Considering how great this movie was in the beginning I was stunned why I had never heard of it or why it only got a rating of 6.0 on IMDb. It had to have something to do with how the story unfolded. Turns out, that this is indeed the problem. The first 45 minutes of "The I Inside" are really a blast. The story sucks you in immediately and unfolds beautifully until a certain point is reached where the writer lost control and messed up what had been set up so well. All of a sudden the story's getting way over the top, apparently for no other reason than to keep the viewer puzzled. That wouldn't have been necessary. They could have taken the story anywhere as intriguing as it started. Unfortunately, the plot becomes uneven when the "rules" of the movie are adapted arbitrarily. The final solution doesn't really come as a surprise anymore. Worse still, it's not good enough to explain everything. It's obvious that there are mistakes and flaws throughout the script and it's a shame, because, as I've said, unlike a lot of other movies where the story is already set up for an impossible, unbelievable ending, "The I Inside" had a more than promising start. Anyway, although the movie isn't completely satisfying and kind of stumbles over its own feet, it's still very entertaining to watch. It has an atmospheric stage play-like atmosphere (in fact, the story has been adapted from a play called "Point Of Death") and there are some really creative suspense scenes. Summing up, "The I Inside" isn't the masterpiece it could have been, but it's a nice way to spend 90 minutes.
Add a Review
-
Superunknovvn2 January 2006
-
kosmasp5 October 2010This is a little seen thriller and it's almost a shame, because it has quite a few good ideas. Some work, some might not work for you, but the overall story is very complex and very well told. It's not a movie, where you could say exactly where it is going. I don't think you could tell unless you had read quite a few articles on the film, which would be a shame.
But Ryan Phillipe does a great job, conveying this complex and very difficult emotional role he has to play. It's not only trying to keep up, where you are exactly (in the script), but in the overall structure of the movie. I know that some think that it does fall short towards the end, and I get the sentiment. But I still think the ending is pretty strong, to still make you rather like the viewing, than not. -
shiftyeyeddog14 July 2008I've never liked the idea of test screenings. The changes they make just end up neutering a movie and making it "safe" for the general masses. But if ever a movie needed feedback to prompt a rewrite and alternate ending, this is it.
The first half of this movie is spectacular. It's atmospheric, tense, and confusing (in a good way). It kept you guessing the whole way. Much like Memento, it's an intelligent film that makes you watch closely and think. The story could have gone a number of directions.
...but the last half, it all falls apart. They start changing the "rules", the suspense gives way to straight storytelling, and the ending goes a completely different direction than it could have, and SHOULD have. It's not just that I didn't like the ending or that it didn't match my predictions. The problem is the truth is still unclear and viewers are left confused. Too much is left unexplained.
As it is, the film is wasted potential. A good story and a good movie, but one that could have been so much better with a different ending. -
tedg18 January 2006There are serious spoilers below.
Any sort of storytelling is about engagement, and one of the most interesting engagement strategies is the "puzzle" story. This comes in several varieties, starting with the detective story which plainly presents you with a mystery and a surrogate in the story with whom you presumably collaborate. At the other end are the surprise puzzles that present you with information at the end that makes you re-evaluate what you knew: "Sixth Sense," "Usual Suspects."
The ones that are the most fun are the ones whose puzzles are a serious challenge and which don't wrap up cleanly at the end. "Memento" and "Fight Club" were great fun, because you carried the narrative around for days afterward and because it was purely cinematic, you essentially *lived* in the movie, overlain on your own world.
Then there's the subclass of cinematic narrative within that group. Here's where you have a puzzle with several solutions. Naturally the simplest one is the one usually considered "true." But it leaves some loose ends that are considered mistakes, or merely superfluous. But a non-novice puzzle-solver can see the deeper solution.
"Irreversible," "Identity," and "Primer" are examples of this. And this film is another.
The story is that a young man awakens in a hospital in 2002. He discovers he was there also on that day in 2000 the victim of an accident, and he cannot recall the intervening two years. The two periods overlap. There are threats and two women that appear and disappear.
