Recensioni degli utenti

A stunning film. Thought-provoking, funny and engaging. The opening credits pulled me and I was left breathless at the end. The cinematography is amazing, and works extremely well with the plot. Some plot summaries have made the storyline sound like Sliding Doors, but it is a wholly different movie. Possible Worlds deals with several issues (the main one being alternate lives) and has many sub-plots, all of which fall together wonderfully. Go for the eye-candy, the philisophical dialouge, the acting, the directing or the plot--but see it!

As its title suggests, "Possible Worlds" is a film about the possibility of infinite parallel worlds, but if you're expecting some kind of Hollywood-style CGI extravaganza, you've come to the wrong place: it is a low-budget Canadian film and the special effects are minimal. Nevertheless, it invites you to soak in its dreamy, fluid images. As he proved in his writing-directing debut, "Le Confessionnal", Robert Lepage is a wizard especially at scene transitions. Both films are ambitious and interesting, if not 100% successful. But, as an old saying goes, sometimes an ambitious "failure" is preferable to a safe "success". Tilda Swinton is captivating, as always. **1/2 out of 4.

Think "The Matrix" deconstructed into a rainy day mood piece with a side of philosophical brain-teasers and zero kung fu. Turns out this predates Neo's bullet ballet. But yeah, ditch the slo-mo. What you get is this super understated, rainy detective yarn, less about whodunit, more about what even is "it" when someone's had their grey matter evicted. And the movie kicks off with exactly that: brain, meet apartment floor. Nice and bleak.

Now, I was chatting with this friend, a hardcore time-loop sci-fi devotee and her verdict on Possible Worlds? Let's just say it wasn't a rave. "Arthouse hell" was the phrase she kept repeating. But me? I've got a soft spot for the cinematic oddballs. And this film? It's definitely an oddball. Tom McCamus and Tilda Swinton operate on this whole other plane. They're not exactly "acting"; they're more like beautifully lost souls wandering through a very cerebral labyrinth, somehow making the disjointed feel... right. Robert Lepage, who directed this, might've accidentally stumbled into his most underrated work here. It some of the best and seriously ingenious filmmaking that prioritizes the grey matter over CGI, all held together by these subtly powerful performances.

Also, the rainy visuals and Peter Gabriel's score, they create this pervasive sense of melancholy that sticks with you. And Tilda Swinton? She's like a magnetic anomaly. Always on the verge of either a profound revelation or a complete emotional breakdown, delivered with this incredibly touching restraint. You can't help but feel the story might have resonated even more if she'd been front and center.

I appreciate what Lepage is attempting here, trying to give tangible form to these big, abstract ideas through the lives of his characters. As a writer myself, I get the urge to make the invisible world of thoughts feel concrete. He does it with this quiet, almost hesitant touch. The film's power lies in what it doesn't scream, letting something more profound seep in after the fact. It's got this lingering quality, makes you mentally rewind everything you just witnessed. That's when it started to click for me, anyway.

Even if it's a bit flavorless in stretches, Possible Worlds hits you with this stark, almost clinical honesty. There are some truths buried in there that might surface on a second viewing, or maybe in some alternate version of your own existence. It's possible, if you're willing to embrace the weird.

Interesting idea for a film that I hoped would have been better...philosophical and poetic but a bit superficial.

Canada is famous for making quality films on low budgets. They seldom come up with a Gone With the Wind, but they have many more hits than misses, which is more than can be said for Hollywood and most other countries.

In this film Robert Lepage directs a captivating Tilda Swinton and a mysterious Tom McCamus as two people who meet each other on several occasions, but in different lives. This is an interesting concept, but one that is difficult to create for the writer. The script is vague, as is the plot, at times, and this is perfectly understandable, considering the impossible task of capturing unlimited worlds with unlimited lives.

See the film for yourself, and decide which world you think is the real one, and which ones are the imaginary ones.

