Borrowed

In this highly contrived melodrama a tortured painter invites a young guy to model for him, then holds him captive. There's a lot you could do with that scenario, but nothing that Borrowed chooses to do is either convincing or interesting. The young model, Justin, is understandably terrified and attempts to escape. But a little later he is canoodling on the couch with his captor, then frolicking in his pool. If he were biding his time and planning another escape, there might at least be some kind of suspense. But no. I presume we're supposed to deduce that he's developing something like Stockholm Syndrome and becoming emotionally invested in David. But there's little in the script to support that either. Ultimately, Borrowed goes nowhere much. The co-writers/directors seem to have no interest in liberating the material from its stage origins, so what we're treated to is a saggy talkfest and a great deal of dubious psychological introspection. The two lead actors are better than the material deserves, but they're not miracle workers. Frankly, the best thing about Borrowed is the set design - a stylish evocation of an artist's hideaway, full of interesting paintings, sculptures and objet d'art. But when you find yourself more interested in the backdrop than anything happening in front of it, you know all is lost.

I guess I enjoyed this movie more than the previous reviewers. I might categorize it as a psychodrama, and found it interesting to watch.

The performances of the principals was top notch. Very good, deep acting. The story line was a bit convoluted. I might have understood and enjoyed it better had a caught the reason the young man's (Justin) attitude suddenly changed, before the older man (David) had revealed his intentions.

There is a scream from outside when a raccoon is caught in a trap on the dock. And while David is disposing of the carcass, Justin looks at some of the artists other works. That apparently unnerves him, but honestly, I'm not completely sure why.

I enjoyed the interplay between the characters, which moved forward in fits and starts, with more being revealed by each during this dance between the two during the film.

A tango was used in the plot to effectively reflect this "dance." A sultry, complex dance, which David explains was a dance often done by prostitutes, so most "nice" women would refuse to dance it. Thus, it was often danced by two men.

I also liked the easy flow of dialog in different languages, which were comfortable for each of the characters as they interacted. The film has subtitles that translate English into Spanish and Spanish into English.

The interactions were very interesting to watch, as the motivations and indeed the veracity of each were somewhat shrouded in mystery, with deeper and darker truths being revealed over time.

Technically, the film works very well. Nice sets, camera work, lighting, etc.

There is a sense of mystery as one can't help but wonder what will happen next, and to whom.

I was a bit let down by the ending. I thought the film was building an emotional tension throughout, but for me, it just fizzled at the end.

I loved it . For simplicity, for dialogue, for the shadows of melancholia. Easy to define it as a chain of...pretextes. An artist, isolated, has as guest, then captive, than lover and companion and son surrogate a young man, presumed victim.

The theme is not original.

The difference - that is all. Not a real story, but stories - memories - confessions , not authentic tension - except few scenes, forced in high measure- , not real fight to obtain freedom- except more expression of fury of young man.

Only two men in a sort of relation , ambiguous , in some measure, but being less interesting than the house of painter.

An experiment ? More a try. Decent acting and the viewer having the illusion of answers about story.

Not bad but ...experimental. And with strange good potential, sacrificed for a kind of film about a final point who seems , in some measure, artificial, defining the fatigue of scripwriter and director. But, I recognize, for me, just a beautiful film, good supportzt recalling of few personal memories.

The film tells the story of Justin, who goes on a date through a dating app at the home of David. When Justin makes up an interface and tries to leave, David locks the front door and imprisons Justin. As the two have conversations and their emotions rub off on each other, David reveals his secret and finally lets Justin go.

The most visceral feeling I got from the film was unreal and lack of anticipation. When Justin is threatened by David, there are ten thousand ways for him to escape. David is a middle-aged man, not to mention that he is unarmed, so why can't justin just grab something and fight him when his body is not bounded? There is a scene in the film where Justin is hysterical in a room, breaking and throwing everything in the room, and David, who was standing right in front of him at the time, is quietly watching him... I had given up by the time I saw this, the only thing that sustained me through the whole film was Jonathan Arco's face. What's more, the film is a small cost movie, 97% of the scenes are set in David's home, two guys spend almost 90 minutes talking and flirting with each other in every corner of the house, so I wasn't looking forward to the reversal of the film later on.

Last words are about the title of the film, Borrowed. After watching the film we all know that David's love for Justin is borrowed, he knows he can't keep him but still wants him for himself and chooses to keep him prisoner in his home. Multiple attempts are made to paint the hero's portrait because he thinks it will keep him with him forever, only to find out in the end that he isn't going to be able to finish it, just like a line in the film, 'Do you know why you're never going to finish that portrait, because you're looking for this something but you're not going to find it'. At the same time, David's morbid side is also shown here, as he feels that his body, life and freedom are nothing more than borrowed, so he recklessly puts his own over the ownership of other souls all the time, and thus he deviates from human nature and commits such perverse acts.

The film is hard to review in that it started out as a theatrical piece, and maybe should have stayed on the stage, although I can't imagine it doing much more there than on film. I found myself several times thinking, "Why is this even happening?"

The acting is top-notch from both actors. The cinematography is properly moody and "accurate" for what's happening on screen, but there is still something missing. That could either be the story or the script. The story itself is pretty simple, yet it is the storyline itself that I most reacted with the "Why is this even happening?" from before. There is nothing sincere about the contrivance of how these two people stay together. There are several points in the process that they could have split apart, and yet they don't. And that's more for one character than the other. One seems to want to recreate a failed relationship from the past, and the other is, for some reason never fully explained, attracted to the other. It all seems very simple, yet it's unbelievable in its execution, and because of that, I never forgot I was watching a movie.

If an audience is to suspend their disbelief for the 100-minute run time, there has to be something given to the audience to achieve that, and there really isn't. I sat in an attitude of disbelief throughout the entire thing. On top of that, the place we end up in is a very long and winding road that should not have led where it did because it sort of comes out of nowhere, and the main premise (storyline) is never really explained. Don't get me wrong, it's not one of those films that just ends, but this one ends, and you're sort of glad it's over. Nothing learned. No real effect that we get to see. I can say to watch it once if you have nothing better to watch, but you'll only want to watch it once.