Now the subject of a UK-based reality TV show, as talent scouts look for stars to play the leads in a new stage production, "Grease" is probably the definitive high-school movie musical. It's energy and light-heartedness has endeared it to generation after generation of fans.

Danny (John Travolta) is an LA high-school student who has a brief summer affair with Sandy (Olivia Newton-John), a beautiful Australian girl. When the summer's over, Danny returns to school at Rydell High and the company of his gang The T-Birds and their girlfriends the Pink Ladies. When Sandy unexpectedly turns up at his school, it leads to a complicated, comic romantic journey...

The movie should not work: the plot is flimsy and clichéd, nearly everyone is a walking stereotype and the cast of high-school students are played by twenty/thirty somethings. They should all look stupid up there, but they don't.

There are three main reasons for this: first off is the catchy and outrageously memorable music: "Summer Nights", "You're the One that I Want" and "Greased Lightning", to name but three, every song in the film has enough snap to get you singing and dancing. The use of stereotypes in the movie actually works: I don't think I know another movie with so many distinctive and memorable characters: from the romantic leads Danny and Sandy, and minor characters like brainless jock Chisholm and hyperactive supernerd Eugene, each one makes its mark.

In today's world, with online communities like Friends Reunited and Bebo connecting people with their old schoolmates, the use of adults to play teenagers might actually strike a chord. The lighthearted and affectionate friendships in the T-Birds and Pink Lady Gangs, are played with a lot of humour and honesty, and will almost certainly bring out nostalgic feelings in the older members of its audience.

This is why, for many people, "Grease" is still the word.


Nirmal Kirtisinghe, I agree with you this is one TOP happy musical! I didn't like it as much as you did Nirmal, but I enjoyed it like you for the songs, happiness and for the fact that there are no unnecessary twists.

Everyone should see it, even if they don't enjoy it afterwards. It's also a good introduction for the teenager world!

Two teenagers called Sandy and Danny spend their summer together and are sad when they have to leave each other. However, when they realise they are at the same high school, things take a turn for the best - or for the WORST..?

I recommend this for people who like good musicals, teenage life, being cool and (like you Nirmal said) happiness! :) :)


I have been a avid Royal watcher since I was a little boy. And in fact I remember gathering around a portable TV to watch the wedding of Charles and Diana with my family while we where camping. From what I can say about this movie is that it gives us more of a background into Charles' relationship with Camilla and their undying love for each other. However it barely scratches the surface of Diana's story and the hell she faced with in the Royal "firm". While this movie is a good starting place for those unfamiliar with the history of the current royal family to get the entire picture you really need to get your hands on a copy of the movie " Diana: Her True Story " starring Serena Scott Thomas as the Late Pincess of Wales.

The actors all fit the roles that they play well and this is a watchable and entertaining movie start to finish. Definitely worth the time take to watch it...


This is a curiosity piece for those who are royal watchers. It details the story of the relationship of Camilla Parker Bowles and Prince Charles. For some reason, it came out choppily edited and one scene jumped a bit too abruptly to the next. The actors playing the main roles tried hard but Charles came out looking like a social misfit (seemingly the only woman who took to him, according to this film, were Lady Diana and Camilla--actually he had serious relationships). Camilla comes out looking like a tea and sympathy type (what about it dearie) who takes Charles in and has a long term relationship with him. The actress playing Diana is a total miscast. All she has is the hairdo, but she cannot convey or channel Diana. For one thing, she is quite wooden, too mature for the part of a starry eyed nineteen year old and the other she is all wrong physically and facially for the part. Charles towers over her which is quite jarring. In reality, Charles and Diana were about the same height, she being quite tall. There are factual errors, the most blatant being when Camilla tells Charles Princess Caroline is a prospect and probably still a virgin (this takes place in Fall 1979 when Caroline was married about a year to Philippe Junot). Also, Charles' other significant other Lady Kanga is completely left out; she had a major role in his life around the seventies and early eighties. This is a once see for those who enjoy movies about royals. For others, it's best to avoid.


Once again, no listing of the music. Does anyone know what was the opening music, in the first minute or so? I'm sure I have heard it in another movie.