You will know in the first ten minutes if this film is for you or not. Possible Worlds explores themes of the mind in a science-fiction setting. A man seems all knowing at the start of the film, and impresses his interviewers by quickly calculating the solution to several complex problems posed to him, all without a calculator. Later we find out he is not super intelligent, but retains memories from all his other selves in parallel universes. I suppose at least one of his alternate selves must have gone through the interview already, so he just pulls on that memory.

He also explores a relationship with the same woman, who is strikingly different in each of the parallel worlds. In one, she is loving and compassionate, in another scattered and distant. The story is never showy, gimmicky, or clichéd, unlike what we have come to expect from Hollywood.

Visually, there are not many films better than this. Each scene is so beautiful it's almost as though every inch of the scene was meticulously composed by hand. Some scenes lingered without dialogue, and I wanted them to stay longer just so I could appreciate the scene more. The film leaves a definite mood long after the credits end.

This film was quite strange to watch. Everything felt off from the dialog, to the scene transitions, and the clothes. You could say it was intentional but it doesn't feel like it was. It was as if the actors hated one another and had zero chemistry but had agreed to complete the filming. There is just a strange tempo to the whole thing where it feels like listening to a record where the needle keeps jumping randomly and you can never quite get into it.

Like others have said over the years there are other films that portray these concepts better elsewhere. What makes this film unique is it tries to do them all at once. There is a bit of Lynch, attempted scene transitions like you'd see in the 2006 movie The Fall, and the philosophical elements on consciousness as discussed in the other reviews.

I don't really know what else to say other than this movie feels like a big miss. It still made me think about the elements portrayed in the film and it made me want to go back and revisit similar films from the 90s and early 2000s.

This film while being a low budget indy work stinks of quality. Some of the camera shots feel like paintings presented within the story. Light and colour are very well used. The story well... check it out. It may force you to watch it twice but it's worth it. I run a small film watching group for eight or nine friends, we watch a film selected by different member each week with no vetos, this gives us an eclectic mix of movies. Of course it is becoming a point of pride to please and impress the group with your choice. Possible worlds has been one of the best finds from the group and I am very grateful to have been shown it. Thanks Ben

Robert Lepage takes an intriguing, clever premise and then steadfastly refuses to develop it for what seems a very long time, finally offering a resolution that follows the path of least interest. I cannot think of any element of this movie that has not been done better elsewhere, or a single compelling reason to see this film instead of any other. Take special pains to avoid this movie if you have seen one or more of: Dark City, Lost Highway, Groundhog Day, or Brain Dead (the Bill Pullman / Bill Paxton one). If you have it will only frustrate you to see such similar ideas, done so well elsewhere, done so poorly here. If you have not seen those movies, see them instead of this one. If you want to see a good Tom McCamus movie, rent "I Love a Man in Uniform". If you want a good Tilda Swinton movie, rent "Orlando". If you're interested in Robert Lepage, see any other Robert Lepage movie (but especially "Le Confessional"). If you want a good Genie-nominated movie, see "Maelstrom" or "waydowntown" or "New Waterford Girl".

Lepage treats his ultimately flimsy story with the naive glee of someone who has never read any science fiction, ever, or even seen a decent Star Trek episode. Like many previous non-SF artists who have done SF, they believe the sheer novelty of an odd premise can sustain an entire narrative while they concentrate on peripheral things like clever scene changes and convincing their actors to behave like zombies. This makes for a dreary, self-important film made only worse by its utter lack of necessity. The poster's nice, though.

Possible Worlds played yesterday at the Vancouver International Film Festival to a packed theatre. From the opening credits onward, I was completely absorbed in this film. Possible Worlds moves between being shocking, romantic, eerie, and funny. And not only is this film very entertaining, it also gets you thinking about some pretty weighty ideas - like what it means to live, and the infinite possibilities of life. If you love movies that make you think while they entertain you, go see this film!

