With almost unknown actors , very simple settings and low budget , this relies entirely on the uniqueness of the story , appropriate performances of the cast and direction , analyzes the relationship of two best friends . thought provoking .

Two actresses take a break from L.A. and travel to a house in the country, the isolation brings to the surface dark emotions such as jealousy and distrust. Before long, events start to deteriorate badly.This psychological thriller is one of those which plays around with the concept of the unreliable narrator. At times, we are unsure of what is real and what is not. The introductions to both characters taps into this right away where we have a close-up shot of the actress head on, the first woman is auditioning for a part in front of a group of men, while the second woman is engaging in a heated exchange with a man who is trying to rip her off. This latter sequence tricks you into thinking it too could be an actress reading for a role and the reveal shocks us when we discover it is actually real. The idea of these scenes I guess is to show that women exist essentially in a man's world and have to put up with things men generally do not. So, one of the themes of the film is the pressures society puts on women. In this scenario, these tensions result in two friends going to war with each other. We slowly see little niggles gather momentum and insecurities create space that is filled by negative emotions. Both women are actresses, with one being more successful than the other; I guess you could say the less successful one is the better actress but has been less willing to pander to the will of male producers. Professional jealousies intertwine with all other tensions leading to a dark place.Acting by both leads, Mackenzie Davis and Caitlin Fitzgerald, is very good, especially Davis whose character ultimately runs the gauntlet of emotional states including assertive, insecure, meek and aggressive. The final act compounds this where there is a fusing of identities and events develop a more dream-like ambiance. It's, overall, a pretty compelling concoction of ideas which I found very involving. You have interesting characters with differing motivations and huge amounts going on under the surface. This results in a narrative which from an early point suggests cracks in the surface and hints at sinister events. As a viewer, you are actively encouraged to piece things together without being spoon-fed the answers. It's, on the whole, a very satisfying combination of a lot of disparate ideas that's comes together to create something really interesting.

Always Shine is in the ilk of Certain Women. Meaning that because its leads are women, it's about women, and its director is a woman (Sophia Takal)... it must, by default, be spectacular.Well, sorry to say, it most definitely is not!Not a single review here to-date touches on the fact that this film borrows — LIFTS — heavily (and poorly) from Ingmar Bergman's 'Persona'. Nor do any of this film's fawning fans notice how it is over-dabbling with the currently overused device of Multiple Personality Disorder (now known as D.I.D.).This is an appallingly bad film. There are enough hints dropped to suggest these girls ARE split personalities of the one character, however... there is also either an abundant LACK of evidence to confirm it, or CONTRADICTORY evidence to refute it.Make up your friggen mind!Seriously, nothing makes sufficient sense here. And because this film is going out of its way to raise questions, but does it so illogically, I will not waste my time rifling thru the trash to unveil the hidden truths. This film does not deserve that sort of rigour. That sort of introspection.Always Shine also bears no capacity for concealing its feminist agenda. Shame on you for being so blatant. There also exists no intelligence in this script to neither do that sublimely nor tell a coherent story.At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself what the point was? What was really worth telling here? And why tell it in such an intentionally obscure way? Could it be because they thought that being obscure meant being smart? Clever? Original?Then we have the typical indie ending. A useless long shot of nothing (this time, our lead walking up a hill in a forest); then the moment of long staring; then... the notorious abrupt cut to black.Praising the acting, which is indeed excellent, makes up for none of the poor choices made repeatedly in both the writing and the directing. To think that investors were talked into throwing money at this concept. What a waste.See it only if you have an old TV you're looking to toss out, so you can throw things at the screen, then put your foot thru it at the end.

Maybe I don't get it but this flick didn't offer a thing to me. The story looked promising, two girl- friends going for a weekend together, the one being a popular actress and having a steady relation. The other not finding a job and not having a relationship and is naturally jealous. So it all did remind me of the classic Single White Female (1992) which delivered the stuff you expect. sadly, Always Shine stays away of what could be creepy or even squeamish. It's clearly that you can see it coming but it never came. It's building up towards the point of no return but from then on nothing really happens, in fact they split up and it's all blah blah again. This flick is going to hit a lot of festivals in the near future, I guess why because it's in no way a horror, some say a psychological thriller, I can agree in some way but still nothing really happens only verbal words....Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 0/5 Story 2,5/5 Comedy 0/5