Alexandra's Project (2003)

Sadly Over-hyped

How sad is this?

Admirable film.

The acting in this movie is really good.

The movie is engaging but the premise doesn't deliver anything a 'F-you, I'm leaving' letter, couldn't do much more easily. If the husband had been created as a horrible person his wife might be justified in going to such extremes but he's really not that bad. He doesn't seem to be guilty of anything other than neglect (in her mind), 'not listening' and 'maybe' an affair. He doesn't beat her or even mistreat her in the conventional way of looking at things. I don't even know what the grounds for divorce would be. I thought the movie was headed toward him understanding his mistakes and trying to be a better person. He is never given that chance. Instead he is just told how much he sucks through the entire movie and then it ends. The idea that a security consultant wouldn't be able to find his runaway wife who essentially kidnapped their two children (who would be bitching within the first couple of weeks that their father, who they seem to love, is not with them) is ludicrous. If he couldn't find them with his own resources he could turn the case over to the police. She KIDNAPPED his CHILDREN!!! This is a classic case of a writer getting in over his head and not being able to successfully resolve the premise he's created. Instead we're subjected to a one-sided non-stop complaining with no 3rd act and nothing like a meaningful resolution in sight. This should've been solved on the page before it made it to the screen. Overall, well acted and directed but as unsatisfying as Alexandra seems to think their marriage is.

Good props, good scenery, competent acting and a gripping story that leaves the viewer on the edge of their seat makes this movie worth watching. There is a lot of nudity and some sex scenes, but are not gratuitous in that they are *actually part of the story.*Most of the reviews on this site are full of it. This movie is not nearly as bad as people are making it out to be. This is first and foremost a psychological thriller, it is NOT intended to leave you feeling comfy with your world view or everyday assumptions of how day to day life works. It is very much a "what you see is not always what you get" kind of movie. If you watch this and feel *that* enraged that you start attacking women, feminism, or encouraging violence against women; then you have serious psychological issues that need MUCH MORE than Prozac to fix. But, if you are a man who is secure in yourself and your ability to relate with women as human beings; this movie won't bother you at all. It might even amuse you. Several times I found myself laughing because this movie *really does* portray the average white collar career climbing narcissist as the clueless, dismissive derp that he is. Over here in the states, they act much more arrogant and stuck on themselves but the idea comes across well enough.The point-of-perspective of this movie is very intriguing. The first part of the movie is from the point of view about the husband. The viewer sees HE is visible to the public, HE is compensated for his contribution to society, HE is rewarded for doing a good job, HE is celebrated as a valuable member of society. The wife is sort of "just there" doing all the things society takes for granted; and goes relatively unnoticed unless she is doing something out of the ordinary.Fast forward about a half an hour and we start to see things from the wife's perspective. Her perspective is shown from the television screen, which is meant to symbolize the smallness of her voice and visibility compared to the husband's. His birthday present is a tape that he has the power to pause, fast forward, turn off, or do whatever he wants; conveying that everything has been on his terms from the word go. Despite all this, I did NOT walk away from this movie feeling it was feminist. It is a story that is MEANT to fly in the face of popular opinion of what people have the "right" to do. People saying the wife is "wacko" are clueless. That was never part of the story. She didn't Snap. She was completely lucid throughout. THAT is what makes the movie so disturbing in the first place.For pete's sakes. The conclusions people come up with about movies are endlessly creative in their interpretation. And out of all the movies that visit graphic, psychopathic, explicit, *obscene* scenes of violence and rape on the bodies of women; people choose THIS movie to get upset about? Really? It wasn't even scary, well, not unless you think losing control of the remote to the television (or anything else you "think" is property) is a horrifying thought. Then I suggest you skip it, because you all you will do is react; and you will not be able to *get* the story that was being told in the first place.

I don't know what they have in the water down under, but chances are if you're watching an indie film that shocks you, arrests you, and amazes you with its innovation, at least over the past five years or so, it's come from Australia. From "Wolf Creek" to "Envy" to "The Square," one thing these films don't do is bore you with what you've already seen before. Props to the Australian Film Commission for backing such ballsy work."Alexandra's Project" begins with a nicely ominous tracking shot of a suburban neighborhood, eerily offset by Graham Tardif's dark ambient film score. You know something's not quite right with either bored suburban mom Alexandra (a fearless performance by Helen Buday) or her self-absorbed businessman/husband Steve (Gary Sweet) as he sets off for work on his birthday.He plans to come home, share the fabulous news of his promotion with his wife and kids and instead...finds a vacant house with no power...except to the TV and VCR on which his wife has videotaped his birthday "present." To say more would be unfair, as this movie should be experienced with no expectations from the plot whatsoever...and trust me, you'll not expect what happens. It's sick, twisted, and yet oddly poetic in its justice.The best way to summarize it would be that it's an extension of the Peter Gallagher Watching the Tape scene from Soderbergh's 1989 indie classic "sex, lies, and videotape." It shares a lot of sensibility with that film and much of its inherent power.If you enjoy (way) offbeat thrillers and indie cinema in general, this one's a keeper.

This film is skillfully made: good acting and a setup that allows for some some suspense and surprises. Otherwise it's a piece of garbage. I say that because I can't divine any intent or purpose for what is little more than a tale of psychological torture. Steve is a married guy with a wife and two children and after receiving a promotion at work he comes home to find his wife and kids gone and him locked in his apartment without means of escape or communication. Conspiring with a swinish technician neighbor his wife has contrived to imprison him in the house. She has left him with a videotape of herself. He plays the tape. At first she does a strip tease for him and then abruptly changes course and launches into a hate-filled rant about how she's been abused by him for their entire marriage and that she's taken the children to parts unknown and he'll never see them again. There are a few more twists, but that is the essence of it. Steve, who thought he had a loving family is reduced to a wreck, tearfully having to listen to his wife's raving accusations. According to her he is an insensitive pig, and she the helpless victim. But the entire setup is false. First of all, in the beginning we don't see Steve as anything but a loving father and husband. And what really does she accuse him of? Of being insensitive to her needs and making unwanted sexual advances. She complains that he's always trying to grope her. Evidently he wants her body but doesn't appreciate her mind. (From what we see of her mind, with its insane vengefulness and cruelty, maybe he was better off having nothing to do with it.) The whole thing doesn't make psychological sense. We are supposed to believe that for 12 years she submitted meekly to his clumsy and repulsive advances without complaint or protest then suddenly she becomes this aggressive, sadistic mastermind of a diabolical plot to humiliate and destroy him. I know it is a fantasy of the feminist left that women are helpless to resist the abuses of their men and any sort of bizarre revenge on the offending males is justified. But it's impossible to believe that this woman was so unhappy and angry with her marriage and submitted for so long, then suddenly became a calculating, avenging Valkyrie. We aren't talking about a woman living under sharia law but a liberated Western woman who would have plenty of recourse in an unhappy marriage long before she had to go literally insane with hatred. The movie gives no real sense of justice or balance. We see a man reduced to rubble, very likely a decent man for all his faults, but we see no moral resolution or even a moral center. The only justification for the wife's actions is her own self-serving, mentally warped rant, much of which may be pure fantasy. Some reviewers have suggested that the movie is actually a condemnation of the wife and her uber-feminist world view. But that isn't clear. That's why I don't think this is a good film. It reminds me of another movie, "Antichrist", a nasty European product in which a wife also goes off her rocker and tortures her husband. Neither movie makes any clear moral point except to fill some voyeuristic need in sick minds to see cruelty in action. In neither movie are we shown men who would by any means merit the cruelty inflicted on them.