Watch Till Human Voices Wake Us For Free

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

This film was so slow that I kept getting up to look at the clock to see how much longer I had to endure it, as I had already worked out the ending in the first 15 minutes or less. It was very much a first time effort by a woman director just out of film school, or at least it seemed that way. What used to be called a woman's weepie. I kept picturing the film in soft focus black and white, awash with lush music, with 40's matinée idols playing the leads. Better editing to speed the action a little would have helped. The cameraman must have been infatuated with Helena Bonham Carter judging by the long close ups of her soulful dark eyes, and wet hair hanging over them; however, at 42 she was somewhat old for the part - by say 20 years. Guy Pierce was unemotional as a block of wood, as was his character]s father. The only other father figure spoke a lot of rather spiritual wisdom. Had he been in America he would have had his own church.The childhood scenes were what made the film worth watching. I loved the nighttime jaunts on the bicycle. The main false note in the film was the lack of dust covering everything in Silvi's old home. The bed had covers on them which had not worm to tatters like the curtains, and apparently did not smell musty. The book of poems was a clean as it it had been laid down less than a minute ago. In the Australian countryside thick red dust covers everything, especially in an building abandoned with the windows open.

If you have just opened this page to decide whether you want to rent this film, I recommend you not read ANYTHING about it. See the film with no preconceptions and discover what it means to you. As each viewer will bring his own life experience and beliefs to it, you may perceive a different story than other viewers. For me, it is one of the most memorable of films.After you have viewed it, come back to see which reviewers saw the same story you did.SPOILERS BELOW:Some reviewers have panned this film for being a lame and predictable ghost story. I don't think that's what it is, possibly because I don't believe in ghosts but do believe in the power of past events in our minds. It occurred to me early on that Ruby may not be real, but as I had read nothing about the story before seeing it I maintained this as a hypothesis rather than as a fact. As I watched the film I concluded that the protagonist was delusional. The memories jarred by his visit to Genoa, by staying in his boyhood home, were just too painful--the father who was distant to the point of nonexistence, the love he had lost as a teen, the guilt he felt related to Sylvia's death. Most of us can look at past events and see ones we wish had turned out differently, but these events go beyond that. These events he has repressed and they have held him prisoner. Ruby is a creation of his tortured mind, a way to try to reconnect with Sylvia. And it worked for him. He saves her from drowning in the same river, they talk, she tells him she loved him, they make love; things that would have happened had he not taken her into the water years earlier. Things he needs to have happen, even if only in his mind. In the closing scenes he is not surprised to see she has disappeared. He accepts that and is ready to begin healing.Of course, he could also just be dreaming and will soon awaken. But that ending was overused long ago.A truly beautiful and memorable film.

Tiring, difficult to follow, arduous, unappealing. OK, so I missed the first few minutes but I think that was quite a good idea. It tries hard to be a somewhat arty presentation, but ends up being a collection of some nice cinematographic moments, spoiled by what I can best describe as unusual and overcooked acting and a laboured script in parts. In short, I'd give it a miss unless you want to bore yourself for an hour or two.Tiring, difficult to follow, arduous, unappealing. OK, so I missed the first few minutes but I think that was quite a good idea. It tries hard to be a somewhat arty presentation, but ends up being a collection of some nice cinematographic moments, spoiled by what I can best describe as unusual and overcooked acting and a laboured script in parts. In short, I'd give it a miss unless you want to bore yourself for an hour or two.

This film reminds me of a period in the Sixties when many "avant garde" films were produced that required that the viewer expend some effort of thought, while bringing a background of knowledge to bear, perhaps discussing afterward with friends,to explore a film which tries to expand your experience without limiting the ways it could be appreciated. I prefer this kind of film precisely because it does not hand me its interpretation in a neat little package, but invites me to discover it. Perhaps, after a hard day in the cubicle, a facile, louder adventure may be more entertaining. But when you have rested, go back and watch this film again! You may just be surprised.