The novice solution is that he, his brother and a shared woman got involved in a happenstance that ended in them all dying in a car accident in 2000. (This setup and accident, incidentally are prototypically noir. So the movie invokes a movie with unreal characteristics instead of real.) Our hero dies for two minutes, is resuscitated and dies again immediately. The solution is that all we have seen is the two minutes in his mind envisioned as two years, and him trying to come to terms with the noir mechanics of the accident that killed his brother.
A more advanced solution is that he was resuscitated and remained in a coma for two years. We are introduced to a character who has been waiting for a heart transplant. In 2002, when our waking hero visits this guy, he sees a comatose patient in the same room. That is he, ready to donate his heart. We then see our hero "kill" this recipient patient by stabbing in the heart, both in 2000 and 2002. Our hero finds himself on an elevator with an orderly and a covered body (the recipient) and the orderly says "this never happens."
So a more advanced solution is that the two years is spent in constantly revisiting and reliving the movie inside during the two years of coma. When the transplant actually happens, our hero sabotages it to put himself out of misery.
An even more advanced solution is the one I prefer. For background, you need to know some tradition about the untrusted narrator. Usually, you know who the narrator is, but later you discover that they cannot be trusted. "The Others" is a good example. What's much more interesting is when you discover not only that the narrator cannot be trusted, but neither can your knowledge of who that narrator is. The advanced solutions to "Identity" and "Primer" are of this type.
So its cool if you consider this other solution. Our hero in fact died in the accident. When he visits the morgue, there are three bodies there. His heart went to the recipient we know, and has prompted two years of haunting in that body and mind. So the narrator whose visions we see are in fact the guy with the new heart. Shades of "Return to Me."
In this case, when we see our hero strapped in an MRI machine, it is actually the heart recipient (Travitt, who blurs with the orderly Travis who tells our guy he will take him on a journey). And that guy is threatened by a masked man who actually is our hero, Simon.
I prefer this solution. You might as well. Oh, and it has Sarah Polley as the cause of the whole disaster.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching. -
ThrownMuse6 April 2005A man (Ryan Phillipe) awakens from a coma, not remembering any events from the past two years. He doesn't recognize his evil wife (played deliciously by Piper Perabo), or his alleged mistress (the lovely but miscast Sarah Polley). He soon suspects that someone in the hospital is trying to kill him--and then finds himself in the same hospital two years earlier, with the ability to bounce back and forth between the two time periods.
Although it sounds like something that has been done many times recently, the first half of this movie is actually suspenseful and engaging. Unfortunately, with a plot twist, the movie goes downhill about halfway through. While the movie will keep you thinking for a while afterwards, it is ultimately forgettable because it is way too typical of the current crop of sci-fi "memory" thrillers. Perabo is great here--she gets to play a shy mousy nurse in 2000 and then a malicious blackmailing wealthy woman in 2002. Sarah Polley is one of the best actresses of her generation, and I'm not sure why she's in this movie. Phillipe delivers the expected humdrum performance.
My Rating: 6/10 -
The film started out well, and I was intrigued by it. Bits of the puzzle were slowly revealed to the main character, and to the audience, keeping me hooked. Unfortunately, the script then got seriously weird, and the ending, rather than explaining events, resorted to that cliché that never fails to drive me mad....
****spoiler warning****
....it was all a dream/hallucination!
Very disappointing as sadly the writer's powers of invention weren't equal to coming up with a decent explanation for the (increasingly) weird script. Or maybe they were and the film was cut. Whatever the reason, I do wish they wouldn't resort to the "it was all a dream" ending. All it needed was for Bobby to get out of the shower.... -
elibol-131 March 2006I've read some posts, I didn't have time to read them all, and I did have some questions, but after writing them down, I've made my thoughts on how this story makes sense.
