NOTE IMDb
6,0/10
12 k
MA NOTE
Un amnésique essaie de retracer son passé pour découvrir la vérité entre 2000 et 2002 à mesure que lui reviennent des fragments de souvenir.Un amnésique essaie de retracer son passé pour découvrir la vérité entre 2000 et 2002 à mesure que lui reviennent des fragments de souvenir.Un amnésique essaie de retracer son passé pour découvrir la vérité entre 2000 et 2002 à mesure que lui reviennent des fragments de souvenir.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Ryan Phillippe
- Simon Cable
- (as Ryan Phillipe)
Magdalena Manville
- Female Resident
- (as Magdelena Manville)
Avis à la une
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.
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.
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.
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.
Evidently The I Inside is not due for release in the UK until 2005, but Frightfest in London screened this on 28 August 2004.
This starts off very promising, with Ryan Phillippe's character Simon Cable regaining consciousness in the year 2002 and again in 2000, not entirely sure what he has been doing with his life during the two intervening years. The first couple of "switches" between time-lines succeeded at dis-orientating and jolting the audience admirably, but after some meandering, the "switches" become relatively tedious and gratuitous, and I felt that they did little to further the plot.
The periphery characters all do a sterling job at providing a sense of unease (Piper Perabo is pretty outstanding), but after Simon has "switched" years several times, I found it difficult to retain my attention. By the final denouement, I was past caring, and noticed only with a passing interest that the ending was incredibly similar to another memory-loss psychological thriller from the mid-nineties.
Perhaps I just watched too many films of this sort for my own good? If only I had suffered my own personal memory loss and forget The Butterfly Effect and Jacob's Ladder, then perhaps I would have enjoyed this more.
This starts off very promising, with Ryan Phillippe's character Simon Cable regaining consciousness in the year 2002 and again in 2000, not entirely sure what he has been doing with his life during the two intervening years. The first couple of "switches" between time-lines succeeded at dis-orientating and jolting the audience admirably, but after some meandering, the "switches" become relatively tedious and gratuitous, and I felt that they did little to further the plot.
The periphery characters all do a sterling job at providing a sense of unease (Piper Perabo is pretty outstanding), but after Simon has "switched" years several times, I found it difficult to retain my attention. By the final denouement, I was past caring, and noticed only with a passing interest that the ending was incredibly similar to another memory-loss psychological thriller from the mid-nineties.
Perhaps I just watched too many films of this sort for my own good? If only I had suffered my own personal memory loss and forget The Butterfly Effect and Jacob's Ladder, then perhaps I would have enjoyed this more.
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.
This 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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesChristian Slater (as Peter), Stephen Dorff (as Simon Cable), and Jennifer Love Hewitt (as Anna Cable) were originally set to star.
- GaffesDr. Newman refers to Simon's two-year amnesiac memory gap as "short-term memory loss". Short-term memory is measured in seconds, not years.
- Citations
[first lines]
Doctor Newman: Easy. Diazepam, 5 milligrams. Easy now, Mr. Cable. You're going to be fine. You're just having a nightmare.
- ConnexionsReferences La Machine à explorer le temps (1960)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is The I Inside?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 8 800 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut mondial
- 72 962 $US
- Durée
- 1h 30min(90 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant