LeonLouisRicci Engaging, Spritely Visual Digital, Low-Budget Movie that has a Number or Positive and Negative Things that Balance Out to a Watchable, Derivative Indie. TV Star Courtney Cox is Very Camera Friendly and Her Acting here is Above Average.The Director Missteps Somewhat in Packaging a Familiar Template of Modern and Not So Modern Style of Recurring Scenes Repeating Things at a Slightly Different Angle. Unless You have a Very Strong and Different Story to Tell and a Little More Experience Under Your Belt, it is Best to Stay Far Away from these Types of Glaring Gimmicks.That Said, the Director/Editor Shows Signs of Talent and has Made a Movie that Most Film Students and Novice Directors would be Proud. It has Style to Burn and Keeps the Interest Level Up with the Stunning if Always Cold Digital Camera. Convenience, Grocery, and Department Stores have been Somewhat Underused by Low-Budget Types. There is Color and a Surreal Obnoxiousness to that Template that is just Ripe for the Riffing.That Setting is Employed Quite Efficiently here and the Rest of the Shoot is Done with Enough Pizazz to make the Repetitive Story Sustainable and Worth a Watch for Indie Film Fans, Ultra Low-Budget Filmmakers and Students, and for those Looking for a Little Divergent Entertainment from Another $200,000,000 Waste.Note...Extra Credit for not falling into the shaky camera cliché so often used for this type of Production to feign Artistic vision.

RyanCShowers I'm a big Courteney Cox fan, so of course, I saw her film "November" when it was first released. I didn't care for it then. I thought it was a very misguided and confusing film. I rewatched it a day ago. I have to say.....I was wrong.It's a pretty genius film that plays with you mind. It has many options to the way it ends. You, as the audience) can choose what the film is supposed to mean and what really happens in end, and makes you question what reality is. A very strong performance from Courteney Cox too (unbiased opinion). The technical side is basically flawless which is another pro. There is such a great look to the film and the editing is well-done for such a small film. Though, it's not perfect, it was unfairly pushed to the side. Some parts drag a little and some scenes that seem cheesy, with the director at fault. Directing flaws aside, you get another worthy performance from Cox that contains a creepy script and cinematography. It's not "scary", or even thrilling at times, but it is a film with a message; 8 - 8.5

chazz46-2 It is apparent that there is sufficient documentation that we humans "play the the tapes of our life" in very fast forward just prior to our death. This movie seems to allow for the ending of that comprehensive tape playing to resolve in final acceptance of the truth after what must be several permutations of fantasy and guilt-based wishful thinking. Rather than the long drawn-out subconscious (actually "final conscious")dreams as portrayed by the movie in the cadence of the living, this movie just accounts for a split second of "playing the tapes" before Sophie finally dies. I would have never guessed how those nanoseconds could have been captured by film art. In that sense, we the living, are given the opportunity to dissect out over an expanded time period that which actually occurs in an instant. We are thus given to appreciate how the senses of the living are tuned out of the dimension of time itself. Furthermore, this movie would suggest that how we handle truth is still wrapped in dream work even as we play our final tapes at our death.

Scarecrow-88 Various aspects regarding the tragic shooting of her lover, Hugh(James LeGros), in a gas station by a thief robbing the joint on the night of November the 7th relives hauntingly in the mind of photographer Sophie Jacobs(Courteney Cox in a rare change-of-pace role). She can not seem to shake the occurrences before and during that fateful night and her life seems to repeatedly drift through various times with Hugh as things begin to seep into her life becoming often too overwhelming to bear. An affair with a student, providing extra grief coupled with the shooting, hangs over her like a thundercloud. We begin to see Sophie in situations around that gas station and certain pictures taken might bring forth a suspect. She gets a clear view of his face, but the attempt to explain it to anyone is difficult. She is also experiencing pain in her stomach and headaches not to mention seeing blood in disorienting ways. Also, we see several specific conversations with Hugh and the other man. But, as she searches for truth, results yielding startling conclusions involving herself at the scene of the crime will possibly provide the answers explaining why she is suffering mentally from that night.May cover the night too many times for some viewers, the ending I believe clears up why the filmmakers are making the flick so elusive. Very reminiscent to STAY, we see a bevy of unusual things happening to Sophie that can not be easily explained until the ending occurs placing every weird occurrence together piecing the puzzle and showing just why Sophie experiences these far-out things. Shot on digital, this little indie uses minimal techniques spinning quite an eerie little tale. It works on the viewer not allowing us to grasp the whole until everything falls into place. Such as STAY, I feel many will give up on it before the half-way mark because the director, writer & crew asks a lot of us, particularly trust, in what they are trying to accomplish with this mind-screw of a movie. I liked it and thought Cox provides enough subtle confusion and sadness(..not to mention, denial on her face)in the manner she carries herself. She doesn't show too much or overplay her hand which I thought was nice.