It's a man who dies, and his spirit runs through the scenarios that could of prevented his death, but his ego, spared relevant memories to realize the consequences of escaping his own death, leads the ego to act in order of what actually happened, and this could be said to be in spite of the true nature of his spirit, leaving the spirit to accept that death is the order the ego would take over living, since living with the consequences of escaping death would not satisfy the ego. This can be demonstrated through his struggle to make things right, his struggle to resolve the dissonance of his morality versus his will to live.
If this were the intended interpretation, theoretically, what the spirit chooses becomes the choice made by the ego, and this only being realized by the spirit after manifesting the ego in all possibilities. It would seem that the spirit would manifest an ego to learn the ego.
It's also interesting to consider that a spirits ego may be capable of realizing its spirit, and maybe it was meant to realize more than just that, maybe it was meant to realize itself as the spirits instrument to experiencing a projection of individuation, which would further assume that the spirit is singular, and this would align with what could be considered as god, or maybe it's just something that couldn't otherwise be explained as the answer to life due to the bounds of our existence.
I liked this movie, I give it a 9 in concept, but a 7 in execution due to the lack in originality employed by the director. There are too many cliché story telling techniques to prevent me from knowing what I maybe should have not known in certain parts of the film. -
paulnewman200118 April 2005Ryan Phillippe stars in this convoluted yet fairly gripping thriller as wealthy young heir Simon, who wakes from an accident to find he's suffering amnesia and adrift in his memories.
Is it 2000 and he's imagining his future or is it 2002 and he's reinventing his past? Whether he's time-travelling for real or only in his mind, it gives him the chance to patch together his fragmented memories.
Director Roland Suso Richter graces proceedings with a suitably unsettling visual style and the timeshifts are suitably jarring, recalling the style employed in such movies as Slaughterhouse 5 and The Butterfly Effect. -
This is a so-so thriller with a pretty boy hero going through a lot of convoluted flashbacks ala "jacob's ladder" and "butterfly effect". I noticed a taste of "identity" in the mix too. This movie has good suspense right up until the end where it just kinda goes limp without delivering the goods in a most pathetic manner. It replaced intelligence with obscurity since the writers only had the latter as a tool for plot development. Basically you are left wondering - huh? And .. do I even care what the real deal is with this story or is there even a cohesive story to be uncovered here? Or is it just some dumb ending slapped on the end in an attempt to tie up the hundreds of loose ends this weird script leaves hanging?
-
gavin694222 October 2015An amnesiac (Ryan Philippe) discovers himself leaping through time between 2000 and 2002 as his past returns to him.
This film has a decent cast. Philippe is, of course, the star and this film caught him not long after his celebrity peak. Sarah Polley is excellent, as always, and we also have Stephen Rea. So this is just a great little genre picture in terms of casting.
We then get a bit of mystery, a bit of science fiction. It is one part "Butterfly Effect" and two parts "The Jacket". Unfortunately for "I Inside", we would have to say that "Butterfly Effect" is slightly better and "Jacket" is significantly better than both. -
cecelepink31 May 2005This film begins extremely well and you are looking forward to an interesting and intriguing plot. Instead this film is too confusing, and you do not feel satisfied or entertained at the end. Ryan Phillipe portrays the character Simon extremely well, and his performance is worthy. Although I do not understand why directors insist films be so complicated we actually loose the simplistic enjoyment film audiences require. I found this film to be extremely disappointing and didn't fully understand the meaning of the text? This is actually the first film I have watched and thought what?? Very Very Disappointing! I recommend watching twice with a pen and paper in order to take notes and then you can maybe begin to understand the over complicated story line. I would recommend this movie for Film/Media Students. I like films with complicated twists but this was not the best. I recommend you watch Butterfly Effect, it is a much better attempt of this genre.
-
frellingdren5 December 2005I will make this brief.
This is a decent movie. Is it completely groundbreaking? No. Will you enjoy it?
I DID.
There are ton of people on here talking about how it doesn't make sense, theorizing about the ending...comparing it to Butterfly Effect/The Jacket/... yadda yadda.