Tom McCamus gives his best performance to date. And Tilda Swinton is perfect in the role of Joyce - her best since 'Orlando'!

but a poor execution. Too bad, the main premise is one with real possibilities, however the acting is very bland, the whole movie dry, and I can easily see most people turning it off before the conclusion (which is the best part!)

Possible Worlds is a low budget independent film by French director Robert Lepage, it is a surreal murder mystery which appears to have been made primarily to explore several different philosophical notions. It begins with two detectives arriving at the scene of a crime, the victim George Barber (Tom McCamus) has been murdered and his brain removed from his body. We then meet George Barber, alive and well. Since he was a boy, it turns out, George has had the ability to switch between different Possible Worlds at will. The love of his life is played by Tilda Swinton and we follow George in several different worlds meet the different versions of her and try to woo them all. In one world she is a shy scientist, in another she is a confident business woman. What makes these very different women the same person? Well, thats partially what the film is about. Simultaniously we follow the detectives as they hunt down George's missing brain and meet a mad scientist who experiments with extracted animal brains (Gabriel Gascon).

The 'Possible Worlds' from which this film takes its name is a concept of contemporary philosophy, it is a method of discussing the nature of possibility and necessity. Instead of saying "I might have gone to the shops", one says "there is a possible world in which I went to the shops". This allows for greater clarity of discussion about the nature of possibility. One of the more eccentric lines of thought in philosophy is idea that Possible Worlds actually exist (technically they only possibly exist, but every possibility is an actuality for that possibility... yes, this is the simplified way of discussing it!). The concept is very similar to the quantum mechanics notion of multiple/parallel dimensions, as explored in a great deal of science fiction, and is the central premise of this film.

The film can be best described as a cross between Darren Arranofsky's Pi and the cult sci-fi Primer. In places it is distinctly Lynchian, such as this dream sequence (which is the only part of the film available on youtube, there isn't even a trailer) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7odlad7TOc Although the film isn't particularly complex (and it isn't as deliberately convoluted as Primer which, although enjoyable, tries too hard to make its dialogue impenetrable) following George through the various worlds and tying the different plot strands together does require the audience to concentrate.

For a student of modern philosophy or a person fairly well read in the subject, this film will be highly enjoyable. While it contains slightly heavy handed brain-in-a-vat allusions, the film primarily focuses on discussions of identity and possibility. Many different ideas are brought in regarding the nature of consciousness, evolutionary development of the mind, and physical embodiment and the film makes no attempt to give simple or easy answers to these. However, for somebody not read in such areas, the film is likely to be frustratingly dull and pointless. The film does not try to overly explain or reduce these notions: such an attempt would be pointless anyway, it is dealing with some of the most difficult material ever written, 5 minutes of exposition isn't going to benefit anyone. But all of the films dialogue is very clear and simple and it never throws in unnecessary technical terms (like Primer) or tries to fool its audience. In spite of this, I do fear its subject matter will alienate many viewers.

This dichotomy is perhaps best seen in the film's ending (which I wont reveal here). The film has a sad, melancholic ending, in which the story's plots come together and the characters journeys receive closure. This is good, and it does mean even somebody unfamiliar with the concepts it is exploring can still enjoy the film. But at the same time, it could appear to be wrapping up profound questions with an overly simplistic conclusion. The ending of the film is good, but I think to truly appreciate the film is to realise that (as with many great films) its conclusion is in fact the least important aspect of it.

Possible Worlds is an excellent film with a very niche audience; it is to philosophy as Primer is to science. It contains enough surreal imagery and dark, dry humour for any audience member to enjoy, and I should of course point out that reading philosophy is by no means necessary for somebody to understand or engage with philosophical concepts, any more than one needs to be an art scholar to enjoy good art. But its target audience, as the name suggests, is those who are directly familiar with the material that this film is exploring, and if you are a fan of David Lewis, Wittgenstein, Kant or Descartes then this film really is essential viewing.

