Stockholm

Do not be mislead by the title, the plot's action takes place in Madrid. The story is centered on a young man and a girl that meet at a party, and is very credible and well transmitted to the audience.

The man is a Latin charmer, the girl is a beautiful, simple, shy one. Do not think it will bore you, because unexpected things can and will happen.

I've seen the film in a festival, and it sure left me thinking about it for hours. I rate it with 8 because it is not a very complex/life changing story, it is a simple story that is well told.

For a well made, convincing story and great cinematography I place the film director in the same class as Almodovar and other great Spanish directors.

First of all, say that this film is a SPOA like I say always (strong piece of art). There's an incredible perfection between the plot and the technical direction things (takes, art direction, etc).

This film normally uses sequence shots for express all things in one, this makes you the feeling of being inside the house and get the same emotions of the characters.

I rate with 9 and not with 10 for his precipitate an unexpected final... too awesome anyways, makes you'll be reflecting about during hours. I've seen people rating the film so bad just for the plot, but this is alternative cinema!! It's normal that surrealist or strange character reactions, plots, stories, etc like this, because the principal function is voice the point of view of the director from the cameras.

Finally, said that the most impressive thing is the contrast of the two parts of the film (from the stages to the perfect change of roles), and how characters are involved.

Both of the leads are annoying as all hell. Would you want to spend any time with them? 88 minutes was more than enough and therein lies the problem. It's really a short film extended. It's repetitious beyond belief.

It's probably a good example for young women not to be fooled by guys like this because they're out there and give the majority of guys who are decent, a bad name. Perhaps the moral of the story is that we all need to take responsibility for our actions. In this case, both the participants. Pity there's nothing to like about either of them.

The idea is there but there's not enough to make a feature out of it.

This is a good film, but I would caution the viewer not to have high expectations. With no expectations, there's a chance you may walk away with an enjoyable experience. There is really nothing spectacular about this film except the fact that as the story progresses, one grows to loath a character who initially comes across as likable. The dialogue is borderline excessive imo, but a curiosity compels one to stick with it.

I think the reviews for this film would have probably been a higher if the story line followed a less typical format. I guess in actuality, there is no such thing as an original script or story. All patterns have been followed at one point in time or another. This was true almost 30 years ago in Fatal Attraction with Glenn Close and Micheal Douglas, but the writing, direction, and acting still brought a good enough twist to keep one glued to screen and for the film to win awards. I guess the counterargument here would be budget and star power, which is why I'm have not given the film a rating 6.

a simple story. atmosphere of a play. minimalistic acting. dialogs defines more for the sound of words than ideas. story of a meeting who becomes, scene by scene, a form of revelation. because it propose, in honest manner, two characters and the slices of theirs lives who defines the meeting as clash of solitudes. a bitter movie. the tension is large, the humor has drops of sadness, the two parts of the relation are different only to define a special final. an old fashion film who becomes modern for that status. fascinating, not real different by another independent films, it is one of useful stories about the search to become the other and to escape from yourself.