If you have half a brain in your head, you will at least think this movie is worth watching. The end is NOT hard to figure out. There really AREN'T any massive plot holes. Its just a good psychological thriller... with a hint of sci-fi/horror. The acting is 85% good.
This movie will not change your life. But. If you are like me and you have seen almost everything else the world of cinema has to offer.... this movie really isn't as bad as a lot of what is out there.
Oh. P.S. The fact that every time a movie like this comes out... people compare it to THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT... makes me want to vomit.
Butterfly Effect = 2 stars. The I Inside = 7 stars. -
oparthenon3 October 2009I'm surprised that some user comments found "The I Inside" even marginally watchable; there may be some star attraction in Sarah Polley or Ryan Philippe, but they are both ill used, and it is difficult for me, at least, to imagine genuine tears falling from Philippe's eyes as he mourns his existential condition with lines like, "This can't be --expletive deleted-- true!" and a moment later (as we switch to existential condition #2) "This can't be --another expletive-- happening!" (A reflective person, one gathers, this character apparently isn't.) Indeed, the action of the film (such as there is) is so preposterous, one can't imagine it happening anyway; but then this film knows not whether it is sci-fi or thriller, mystery or psychological drama -- no wonder the audience is reduced to focusing on its stars rather than on what they say or do as characters. Sorry -- a 2 star rating to a film that features glamorous actors in unglamorous, unflattering roles, and is absurd in the event to boot.
-
PhantomAgony21 July 2012I absolutely hated The I Inside for numerous reasons, one being how poorly executed it was as well as confusing but the main reason why I thought this movie was utter garbage and worth a mere 2 stars was the fact that once the ending reveals the truth behind the madness of the film it is quite clear that the majority of the plot and movie was contrived and pointless.
The ending of the film brings the realization that Simon Cable (Phillipe) died along with his brother and his brother's fiancé, Claire in a car accident in 2000 and because he can simply not accept what happened and feels responsible for the other deaths, he keeps going back in time in his mind to try and change what happened and save them. The problem? If a character wants to change the events that lead to a deadly accident in 2000, common sense says that the character should awake in the year 2000 right before the accident and well, try to change what happened. Such a concept was too simple for The I Inside so they concocted a completely pointless plot where the character of Simon wakes up in the year 2002 after supposedly being poisoned by his wife, Anna and has no memory of the last 2 years.
Simon is told that his brother died in a car accident in 2000 but he survived. The movie amps up the mystery and intrigue when Simon, while wandering around the hospital somehow finds himself entering the year 2000. He will be walking down the hallway in 2002 and then turn a corner and enter for example the lounge and instead of it being 2002, he's back in 2000 in the same hospital. The movie continually shifts from the year 2002 to the year 2000 and back again in the hospital while simultaneously having Simon return to his home in the year 2000 to try and change events that led to the car accident that in his mind, only killed his brother. The movie also adds the idea that whatever happens to people in the year 2000, will happen to them in 2002 which adds more mystery to the plot. For example, in the year 2000, in the hospital, Simon ends up hallucinating and stabbing someone to death, someone who he saw alive in the hospital in the year 2002, only for that person to then die spontaneously and start bleeding out everywhere in the year 2002.
So... why is the movie so bad? Simple - because NONE of that meant anything to the actual plot once all is revealed at the end. The entire 'time traveling' between the years 2002 and 2000, having things happen to people in 2000 and then have it show up in 2002 was, in the end, pointless and had NOTHING to do with the actual plot of Simon not accepting his death from the car accident in 2000 and wanting to go back in time to try and change the outcome. There is no reason at all why he couldn't have just woken up in 2000. The entire 2002 subplot is 100 percent bullshit and it's that subplot that was the only thing that made the film somewhat mysterious.
As for the answer of why the year 2002, the movie tries to justify that entire plot by making Simon's time of death in 2000, at 20:02 as if that is why he keeps waking up 2 years after the accident and then has to shift between the years 2002 and 2000 but it's weak at best. Clearly, the writers came up with the time traveling concept first and then tagged on that his death was at 20:02 to try and make it not seem contrived and ridiculous that he was randomly waking up 2 years after the accident to try and change events that occurred right before the accident. Failure.
