This is a long film, but it uses the time well. It's a film about complex emotions and it does well to avoid clichés or oversimplify.Paul is a war journalist returning to his home after his father's death. The home he fled as a teenager. He forms a relationship with Celine, the daughter of his ex-girlfriend. When she disappears, he becomes a suspect.The reasons for his flight, his relationship with Celine and hidden family secrets are revealed slowly, with the timeline jumping around. But it's not difficult to follow if you give this film the attention it deserves.The acting is excellent and it was well cast. It's refreshing to see a film in which the female lead was a normal teenager not a supermodel.Unfortunately there were some scenes cut in the version I saw, which left me a little confused.It's difficult to understand why Paul doesn't tell the police the truth about his 'relationship' with Celine.

This was a terrible waste of time. For those looking for a mystery, thriller - look somewhere else. The plot is full of holes and the actions of the characters, especially the protagonist don't make sense. I mean, when a man is suspected of sleeping with, and perhaps murdering an underage girl, why wouldn't he 'fess up at some point that he believes he is her father to explain why he is spending time with her!? This of course, is to maintain tension (of the Snuffalupagus variety IMHO) and to preserver the "twist" at the end which doesn't actually make much sense if you think about it.As for the slowly developing plot and characters. There's nothing wrong with that - if there had been a plot and characters to develop. The characters seem to have been skimmed from some Dr. Phil pamphlet. Other than the scars that derive from their mysterious past, they apparently have no other personality traits and thus spend their time staring silently (but purposefully) in thought. This is the type of stuff that gives art-house films such a bad rep. It's not enough to have a beginning, and an interesting ending - and an outline of the characters. You have to fill everything in, in a way that makes sense and feels real and convincing. I give this mess a 2 only because the Bailero song featured in the film is one of my favorites.

I had a unique perspective on this film, having spent my teenage years in the area as a migrant to NZ, I had returned for matters concerning my own elderly father, and spent some time in Roxburgh last year before finding this film, which I watched twice over on the airplane (ANZ)returning home. I was particularly struck by the message that it conveys regarding migration, something of much relevance to all New Zealanders who don't claim native status. It was the idea that migrants often have compelling reasons to leave - both for past generations and for young New Zealanders who make all or part of their careers abroad, like Sam Neill himself. New Zealanders who investigate their family tree in the UK or elsewhere often discover rather sordid details - abandoned wives, deceptions etc. which are then glossed over in the new life. Not just NZ of course, the USA has much the same pattern. The sub plot of religion in the film had that feel of covering over such truths about abandonment, as well as the revelation about the true feelings of the brother who stayed home,and his actions. So being sensitive to this, and knowing very well the particular High School situation portrayed, I thought it not only conveyed the small town desperation syndrome very well portrayed by Maurice Gee in his writing, but a wider thinking about 'home' which can cause problems when the 'prodigal' New Zealander who lives abroad actually does 'come home' for a while. New Zealanders are supposed to be the most travelled people on earth. But whereas the Irish have widely studied the effects of their 'diaspora' on family stability and relations, New Zealanders are rarely so introspective. I think this film is a great effort at helping to value knowledge about and support for migrants of all kinds. More than that, the journalist's career abroad and the effect on him psychologically, showed a support for the less fortunate (such as victims of forced migration and asylum in war) that is often difficult to convey to those happy in the wealth and peace of New Zealand. So the film showed the selfish side of apparent stability and security which can be an insular anti-intellectualism as well.Not sure this film can be shown to school children in NZ, but certainly worth showing to teachers everywhere.

i re-watched the film last night (for the second time) and was again blown away by how powerful this film is for something so slow and quiet.it makes for a great second watching as you are able to piece all the segments together in your mind as you watch the film unfold. the title of the film (book) is in itself inspired as it this which leads you to believe that paul is celia's father.the only small point which i didn't fully understand was the scene where celia is killed. she has already been to paul's house and is fully aware that she is his sister (as we see in the closing scene before she starts off down the road) so why when andrew offers her a lift and that is he is going to tell her 'everything' does she accept? does she not know everything at this point? or is it just the will that he is going to tell her about? also - is andrew planning to kill celia when he brings her back to the house? what is his motive for bringing her back? any opinions on these points would be much appreciated.Jx