As for the film itself, the general script/storyline is so well known, certainly to anyone living in the UK, that the interest could only be sustained in obscure details -eg what do the royal apartments look like; and does HRH always wear a tie at home. The only snippets that I found of interest concerned details of princess Anne's personal life. Her character, as depicted, did not correspond to the popular image of her. I wonder, was is fact or fiction?.

As for the family, we saw something of Anne, of Uncle Dickie and a brother or two -and that was about it (oh, and a note delivered from Papa).

I am thinking of instituting communications by notes in our household, with my sons. But i would have to rely on the cat to deliver them.

And the music---if anyone knows, please help....


I really liked the performances by the actors who portrayed Charles and Camilla, & also the actress they chose to portray Diana was very convincing in that role as well, so casting was very good. I don't know how accurate the film was, as I don't keep up with celebrity gossip and haven't read any of the biographies on Prince Charles or the Charles/Diana/Camilla situation, but I enjoyed this film. I look forward to seeing more films featuring actor Lawrence Fox. I recognized him as the actor who portrayed a German pilot in the BBC series "Island at War." He really humanizes Prince Charles in this film, I think overall it is a very flattering portrayal, although I don't really like how he and Camilla took advantage of Diana's innocence and youth, they really ruined her life. I gave the film 8 stars instead of 10, because I generally don't like these tell-all types of stories based on celebrity dirty laundry, but it was a good film with good acting; enjoyable overall.


I was really looking forward to watch this when it aired during Christmas 2005. I am not a fan of Charles and Camilla at all, but for some reason I have always found the Royals a fascinating family to follow. Their lives seems to be like one long running soap opera and of course when it comes to scandals this one takes the biscuit.This program was meant to make the public symphasise with Camilla, but instead really shows her up. In the film she has the portrayal of a very rich but cheap tart who seemed to constantly lead Charles along and then let him down. When they first meet they both know that they have something special, but before long when Charles is off in the navy she gets engaged with hardly any thought. Next she gets pregnant, but they still can't stay away from each other. There are bits when Camilla seems to feel sad and cry, but that dosen't match her actions. They both agree that he needs to marry someone. Camilla personally takes on the job to find a young, sweet, naive virgin while she and Charles can see each other without her suspecting much. There is a horrible over whelming sense of betrayal and the thought that they are going to ruin someones life forever, especially Camilla finds a house for him and Diana to live in - that is 20 minutes away from her. Also in the scene where Camilla tells Diana not to hunt, so she can be alone with him is very calculating. You want Diana to run away when she confronts him about her fears of his adultery before the wedding, but you know she isn't going to. At the end Camilla and Charles are tearful that he is going to be married, but this still dosen't make them nicer people to feel sorry for, because of what they are doing. It was a very watchable and thrilling programme, you forget that you know exactly what is going to happen.


I watched this movie because there was really nothing else on at the time, but I found myself enjoying it. The actors were good at portraying the ultra proper manner of the English aristocracy. I had heard the story of Charles and Camilla before, but this movie brought it home to me. It makes me understand why Prince Charles would go through everything he has endured to be with her.

Unfortunately, I was unable to watch the end of the movie, I had to leave right as Camilla offered to find Charles a wife. I was one of the people who watched as much of the Royal Wedding as I could and I watched the coverage of Prince Charles marriage to Camilla and as such, I wish I could have seen the rest, especially his relationship with Princess Diana.


I started watching this with some scepticism, fully expecting it to be another soapy royal saga, but to my astonishment found it sensitively written and surprisingly perceptive. It didn't fall into the trap of being royal "spin" or the equally easy trap of being cheaply sensationalist - it just tried to understand what happened between the young Charles and Camilla without making glib judgements. As a result it was touching and funny and wholly absorbing, and in the end extremely moving.

The actors playing Charles and Camilla were excellent, helped by some of the best dialogue I've heard in ages - effortlessly witty at one moment, direct and emotional the next. And never ever falsely sentimental. Many congratulations to all concerned.


That's right, my girlfriend turned to me in the movie and said, "I think BarbWire was better than this." Her opinion and mine seemed to carry through to the whole audience in the advance screening we went to last night. The audience was laughing at the horrible acting, terrible script and crap camera work.