As for my explanation for what happened in the film, there is no doubt that Simon was killed in 2000 and everything in 2002 is an illusion. What solidified it for me was the fact that his father was his doctor in 2002 and the puzzle he was putting together in the lobby turned out to be of a photo of him, his brother and his father that we see at the end at the brother's house.
2 stars - the actual movie is confusing, poorly directed and poorly edited and once you find out that the entire 2002 time traveling to the year 2000 was completely unnecessary, and just a stunt to try and make the film interesting, it's hard to not see it as complete rubbish. -
hoytyhoyty17 August 2014Without spoiling anything, the plot of The I Inside really disappoints me.
But it's still quite watchable. The blending of the stories is very well done. The main cast and supporting cast are excellent. The whole atmosphere is menacing and uncomfortable, in the right kind of way. And it's always nice to see Robert Sean Leonard in something. Even something that falls a bit flat, like this.
Just wish they had sat down and worked it out properly before they started making it.
I'd say watch it if you have nothing else to, it won't wreck your day.
But it could have been so much more. -
herrtiger29 September 2005A Fine Movie, but lacking in story... A puzzle-box movie, similar to rather Butterfly Effect than Memento.
Mostly it turns you on in the beginning, sliding through the story, keeping you thinking - when starts the thrill. Some good moments - similar to the Butterfly Effect.
Sarah Polley reminded me her next movie - My Life Without Me - all the time. It's a pity. Ryan Philippe though had his best presentation yet.
Still worth a look. Liked characters, and it had some style. Not all the answers will be answered, but still most of the points it lost are due to the ending... -
Cesko111431 December 2005The I Inside is a complex movie and while some may dislike it for it's complicating story lines others may just because of it.
When Simon(Ryan Phillippe:Cruel intentions,Gosford Park) awakens in the hospital after a near death experience, amnesia has erased the past two years of his memory. He learns that his brother(Robert Sean Leonard:Drive,Dead Poets Society) was killed, he has married a young women he doesn't remember (Piper Perabo:Cheaper by the dozen,Coyote Ugly)... and he is haunted by mysterious visions of the women whom he loved(Sarah Polly:Dawn of the dead,Go). Soon he starts to uncover the truth behind his brothers death and unravel the unbelievable turns his life has taken! So in my opinion if you enjoyed the movies Identity, The Jacket, and Memento you will probably enjoy this Psychological thriller. -
movieman_kev16 January 2005In 2004, a film was released that starred a 'Pretty Boy' actor going back and forth in his memories and thinking he just may affect the past. That film was "The Butterfly Effect". And while this film certainly feels like that one, this seems to have better acting, while that one had a super high polished, glossy charm. I enjoyed both of them, too bad that this one only got a television premiere (in the States, at least) Whenever I see Sarah Polley, I'm always endlessly fascinated by how much she looks like a girl I know, but that's neither here nor there. I'd recommend this flick.
My Grade: B-
Where I saw it: Encore Mystery -
jpschapira3 October 2006What happens when you go to the cinema to watch "Just My Luck" but it is sold out, and so is "RV" and "United 93", and "The Ant Bully" and, believe it or not, "Curious George" where films you could see earlier? You end up watching "The I Inside". I don't want to write about this movie I don't want to write about this movie. With a lot (a lot) of delay, "The I Inside" has arrived to our cinema theaters.
What on earth went wrong here? I can do some research and find the answer, although if isn't worth the space of my page. Roland Suso Richter, a German director, came to try in Hollywood and directed this picture. He's too stylish for what the viewer is used to see. He invents too much and ends up confusing him (although that's in part fault of the screenplay). What happened to him? He is directing TV in Germany and Hollywood hasn't looked for him in three years.
