The I inside - Im Auge des Todes

There should be another category to describe films that don't exactly fit the accepted genres of horror, supernatural or psychological thriller.

I call it the "Puzzle-Box" genre. Puzzle-Box films challenge you to think and discover the answers, rather than spoon-feeding them to you. Not everyone enjoys that when going to the movies. Classifying a film as a Puzzle-Box would make it easier for that film to find its audience.

THE I INSIDE is one of those films. Others are MULHOLLAND DRIVE, IDENTITY (same writer as THE I INSIDE), JACOB'S LADDER, and many modern Korean films, such as OLDBOY, HYPNOTIZED, TALE OF TWO SISTERS, and the brilliant but obscure SPIDER FOREST. And to a lesser extent, MEMENTO, which is fun on the first watch, but bored me on the second, since no new clues are revealed.

THE I INSIDE give more answers at the end than OLDBOY or MULHOLLAND DRIVE, but it is still a fascinating film.

This is is Ryan Phillippe's most challenging role, and he does an excellent job, but the standout for me was Piper Perabo-- she went through some tricky personality quirks (I'm purposely leaving things vague) which added to the mystery.

Highly entertaining movie, admittedly derivative of old suspense melodramas, full of common places and clichés, but tightly done. I watched it because I liked other works by director Roland Suso Richter, but I was very pleased to also find Ryan Phillippe doing a fine job, with good support from Sarah Polley, Robert Sean Leonard, Piper Perabo, the three Stephens and the rest of the cast in supporting but key roles.

At its core, it is a family drama, an upper-class sibling drama, a tale of betrayal, blackmail, fatal accidents, and apparent insanity: actually more than a "time travel" film, as seen by some, it is a story told simultaneously in planes of the same reality separated by two years, the story of a young man who goes from the year 2000 to 2002, to put together the puzzle in front of him when he forgets his past, after an accident in which he lost his life for a few minutes and was resurrected by a medical team.

The adaptation from stage to film is quite remarkable, I cannot imagine how this was made in theater, and although it relies a lot on the spoken word it is highly attractive from the visual point of view, thanks to the contribution of the cinematography, and the art and design departments. Besides, the score is typical of the ones composed for this kind of suspenseful fantasies, but it effectively helps the evolution of the plot, building tension without overdoing its function. Recommended.

I'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.

Like with Memento, another film dealing with memory loss, it takes some time to get used to the storytelling. The main reason is that no one explains nothing at first... clues come all along the movie up until the end. You're not taken by the hand and shown anything. Like the main character, you're thrown in the story with no real point of reference and it takes some adjusting.

But that's also what makes the movie interesting. The ending can be perceived as weak if you're watching it like a thriller but if you're looking at it from a psychological point of view, it's really impressive what our minds can do and the mysteries still to unlock in our own brains.

The acting is pretty good (except Piper Perabo who is not good enough to be creepy or believable as anything else than a goodie-2-shoes) and the direction is SUPERB.

Don't misunderstand, the tension IS there so you'll get your thrills but it's not a mystery movie so much as a psychological drama about denial and acceptance. In the end that's all there is to it.

Don't take my word for it... check it out as soon as you can.

Here is a film that will keep you wondering just what it's all about. For those who are into such movies, you're in for a treat. The familiar theme of going back to the past to "fix" certain wrongs is offered here with an engaging plot and a bang-up twist.

Simon Cable is a wealthy young man who wakes up in a hospital after some kind of accident in 2002, supposedly due to wood refinishing fumes. We soon learn that he has been in this hospital before, in 2000, which is when his brother Peter was killed. His wife Anna comes to see him but apparently was somehow involved in the cover-up of the truth behind Peter's death. All of this is unknown to Simon, since he has amnesia (or so his doctor thinks) and now believes he has lost two years of his life. It is here that we movie-goers become intrigued, and the attention-grabbing twists do not stop. Who is the blond woman Claire? What is the secret of Simon's brother's death? Why is his doctor unfathomably a pediatrician?

As Simon recovers from his accident, he seems to have flashbacks to 2000, filling the holes in his memory. Or does he? His doctor in 2000 makes a pretty good case that his mind is creating images that Simon feels are actually premonitions of 2002. Confused? Well, so's Simon, and we come to understand the "real" story in bits and pieces, just as Simon does. Eventually, he believes (based on a rather shocking incident during a "flashback" to 2000) that he can go back in time to undo past wrongs and, as in so many other films of this type, things do not go well.

Seen it before, you say? Well, this is a well-wrought presentation of the basic premise, with a possible murder and wife/mistress conflict, some good editing, and more than respectable acting, especially from Ryan Phillipe (Simon), who seems to be blossoming as an actor, or at least is getting better roles. This is a good thing, considering that Phillipe is in every scene, and the other actors all have rather small parts by comparison. Big-name actor Stephen Rea as Doctor Newman is nothing to write home about, but that may partly be because his role is relatively less significant to the total story. The role of Simon's brother Peter, played by Robert Sean Leonard, is even smaller, and Leonard seems to barely walk through it. However, watch for Stephen Graham's portrayal of particularly crabby heart patient Travitt in the year 2000 scenes.

In any event, go into this film with an open mind, and try not to compare it to others of its genre, most recently "The Butterfly Effect." The last few minutes of the film will make you rethink your comparisons anyway and leave you with a new confusion worth discussing at your favorite coffeehouse afterwards.