularly good in a movie that consists chiefly of people stumbling through the bushes or sneering at one another -- and it ISN'T particularly good -- but Sparaglia is believable as the young man scared spitless, and Valverde has great big moo cow eyes and an aquiline nose that falls just short of beautiful.
At the close, the hunting dog moseys up to the survivor and nuzzles him. I was glad to see that. There is nothing like the love of a good dog. I don't mean carnal love, of course, but fellowship, what the Greeks called "philia." A dog is a man's best friend. They're easy to read. You can tell when a dog likes you because he wags his tail, smiles, lets his tongue hang out, and drools. CATS never do that. Cats are too self contained. They're uncanny and know a lot more than they're letting on. If you and your cat traded sizes, your cat would eat you. Would your dog do that? No. No, your dog would not. Never trust a cat.
There's a lot of tension in this film, almost in spite of the stereotypes that are splashed all over the screen.