Writer Michael Cooney Is this the same guy that wrote "Identity"? Is it possible for him to write such a mess as "The I Inside"? Apparently it is, and if you want to save him you could forgive him because the screenplay was adapted from his own play, and as I have said before, a play can be good but it doesn't have to make a good movie. Joined by Timothy Scott Bogart, Cooney takes you inside the world of a man who is able to change the future by changing the past.
I mean, of course the material they had in their hands was interesting; it could have created a cult classic or something everyone would have talked about. But that's not how it went down, and if you try to understand the film, you will get to the bottom of it. There is an explanation; but you're so tired by the time it arrives that you don't want to figure out anything.
Tiring is one of the best words to define "The I Inside"; and it is impossible not to compare it with "The Butterfly Effect", a film where you don't want to get to the end. You've got to compare then because the first one sucks and the latter one is great; because the cast of the first one is way superior to the latter one's
I like Ryan Phillippe is a starring role: I liked "Cruel Intentions" and very much liked "Antitrust". But how can an actor like him not carry a film like this one? How can Ashton Kutcher do it better? Sarah Polley is much more talented than Amy Smart, but the same situation occurred. And Robert Sean Leonard; he is better than the whole 'Butterfly' cast put together And Stephen Rea: he is an Oscar Nominated actor; please!
You can also find Piper Perabo in "The I Inside" but I doubt you'll be interested after all I've said. Forgive me if I'm to harsh, but there are few movies as bad as this one It's the truth. -
ArdentViewer15 January 2014I scanned a few of the other IMDb user reviews before writing my own, and I have the opposite opinion regarding the pace of the film. In the beginning I was somewhat bored and distracted by the cheesy elements of the film - cliché "dramatic" music, etc. I can't quite put my finger on why, but visually the film seemed dated or like a TV movie to me. Maybe it was the coloration or camera angles. Aside from this, I also found myself wondering at least a few times, "what is the point of all this" during the first half of the movie. The plot seemed to be very slow-moving. The time shifts interested me but I wasn't really pulled in by the characters. The acting by some of the non-principal characters was also painful - namely, the nurse.
The second half of the movie more than redeemed itself in my opinion. The action started moving faster and more of the plot was revealed - who Clair truly was, the reason for the animosity between Simon and Anna, etc. I was on the edge of my seat for much of this portion of the movie, as more and more twists and turns were presented and questions were answered. Unlike some other users, I don't have a problem with the ending. It kept me guessing until the last moment and even now, a day later, I'm still not quite sure what the real "truth" is. Was Simon dead the whole time and had been reliving his mistakes over and over, trying to change them? Was it all a dream, fueled by his guilty subconscious? Or is there a different explanation?
I personally love thrillers replete with plot twists that take you in different directions and make you question all of your prior assumptions. The ambiguity in this film allows you to form your own opinions, and fosters thoughts and discussion long after the closing credits. I think the not knowing is part of the fun. To me, the mark of a good film is whether it passes the "rewatch" test. I will be happy to watch this movie again (possibly more than once) to try to piece together the puzzle and to recognize all the clues and hints that had been sprinkled along the way. -
agreaves200820 January 2010This movie showed some potential with time travel and mysterious memory loss, however the plot never really unfolds and the hospital suspense scenes feel totally forced and bland.
None of the characters really develop past the basic storyline which is poor at best, although the acting is OK. Visual effects and the strange time traveling are all it has to offer..
"the I inside" tries hard to be intelligent and mysterious but is ultimately uninteresting but of course you don't find that out until the end of the movie...where you are left scratching your head and disappointed.
AVOID!!! -
BrandtSponseller31 January 2005Simon Cable (Ryan Phillippe) awakens in the hospital after an incident where, at least according to his physician, Doctor Newman (Stephen Rea), he was having convulsions and had to have his stomach pumped. His doctor is worried about him, for reasons that he doesn't specify very well to Simon, but Simon seems okay. At least until Dr. Newman asks him the date. Simon has to look outside his hospital window to even see what season it is, and he says that the year is 2000. It's really 2002. Somehow, he lost two years that he cannot remember. Worse, two different women seem to appear as his wife. The more he tries to figure out what happened, the more of a living nightmare it becomes. Is he losing his mind? The I Inside has him trying to remember his past, solve a number of mysteries, and figure out what is really going on.