Very interesting.Thought provoking.Surprising. Philosopical mystery, that touches the very essence of our existence: "I think and therefore I exist". The brain/mind is everything, and all the world that we "sense" is created inside it by stimuli that may be of false origins.

Throughout the film I was reminded of Krysytof Kieslowski's superb films "The Double Life Of Veronique" and "Three Colours Red" and its bugging me why. In parts the music reminded me of the soundtrack to "The Big Blue". I think the trick this film does well is to start the viewer off speculating about maybes, what-ifs and connections. I don't think its a great film but I like to think that if I was Niels Bohr, I'd probably imagine that the film only existed when I collapsed its wave function, if I was Hugh Everett III I'd think it would be a lot better seen in another universe and if I was Albert Einstein I'd reject the whole premise of the film on the grounds that God does not play dice.

As Kieslowski said when asked what "Red" was all about - "Watch it and decide for yourself".

This had the making of an excellent film, but ends up being totally confusing. Rather than being the thinking man's "Groundhog Day" in which the lead character gets better and better at everything he does through infinite practice, we see here a bloke who claims to have had a billion lovers and to have travelled extensively backing it up with very little. Like the Bill Murray character in the 1993 comedy, he is pursuing one woman, but that is where the similarity ends. In fact, the film begins with his murder, and it ends with, well, yes, he was definitely murdered, but have we been watching a murder hunt, an astral adventure, or a dream sequence for the past ninety minutes? The film has a decent soundtrack, but when you've said that, you've said it all.

This is a beautiful film with a plot that keeps you thinking and guessing. It handles very big issues concerning the human soul, existence and the mind.

The movie is filmed very nicely. The cinematography is great, like every single scene has been thoroughly thought through. The movie it self has an easy going nature. You simply enjoy watching it as you at the same time wonder about the big questions rising in your mind.

The actors are wonderful and captivating. Especially Tilda Swinton dominates the screen with bright red hair and piercingly black eyes. Tom McCamus is very good too. When you add a phenomenal soundtrack to the equation you get a ravishing experience all together.

Here is a film that will give food for thought and will also do it gently, at the same time caressing your eyes and ears with beautiful cinema and music.

A group of friends and I bought this film as a joke, namely because it has the title 'possible worlds' a title that hints at being concerned with David Lewis' modal realism. However, we endeavoured to watch it objectively and without philosophical prejudice. The result: one of the most painful 90 minutes of our lives.

A film cannot be termed 'deep' or 'thought provoking' merely in virtue of having excruciatingly long pauses in it, or a main character who stares into space constantly. Whoever wrote this clearly has no knowledge of philosophy beyond the opening lines of Wittgenstein, Descartes, and dare I say Lewis (although I doubt the writer had even heard of Lewis as this is such a car crash of an attempt to deal with possible worlds). This film is not deep, nor does it address big, or weighty, philosophical ideas. It fails to be entertaining, and it is not particularly well filmed. The acting is stilted, and the dialogue, where it exists, is dreadful.

Overall review 1/10. Do not watch this film if you have any background in philosophy, you will be offended. All I can say is I'm glad the late great David Lewis probably never saw this.

