Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

GazerRise Fantastic!

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Gordon-11 This film is about a paralysed radio presenter who meets a woman who wants to be paralysed, with unexpected psychological results to both of them.The initial hour of "Quid Pro Quo" is disguised as a fetishistic film about a woman who gets sexual excitement by living a paralysed life. it is a bizarre and incomprehensible topic which is likely to put people off. After looking beyond that, the film offers little to engage viewers. There is little to make people want to know what will happen to the characters.The last ten minutes improve substantially, as the sudden plot twist shifts the focus from a fetishistic emphasis to a moving drama about guilt and conscience. If "Quid Pro Quo" could expand on the guilt and conscience theme, and tone down on the fetishistic theme, then it would be likely to have more success.

tummybunny This had positive reviews but i've run marathons that passed faster. I watched it with a friend and half way through felt compelled to stop it and apologise, which I've never done before. I eventually finished it but remain baffled by what anyone could think this movie has going for it.As mentioned elsewhere, the main theme here is able bodied people who want to become paralysed, or paraplegic. So if that's the single most mind blowing and fascinating concept you've ever heard of, then you probably still shouldn't bother watching this because it's not like they explain it. The characters dawdle along through tedious lives and pointless, boring conversations. None of the dialogue or actions are interesting or engaging at all. Occasionally things get a little animated, but it's usually difficult to understand why and always completely impossible to care in the slightest.Eventually I'm pretty sure nothing happens at the end but even though I just finished a couple of hours ago I can't remember much other than feeling very grateful.

smiley_b81 I'm not gonna summarize what this film's about (cuz if you got this far you probably know---B.I.I.D.) What I will say is that the other posters are right, if you like the work of Cronenberg (especially "Crash" and "Dead Ringers"), but are disappointed with the Canadian filmmaker's more recent mainstream forays, you def. need to check this out.The other reason to see it is Vera Farmiga, an actress who has been working in the shadow of Cate Blanchett for years now, and who here takes on a role that Blanchett wouldn't dare touch.Underrated.

jaywindley I saw this film on the closing night of Sundance, mostly because all the other films I wanted to see were sold out. I'm glad I went. Nick Stahl and Vera Farmiga dance adeptly around and through the film's premise, which is coaxed pleasantly out of a screenplay that writer-director Carlos Brooks has polished over seven years.Stahl plays a public radio reporter confined to a wheelchair since a childhood accident. While following a lead in a bizarre story, he meets Fiona (Farmiga), a mysterious woman who leads him into a reclusive subculture. At first, microphone in hand, he wants the story. But then a trip to a second-hand store for some shoes convinces him the story isn't what he thought it was.The Sundance catalogue billed it as a "psychological thriller," but in my opinion that misses the mark. Yes, we're introduced to some oddly quirky characters along the way. But Brooks bills is as a detective story, and that's how I think it's best approached. It's an exercise in restrained exposition that keeps the viewer guessing right up until the film's final scenes.As with most independent films, this one makes good use of small-scale locations and intimate moments. Even the Manhattan exteriors favor enclosed sidewalks and narrow passages. The cinematography, done on high-definition video, is crisply executed and richly textured with subtle but effective details. (The lustrous wallpaper in Fiona's apartment actually has its own screen credit.) The camera spends a great deal of time at the eye level of a wheelchair occupant, emphasizing the point of view and expanding the small spaces in which many of the film's scenes take place.Stahl and Farmiga drive a substantial portion of the film by themselves. Brooks admits that the their story took over the film as he shot and edited it. As a result the supporting ensemble retreats to the distance, a position from which performances from James Frain (as Stahl's mentor) and Michal Leamer (Fiona's mother) can give brief but memorable performances.Vera Farmiga creates a complex character whom you can't help loving, hating, and fearing all at the same time. Nick Stahl's performance stays even and understated until his veneer breaks apart and the detective story comes full circle.The only negative aspect to the film is the frank treatment of the subculture that frames the principal characters, not because the treatment is unfair or poorly executed, but because it's likely to take the average viewer by surprise. Look for wide release in May 2008.