Inconceivable

Dr. Freeman (Colm Feore) runs a fertility clinic in Vegas. Over a weekend, eight out of nine cases deliver a baby. Sally Marsh (Jennifer Tilly) is the only failure but she seduces the doctor. Tutu Williams (Elizabeth McGovern) notices the similarity in the babies and investigates the possible malpractice.

The only thing going for this is the cast. It's filled with interesting actors. The plot moves slowly and story telling is very repetitive. Every step is taken a dozen time. The first step should be DNA tests on the babies but the movie doesn't touch it. The camera and editing style is over-the-top which is ill-fitting for this movie. It's not an action movie. It's some kind of bad flat writing trying to be an experimental thriller. There are interesting tidbits about the clients but it's well into the second hour before it's revealed. When the style doesn't drive you nuts, the pacing would bore you to tears. There is also the ridiculous reveal where unbelievable incompetence is the explanation. When the character can't explain it, the movie has no chance.

and a chaotic result. a film about a delicate problem. without real mistakes because its basic idea seems be an error. a film about an accident. unrealistic. fake. so, only solution to impress is the cast. but it is not enough and, in this case, the pressure to Geraldine Chaplin, Lothaire Bluteau or Colm Feore to do a decent work , to make credible a story who has any sense is almost impossible. the good intention of Mary McGuckian is obvious and , in few scenes, admirable. but that movie is not less an experiment. it is only pure chaos in a too long product , a thriller who represents only seed on rock field. and the most delicate problem is the fragile theme who, in this case seems be ridiculed.

The editing of this movie literally nauseated me. That's the best thing I can say about it.

Inconceivable is not a movie I had heard of before but Jennifer Tilly draws my attention. This production style has ten individuals or pairings of clinic patients interact as a group, and we are invited to watch the story unfold in an asynchronous presentation. The group have an unrealistic conception success rate and a medical review takes the viewers back and forth through several months of these peoples lives.

I found myself often confused where I was in the story and every time the setting changes, the experiences of all ten are displayed. I'm looking for the differences for the differences of feelings or responses from the ten, but mostly wondered why does the movie want me to watch all ten going through basically the same motions. This repetition maybe the only reason the movie is compelling at all.

Ultimately the movie feels like it's 20 minutes too long. The Las Vegas setting feels like a silly place for a fertility clinic unless the satire of the story is trying to make concept of taking a gamble more conspicuous. There is little which is believable about the story, and maybe that was an intention point -- we should be cautious about any technologies involving life and death choices.

While I can't really recommend anyone search out this title, it was a satisfying distraction for an afternoon.

a strange film. because the theme, the tension, the message are good points for a movie who gives questions and propose generous subject for reflection. the only sin is the absence of story. all seems be just improvisation. the theme becomes unrealistic more and more and the fall is predictable. because it is not escape for an exercise who ignore basic , decent details. result - the effort of actors becomes insignificant and the story more than absurd. sure, the good intentions are noble. but, in this case, they are sterile.