CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

bensonmum2 A wealthy American couple, Chester MacFarland (Viggo Mortensen) and his much younger wife Colette (Kirsten Dunst), are enjoying the sights of Greece when, by chance, they meet Rydal (Oscar Issac). Rydal is also an American. He speaks perfect Greek and works as a guide, scamming tourists a few dollars at a time. Rydal is immediately drawn to Chester's money and Colette's beauty. But the MacFarland's aren't what they seem. They have secrets to keep much darker than stealing from unsuspecting tourists. It took me awhile to get through The Two Faces of January. I was interrupted several times by family issues. Each time, my wife asked, "How's the movie?" - my response, "I don't know." But I knew I couldn't wait to get back to it. The Two Face of January is slow- burn, old-style film making. You really have to take in the whole thing before you can make a decision. The movie is set in 1962 and it could have easily been filmed in 1962. It's all about plot and story and not special effects and other film making trickery used (actually overused) today. Many of the other IMDb comments compare the movie to a Hitchcock thriller. And while I agree, I compare it more to a film noir of the 50s. You know, one of those stories where a woman is the cause of a man's downfall and, in the end, everyone is damaged and no one comes out looking good. That pretty well describes what happens here.While I really do love this movie for the reasons I've written about, it's not without fault. First, the acting is inconsistent. Mortensen and Issac are fantastic, but Dunst is just good. She's nowhere near the caliber of her two co-stars. Second, there are a couple of places where the movie drags. It's never a deal-breaker for me, but I do think some scenes could have been better paced.Finally, I want to mention the locations. Stunning is the best way to describe them. Greece, Crete, Turkey - all film exquisitely. I think my favorite might have been Crete. The remote landscape perfectly matched the isolation felt by the characters.

Ben Parker Directorial debut of a really good screenwriter Hossein Amini of Drive fame. Kirsten Dunst is miscast, she's just not interesting, and you never believe she's having a single thought. The central setup is really forced and obvious; whatever it takes to get a love triangle going. It worked for Patricia HIghsmith in The Talented Mr. Ripley (1995) because everything about that film was so well made, but this film based on another one of her novels is just frustrating. You find yourself saying: yes but WHY is that character doing that, he doesn't know those people. Character motivations are weak and contrived. On a scale of 10 to infuriating I'd give it a 3, or frustrating.3/10

carbuff If it weren't so well filmed on location in Greece and a couple other photogenic European locales, I would probably only be rating this film around a 5. I was expecting a thriller, but instead it's more along the lines of a series of unfortunate events, although the story does keep moving in an unpredictable direction. The trailer to this film, however, is totally misleading and sells it as something much more like "The Talented Mr. Ripley", which was a very sophisticated and skillfully plotted thriller and also totally different from this movie. I'm guessing that a lot of people will find this film to be on the slow side, but that appealed to me personally, at least on the night I happened to watch it. In any event, I thought that it was worth the time for the scenery alone.

LeonLouisRicci Acknowledged Screenwriter Amini's Directorial Debut is a stunning Old School Thriller that embraces its Retro Roots. A Slow Burning Suspense and Film-Noir's fatal fall from the Everyday, to the extraordinary webbed World of Crooks, Scams, and Con-Artists. Of course Money and Dames are at the Center of all of this, as it should be.It's Set in 1962 and the Tone is something of a Bygone Era without Flash and Hyperkinetic Hoopla. The Characters and Their Deceit and Desires are at the Forefront and its a Tangled Triangle of Wrong Turns and Wrong Doings.The Three Stars Shine as does the Grecian Locales and it is a Pretty Picture with the inner workings of Human Fallibilities. The Weakest Element in an otherwise Very Good Film may be the Unfulfilled Realization of the Extramarital Affair. It is sort of Off Screen and might be the Film's biggest Mystery.Overall, this is a Throwback and throws its Punches Effectively and Below the Belt. It's the Style of Filmmaking that Hitchcock is well Known and as an Homage it works beautifully. May be too Calculated and Slow going for Moderns with a Taste for Tastelessness, but that is Their Loss.