Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Rexanne It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Leftbanker In the end the problem is the story by Patricia Highsmith. The novel doesn't really have the energy to be a full novel. Perhaps it would have worked as a short story but not a 288 page novel…nor a 96 minute feature (although it seemed much, much longer).It was hard to buy Viggo in the role of the cuckold; he would be the one doing the cheating. He was also a con man, and a very successful one at that yet he seemed like a gullible schmuck at every step in the story. You just never get the feeling that he ever had what it takes to be a swindler.Kirsten Dunst? I just don't see her in this role. She isn't really young enough for the role, nor is Oscar Isaac young enough for his—at least not as they were described in the book. I guess the difference in age between husband and wife is about the same because in the book Chester is 42 and Colette is 25 as is Rydal while Viggo is 20 years older than Dunst. I just don't think she is hot enough for the role or coquettish enough, she lacks that "comehitherness" Highsmith informs.Oscar Isaac is brilliant and you would never believe that he isn't Greek. The problem is that we never understand his motivation for helping the couple. It is touched on in the novel as he tries to connect with Chester as he would have with his dead father in a way he wasn't able to do in life.The other big role in this film is Greece. It's hard to go too far wrong with such gorgeous scenery. I laughed out loud when Viggo was waking up on the beach and you could hear a slapping sound. I haven't lived in Greece in 30 years but I knew immediately what it was before the camera panned over to a fisherman throwing an octopus repeatedly against the rock to tenderize it. The beaches, cafés, hotels, and other sights looked exactly how I remember them. In my opinion most period pieces should simply be set in the present day if that is possible. In this case the year 1962 is perfect. Greece was a sleepy backwater at that time. In January it would be mostly deserted which suited this film just fine. It's too bad the story didn't equal the positive aspects of the film.

bensonmum2 A wealthy American couple, Chester MacFarland (Viggo Mortensen) and his much younger wife Colette (Kirsten Dunst), are enjoying the sights of Greece when, by chance, they meet Rydal (Oscar Issac). Rydal is also an American. He speaks perfect Greek and works as a guide, scamming tourists a few dollars at a time. Rydal is immediately drawn to Chester's money and Colette's beauty. But the MacFarland's aren't what they seem. They have secrets to keep much darker than stealing from unsuspecting tourists. It took me awhile to get through The Two Faces of January. I was interrupted several times by family issues. Each time, my wife asked, "How's the movie?" - my response, "I don't know." But I knew I couldn't wait to get back to it. The Two Face of January is slow- burn, old-style film making. You really have to take in the whole thing before you can make a decision. The movie is set in 1962 and it could have easily been filmed in 1962. It's all about plot and story and not special effects and other film making trickery used (actually overused) today. Many of the other IMDb comments compare the movie to a Hitchcock thriller. And while I agree, I compare it more to a film noir of the 50s. You know, one of those stories where a woman is the cause of a man's downfall and, in the end, everyone is damaged and no one comes out looking good. That pretty well describes what happens here.While I really do love this movie for the reasons I've written about, it's not without fault. First, the acting is inconsistent. Mortensen and Issac are fantastic, but Dunst is just good. She's nowhere near the caliber of her two co-stars. Second, there are a couple of places where the movie drags. It's never a deal-breaker for me, but I do think some scenes could have been better paced.Finally, I want to mention the locations. Stunning is the best way to describe them. Greece, Crete, Turkey - all film exquisitely. I think my favorite might have been Crete. The remote landscape perfectly matched the isolation felt by the characters.

movies-by-db I love these period set films, especially thrillers. The lack of helicopters, fast cars, smart-phones and other technology makes everything so much more interesting. A time in which it was still possible to "almost" get away with certain things, and a time where one could still look at and enjoy things instead of clicking, uploading and face-booking useless sh*t a.s.a.p.This is the pace this film takes and it's a joy to experience and look at. Beautiful cinematography, great set- and costume detail and exciting Hitchcokian story development.The lead actors are all three great to watch and since we are abroad they get all the attention, there is no room for other characters. I liked that very much, because that's the way you would feel ( particularly back then) when you don't speak the language. You're kind of closed of from the world as is this trio.In a time where car chases, jump-cuts and explosions rule the screen it's a breath of fresh air and a sigh of relief to see this type of film still being made. 7/10

quincytheodore Almost resembling a documentary show of stranded tourists from Nat Geo channel, The Two Faces of January has a deceptively quaint atmosphere for a thriller. Characters are manipulative, morally ambiguous and have pathology tendency for deceit. However, it's irritatingly slow on creating tension and the script is rather thin even for the average runtime of the movie. The flamboyant visual is just barely enough to keep interest till the end.Chester (Viggo Mortensen) and Collette (Kirsten Dunst) are a couple who harbor some secrets. They take a vacation at Athens, but are eventually caught in an unfortunate incident and find themselves in a dire situation. Accepting the help of local con artist, Rydal (Oscar Isaac) they attempt to flee Greece. The movie has the acting department covered, a good trait since it's almost exclusively featuring these three characters as they clash personalities.It soon becomes clear that the seemingly happy couple are far from honest, even with each other. Situation escalates as Chester and Rydal collide, more than a couple of times. Using subtle cues it produces a sense of insecurity as the characters are trapped in unknown places, with slightly untrustworthy company, no less.The pace as it starts and ends are good, but it falters about halfway. Trivial banters keep the momentum from reaching its peak, furthermore the film uses too much of jealousy and dissatisfied couple tricks. It may build the characters, but the film roams into telenovela realm at some points, not the direction mystery thriller would optimize upon.Cinematography fares better, with the heavy European vista it's certainly has a different outlook. The retro vibe also helps, there's a distinct feel of classic detective nuance at play here. The mysteries, and also the latter act for that matter, are not highly captivating. The film serves as a crime drama in healthy does, but is not ambitious enough for complex con.Though it has charming cast and foreign allure, the slow pace might deter audience from taking part in this exotic trip.