A dialogue dependent movie, but unfortunately the producers were too cheap to provide subtitles for non-Brits around the world who have different English dialects; or those with little or no English; or those hard of hearing viewers. To make matters worse the audio levels as well as enunciation by the actors were inconsistent and uneven.

The acting was minimally acceptable given there wasn't a whole lot going on throughout a film that has the camera obsessed with looking at walls inside the house or out the window. The camera continued the preoccupation with focusing on non-essential scenes for prolonged periods e.g. chickens in a coup; figurines on a shelf; tree leaves blowing in the wind; pond lily pads; spider crawling up a window; the inside of a church both with/without singing.

Outside of that there is a sleepwalking visiting brother; two brief sex with someone else's partner scenes and a party.

Maybe this is a day-in-the-life storyline?

This movie does not straight up tell you the dark truths that are being hinted at. You have to realize it for yourself. It initially appears fairly simple. Dawn isn't able to have a baby with her husband David, and David's insane (maybe not so insane) ex-military brother, Nick, comes to stay for a while. There is a much darker story at the root of it all. It appears that David and his brother are both pathological liars. I kept hoping for some huge discovery of information, but the film deliberately ends up leaving you with more questions in the end than at the beginning.

It's time to play a little Sherlock Holmes here, people. Get out your thinking caps because there is plenty of evidence in the film to suggest what I am about to claim.

Now, listen carefully. Brother Nick claims of an abusive father. David claims of an abusive mother. David tells his wife in confidence that it was Nick who shoved their mother down a flight of stairs which hospitalized her years ago in the past. Dawn finds out the truth from Nick, which that it was actually David who committed this act. She asks him why he lied, initially blaming it on Nick. He responds and says because their mother was abusive. This doesn't make sense to lie about. If the past was too painful, you wouldn't bring it up at all. He instead blamed it on his own brother, the very brother he was protecting? If you were protecting him, why tell such a hideous lie? Clearly there was a more sinister reason for doing it. The reason David says his mother was abusive, is because she at one point probably found out about an incestuous relationship between David and his brother.

Jumping to the end (when the story really breaks open),you almost think Dawn was tricked. It's because she was. There are two massive plot developments here. A scene where she insists Nick tell her the truth about him and her husband David after Nick runs away because of a fight. Alone together at Nick and David's old abandoned farm; Nick screams at her, hurt and upset, and says: "He Fu*ks you, but he loves me (referring to David). When we were younger.. look, our dad was abusive. And David would protect me.. He sort of.. owned me". These lines startle her so much that she storms away in fury and tells him she will return with money so that he can leave town. She doesn't want to believe the words she just heard. And, neither do you (or I) the viewers. Hence why they never shove the truth in your face. You have to figure this out. I felt like the smoking gun followed this scene. Dawn goes home to retrieve money for Nick in secrecy so she can have him leave town from his secret location after running away. David claims to not know where Nick is at first. She leaves the house with money and some items to help his brother leave town. When she returns to the abandoned farm to give him the money, Nick is no longer there. David knew where she was going all along, clearly. When she returns home, she is in labor (impregnated by a close friend because she desperately wanted a baby, but this is irrelevant to the darker part of the story). She falls to the ground in the lawn, and the first thing she asks is: "Where is he, where is Nick? He's back.. He came back. He was suppose to be at the barn". David says "I know". But doesn't tell her where Nick is. She insistently asked where Nick is with no reply - he just stares at her. David and Nick coordinated seeing each other while she was away looking for Nick to give him money to leave town. This is obvious. David is caught in multiple lies through out the film that imply a past he is not being honest about. Again, it is up to you, the viewer, to understand what it probably the truth here. There is even a scene were Nick decides to put on Dawn's clothes, dress up as a woman, and karaoke in front of his brother dressed as a woman. The look on David's face falls to complete depression. It's as if it makes him sad for reasons we do not know as the viewer.

Sometimes a story this dark is better alluded to, rather than shoving it directly in your face. The subject matter is so dark, one probably would not want to see such scenes played out on film. This is a clever screen play, and in that regards I'm massively impressed. It truly leaves the viewer to do a little detective work as it's clear Dawn simply cannot handle the truth (and neither can the viewer honestly). And no, I am not suffering from Sherlock Cumberbatch syndrome, ha!

I guess the ultimate point to this piece however, is possibly the message that happiness comes in many forms. That's all I could gather from this film. That, and acceptance. We must accept the ones we love even when it doesn't make sense to us. There is more that meets the eye when it comes to David, and its left to the viewer to decide what those dark truths are though difficult to think about. There are clues through out the entire film that David has been involved sexually with Nick. Trust me, I didn't want to believe this. But that is the point. The viewer doesn't want to believe this scenario is possible, and neither does Dawn. At the end, she chooses happiness, has the baby (though another sperm donor),and tries to live her life with David never to know the truth. Ignorance is bliss, and some times not knowing the truth is better than looking it in the face.

"Wreckers" is a small, odd movie, the type of film that Benedict Cumberbatch made before films like Star Trek Into Darkness, War Horse, etc., came-a-calling.

The film stars Claire Foy as Dawn and Cumberbatch as David, a young couple who return to where David grew up in order to start a family. They are both teachers and have a cottage on the edge of the woods; they seem very much in love. Then David's brother Nick (Shaun Evans) arrives. Nick has been in the service and is suffering from terrible PTSD. He sleepwalks, he has screaming nightmares, he breaks everything in sight, he leaves the door to the hen house open so the family dog can kill the chicken. He's disruptive. Though Dawn suggests that he talk to someone, no one pushes the issues, makes it a condition of him staying in the house, or gets him to a hospital.

Nick's arrival brings up some other issues. Dawn was unaware that her husband grew up in a violent home; she probably was also unaware that he came from the working class, as he's fashioned himself into a well-spoken teacher. As time goes on, she finds out David wasn't honest about something else, which makes her question who was responsible for what regarding the boys' behavior growing up, as both men tell her something different.

I had some big problems with this film. First of all, I use closed captioning -- occupational hazard, I did transcription for many years and it did a number on my hearing. I have to say the person who transcribed the dialogue of "Wreckers," if possible, has worse hearing than mine. On the worst day of my life I knew more of what was being said than the captioner.

Secondly, the film was done in a way that I refer to as "precious." Long, long pauses where people say nothing. Also, many of the scenes, including a critical one at the end, were done in pitch blackness. PITCH. I was staring at a BLACK screen. My last problem with the film is that had I been Dawn, I wouldn't have stood for Nick being in my house for one night, let alone as many as he seems to have been there.

All that aside, the performances are excellent. I am an unabashed and unashamed fan of Cumberbatch and here, he is top-notch. One absolutely has no idea what is true about his character and what isn't, as he plays against what we're told or what we see time and again. He creates a fascinating, multilayered character.

The end of this film is deliberately ambiguous -- actually it was a little too ambiguous for me.

"Wreckers" is a story about re-invention, the lies one tells to one's self, and therefore to others, and the dark side of human nature. In the end, we don't know the answer to one very important question about one of the characters; and we don't know what the future will bring. But I think on that last point, we can guess.