This is a deeply philosophical, emotional, and surrealistic film about a theory in physics known as 'the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics', a theory originated by Hugh Everett (1930-1982), a physicist who has now become famous long after his early death. That, at least, is the scientific basis of the film, the film itself being a highly dramatic multi-story showing the same two people enacting their relationship in multiple strands of a continuously splitting universe. It is based on a play by John Mighton, who also wrote the screenplay. He is a mathematician, and has also written several plays and books. This was apparently the first 'alternative universe' film. Another and more extended portrayal of the multiple universe theory within a dramatic context is found in the long-running series made several years later, FRINGE, 2008, although it only had one alternative universe, and is therefore better therefore described as a parallel universe series; see my review. The two lead characters here are played by Tilda Swinton, who as usual is brilliant and intensely dramatic, and Tom McCamus, who perfectly under-plays his multiple roles with an air of multiple-world-weariness. Yes, it seems that one can be world-weary in several worlds at once. The cares of those worlds certainly do seem to hang from him like draperies. The film is directed by the highly sensitive Robert Le Page, a Canadian director who can intuit the slightest twinges of human emotion with the precision of an earthquake detector. He intentionally makes the film drama surrealistic, to highlight the theme. And he uses some very unusual camera movements. For instance, just simply showing us a sign direction in an office, he dollies the camera straight at it from a distance until it is in closeup, as if he were attacking it. And that only lasts two or three seconds and he instantly cuts away to the action. The film is full of such visual surprises. In fact, the opening shot of the film is of a caretaker washing a large window early in the morning with a spectacular yellow sunrise behind him. Le Page really is an inspired film creator, not just an ordinary director. It took a lot of courage to put a heretical idea in physics on screen. But it works. Of course there are some people who hate the film because it is not their sort of thing. They think it's all just one big pretentious yawn. Fine. I don't wish to run them down, merely to point out that maybe they should be playing Candy Crush instead. This film is really trying to tell us something. Hugh Everett was the Ph. D. student of John A. Wheeler, one of America's most brilliant scientists of the 20th century. I knew Wheeler and even discussed Everett with him. I can assure viewers that this film has an impeccable scientific pedigree. It is not just some science fiction idea cooked up as a fantasy. There are very serious scientists such as David Deutsch who genuinely believe that the timelines of our lives are continuously splitting into an infinite number of alternative and co-existing worlds. We are alive in some and dead in others. This film shows the same two characters having varying relationships in several of them simultaneously, cutting back and forth between them. The catch is that the character George Barker, played by McCamus, differs from everybody else in that he is consciously aware of the multiple versions of himself, which is a form of torment for him. Swinton vaguely senses her other selves but never really gets to grips with what it all means. This is just about the most unusual film, from the point of view of its underlying theme, that you will ever see. And do try to see it, if only to experience multiple universes.

I watched this years ago and didn't grasp the subleties. I watched it again because I remembered liking it. I was absolutely blown away by it. This time I appreciated the sound to begin with, it's so easy and gentle on the ears. The power of it is so subtle that you hardly notice that you are being swept away into a dreamlike reality or should I say travelling through multiple realities. I can't think of any recent movie that has even been near to the quality of this one in production and direction. Every visual is a work of art, every nuance takes you deeper. It's a love story but with none of the usual seediness. It has shocking moments of horror, so subtle that curiousity overides sensitivity. It's scifi as you are swept away, travelling between realities. You are drawn into the mystery in anticipation for the pieces to come together. There are unexpected moments of pure philosophical wisdom, concepts of the one moment, limitation of our own consciousness. I'm so glad it received the awards that it deserved. I know it's 18 years since it was released but fhs it should be rated among the very best, so I was motivated to give it a 10. I write this a few days after seeing it for the second time and that in itself says it all.

Science Fiction is hooey, and so too is multi-dimensionality, which is, from what I've heard, the latest theoretical craze in philosophy. These elements may be highlighted in "Possible Worlds"; they can be used to categorize the film. I, contrarily, would rather not fix my viewpoint on "Possible Worlds" while referring to film texts (science fiction), or to texts of philosophy (multi-dimensionality).

I enjoyed Possible Worlds as a whole, and my explanation of what made it enjoyable is inexact. There was a unearthly mood to it, a friction of impossible magnitudes. And then there was the score. Peter Gabriel's contribution mystified "Possible Worlds," a necessity, we may say in hindsight. The film's captured images similarly aided mystification. I didn't at all get the feeling the director was slipping in pictures from a "nature calendar." It seemed "Possible Worlds'" imagery was that of solitary reflection, they were of the detached mind, when memory overrules whatever continuity we're surrounded by. Individuals sat alone, in their minds.

I suppose "Possible Worlds" isn't an everyman's film. And it should not be. It should not find a category whereby it becomes easily approachable.