That a film like The I Inside has an American release on the Starz! Mystery channel (and not until January 2005), while a film like Alone in the Dark (2005) has a major multiplex release across the country makes as much sense as leaving the Ferrari at home and cruising the strip on a tricycle instead in an attempt to impress the chicks. Even though it has clear stylistic and thematic precursors, The I Inside is a gem of a film that should have had a theatrical release at an earlier date. It ended up as a 10 out of 10 for me.
In a film like this, you can't say much about the plot without providing spoilers. To give you an idea of what the film is like, though, it would be sufficient to cite the other works that the I Inside cast and crew have mentioned as influences--The Sixth Sense (1999), The Others (2001), Donnie Darko (2001), Memento (2000), and perhaps most significantly Jacob's Ladder (1990). There are also a number of similarities to The Butterfly Effect (2004). But as The I Inside and that film were actually completed at about the same time, it seems like another of those too-numerous-for-coincidence eras when there was "something in the air" that led to a number of similar films. It's not that the films are copying from one another so much as that they share influences, ranging from precursor films to concurrent societal concerns and even scripts that are being shopped around.
The structure of The I Inside is complex from the start and increases in complexity as the film plays out. That director Roland Suso Richter is able to keep it as coherent as he does is a remarkable testament to his skill. Phillippe is in almost every shot of the film, as by necessity, we have to see the film as his character does, to piece it together with him. This is the best performance I have ever seen from him, and he's usually good. He has an ability here to turn on a dime and provide a believable character who gradually comes to a realization as he bounces back and forth between temporal settings. It's even more complicated than that, as when he's playing the character in the previous temporal setting, he has to be two characters at once--the character as he was when that temporal setting initially occurred, and the character from the later temporal setting experiencing it again, as a voyeur, while piecing together the puzzle.
Richter also manages an eerie mood of displacement throughout the film. This puts the viewer in a frame of mind similar to Phillippe's character, helping the viewer feel the disorientation and encroaching paranoia and madness along with the character. It works marvelously. It's also worth briefly mentioning the fantastic music by Nicholas Pike, as it does much to enhance the mood.
The I Inside is the perfect example of why originality isn't the most important criterion for a good film. Although it wears its influences on its sleeve (or its hospital gown in this case), this is one of the best films ever made in this horror subgenre. -
luthergreen16 July 20225 minutes with everyone involved and I assure you that no one would play games with anyone ever again Great performances by everyone. Imagine if you had been tricked into being this way by little spoiled boys and girls and had to get the shot in the eye along with many other things. But it's ok now because I solved the mysteries of a lifetime and now the ones who deserves the shot are in the waiting line that reaches out to the cemetery.
-
You know those twilight zone episodes where you are instantly enraptured into the plot and then at the end there is a surprise twist, and all of a sudden the episode come across differently? And you are shocked and awed by what happens..
Well I think the makers of this movie were going for this but instead decided to fire the writer halfway thru and get someone else entirely that could bandage the rest of the plot and jam the contents of their script in with the previous writers story.
It reeks of it. The ending is one of the worst I've ever seen. (SPOILER/ It says hey look we took this amount of time to tell this story and since we have no resolution whatsoever with the characters or the story we are just going to kill the lead off. WTF??!!
It is extremely sloppy and it completely leaves entire script holes that without resolution or at least acknowledgment become Script sinkholes!
Like for instance why is the "dad" shown in the photos at the end the doctor at the beginning? Why does the blackmailing girlfriend have a wound that is freshly bleeding in 2002 from a wound that happened in 2000 In the alternate reality?? /SPOILER)
Arghhhh This is just a frustrating movie in which you think the lead is just psychotic then you learn no it's really you, you are the crazy one who bothered to see this Ryan Phillipe movie! I want my 90 minutes back!