I Know Who Killed Me

This movie came at the height of Lindsay's legal troubles so it was disregarded as an awful film at the time of release I remember, but I honestly consider this to be one of Lindsay Lohan's best films when it comes to darker and more serious work as an actress minus her comedy and family-friendly roles. For me this film has improved with age. It was not released at a time that it would have been found relevant.

What was partly misunderstood about this film was it was marketed as a serious horror film that was intended to be frightening but instead it is more of a David Lynch and Twin Peaks kind of thing with an ambiguous ending and a mystery / crime storyline more than a horror one.

This film captivates me each time I give it a watch. I would have liked Lindsay to explore more edgy roles in her past career during this time. The ending is quite eerie because it could almost go either way.

I think this film is not as bad as Lindsay's Legal troubles would tell you it is. For someone like myself not looking to hate it, or hate on the actress/actors, I find it an enjoyable crime mystery. One of Lindsay's better roles for a more mature minded audience.

I know some would find it ridiculous anyone could genuinely enjoy this movie. But it is just such a wacky premise and the themes are deliberate. It's competently acted, and the ending that didn't sit well at first, has improved with age.

I think it's unfortunate that audiences didn't appreciate this film, but seeing as it has improved with age, and has kind of a timeless dreamlike quality to it. I would go as far to say this could be considered a cult classic some day. Maybe in 30 years someone else might appreciate this film only at face value.

Look, I have a strong stomach, but I have no use for Torture Porn in my entertainment. A few weeks ago, I saw a preview of this film that gave no indication of it's true nature. This, plus the intriguing poster led me to believe this was going to be a brooding drama in the Hitchcock tradition. Instead, I found myself watching the ugliest, most disgusting film I have ever attended of my own free will. I should have guessed when the cashier gave me a funny look while getting my ticket.

The first thing I realized was the script was by an amateur. The scenes and dialog jumping around with no thought or subtlety. Like other reviewers, I knew who the torturing villain was within the first few minutes. But, I still had to sit through several scenes of dismemberment and pain, which made me sick. Sick that I had spent money to watch this disaster.

I can't imagine why Lindsay Lohan would agree to be in this production. There are other venues to stretch her acting talents. Neal McDonough and Julia Ormond's rent must have been due.

The story, such as it is has at it's core an interesting premise. A top director might have made a respectable film out of it with a total rewrite, without the gore and more atmosphere.

This movie is an absolute, total disaster. No one involved has anything to be proud of.

It's not often that I call a movie terrible, but this was terrible. And, it's too bad, because it could have been better and Lindsay Lohan was really quite good in it. It just seemed like a movie suffering from an identity crisis - trying to be film noir, psychological thriller and gross-out horror flick. It was just way overdone and there were too many holes in the plot. The use of the blue rose petals was so heavy-handed. And, if all that weren't enough, I figured out who the killer was almost from the first moment the character is introduced. Poor Lindsay. All in all, she's not having a very good week. Better luck next time -- if there is one for Lindsay.

This movie was bad. Just bad. It wasn't scary or interesting or even unintentionally funny in the slightest. The acting was so wooden and unbelievable it was like a high school production. The lines were some of the corniest I have ever heard this side of "Stay Alive". The plot made absolutely no sense. I really didn't care who Dakota or the serial killer were or where the Aubrey had gone. This is Screen writing 101: You need to care about the characters! I guess the writer of this movie missed that class.

So much of it was just disgusting, too. Some scenes were so graphic I actually had to turn my head away. For example, where Dakota sews on a bloody and gangrenous finger with a needle and thread, or where the "killer" or whatever puts Aubrey's hands between dry ice and when he pulls them apart her rotting hand is pulled in half. Other repulsive scenes were the ones where Lindsay Lohan was pole dancing at a strip club. It's like the writer couldn't decide which avenue he wanted to take the movie down, gory violent thriller, or a drama/suspense movie, and in the end compromised with a boring, lifeless story with lots of blood and gore.

And what was with all the blue items everywhere? Did the director think he was being "artsy"? The blue computer, the blue curtains, the blue roses, even the knife the killer used was blue! It was not like "The Sixth Sense" with the color red, where it was subtle and if you weren't looking for it you wouldn't notice. Every item was blue, and the whole film looked tinted blue like the director was using a blue filter. That was one of the only things consistent throughout this movie. It was as if the director needed to make certain you couldn't forget which movie you were watching, just in case you nod off for a few minutes or something.

Another irritating thing were the police officers. Honestly, I don't know if the writer/director of this film figured that no one would have the slightest idea of how real cops work, or if they just didn't want to put in the research to find out for themselves, but every scene with the cops was so unbelievable, and the actors portrayed them too like they'd never seen one before. Maybe it was the lines that were poorly written, but they had no emotion! Turn on Law & Order or CSI once and a while and see how cops really talk and what terms they really use. And then they just suddenly inexplicably disappeared for the rest of the movie, like so many other plot holes. Did they solve the case? Did they lose interest? Or was the writer just too lazy or disinterested to fix that particular plot hole? There are so many nonsensical parts to this movie it's just embarrassing.

Towards the end of the movie the "plot" starts unraveling and the ending itself makes absolutely no sense, and you really don't care to make sense of it, you just want it over! I guess there's an alternate ending that might shed some more light on this, but I haven't seen it and all I have to go off of was the movie I saw in theaters. I wasn't able to figure out if Dakota was just made up or if she was real, and by the end all I cared about was leaving the theater.

I thought this was a pretty good thriller, with some decent acting by Lohan and whoever played her mother and a killer soundtrack. The cinematography is probably what kept me so interested in the movie though. Lots of powerful imagery, reoccurring themes, and leitmotifs. The use of red and blue colors to distinguish between the two girls was kind of neat. Dark humor was abound—this was unexpected but welcomed. Also, yes, there was a hairless cat in the movie which a lot of people seemed freaked out by. But seriously, the cat didn't shave itself and I can think of a lot worse things than an animal lacking hair. The smelly man sitting next to me in the theater with super long toenails, for example. I don't know why people get so disgusted by anything that is simply DIFFERENT!!