Specifics: Lohan works in a strip club where women are topless, yet she never takes the top off and even in sheer bra has pasties on (or were the pasties on top of the bra?). I could care less about seeing her naked, but if you are playing a stripper you might have to at least imply nudity with well placed hands.

Someone decided to inject humor into the movie into the most awkward places. The biggest problem was trying to figure out why people were laughing more during the "serious parts" than the "funny parts".

Characters come in, spout some wisdom and disappear behind a rock like the Dungeon Master. I have a feeling that they are supposed to be angels, maybe God himself?

The twists in the movie are tough to swallow. I will not even come close to ruining them, they are not even worth ruining. Someone thought they could write a M. Knight script, but failed.

Overall, this movie would be worth a rental from the dollar kiosk at the grocery store, as long as everything else is sold out. I am glad I got in for free. If you do decide to spend money to see this movie, send me the cash instead, I will then hit you in the groin, you will enjoy it more.


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.


I went into this movie with a friend thinking it would be a cheesy, fun horror movie - just a good way to pass the time on a rainy day.

Oh god, was I wrong.

It's as if the director spent the film's entire budget acquiring Lindsay Lohan and disregarded everything else. EVERYTHING within this film is bad - the scary parts aren't scary (or even remotely suspenseful), the dialogue is awful, the acting is questionable at best, and, I am very sorry to say that Lindsay Lohan's stripping/ sex scenes were not sexy at all. On top of everything else, the killer was obvious and the plot didn't even make a whole lot of sense. Even the quality of film used is inferior to the type normally used (yes, you can tell).

Some films are so bad they're good. This film was just SO BAD.

Don't wait for the DVD. Just don't watch it.


My friend won tickets to a pre release showing of this movie in Boston. I went into the theater with absolutely no idea what it would be about and with no preconceived notions. I left the theater feeling confused and thankful that I hadn't actually paid to see it.

This film takes every thriller movie cliché in the book and slathers it on ad nauseam. I'm not opposed to a good cliché thriller movie, but at some point it becomes comical. The plot was extremely contrived and had enough holes to fill the Royal Albert Hall. Perhaps the scenes explaining the plot ended up on the cutting room floor in favor of some of the more grotesque and gratuitous gore scenes (of which there were plenty). The film's twist, one so ludicrous even the most die-hard Lohan films will giggle, is pulled directly from left field after a seemingly magical epiphany by the film's main character. The filmmakers thrown in a plethora of minor characters with undeveloped and unresolved story lines in an attempt to "throw off" the audience. Nevertheless, not ten minutes into the film, I, along with the others I was with, had successfully predicted the antagonist.

The final thirty minutes of the film was a non-stop laugh riot. The packed theater of varying demographics was rolling in the aisles as cliché after hackneyed cliché flew off the screen in rapid succession to hilarious results. I joked to the person beside me that I hadn't laughed as hard since the first time I saw "Borat".

Stylistically, the movie is a film school student's wet dream rife of "artsy" shots and recurring motifs. Unfortunately, for the audience, this does little to redeem from the film's most blaring flaw: it's entire premise.

It's difficult to fairly critique the film's actors given what they had to work with. I can say that Lohan's performance seemed rather bland and stale throughout, as though in the back of her mind she knew the movie was trite and looked at it more as a paycheck than a serious mark on her resume.

Aside from the occasional, "I almost died laughing when....", I heard scarcely a good comment in the lobby after the film. As a horror-comedy this film might have actually been good, but as a thriller it missed the mark entirely.


Really, it could have.

My personal opinion of Lohan aside, this movie - like others (Dead Silence for one) relied heavily on effects that at times, become quite distracting. Some of the shots in the film are beautiful, but the use of blue is really overdone, some of the special effects are lacking, and some of the weapons are just ridiculous (The big blue glass knife? Are you kidding me?). Whether you see symbolism in the use of colour depends on the viewers mindset - But even so, the use of blue is just overwhelming at times. This is probably the point - but it starts to distract from the plot.

The acting is alright. For the most part, Lohan does a good job. The parents aren't very convincing, and at times the dialog becomes stale, and somewhat corny.

However, the movie is easy enough to follow that people who don't like complex horror films can sit back, and enjoy the ride. If you do prefer a bit more mystery, you'll have this figured out about halfway through, and the end will seem to drag. The big plot twist at the end was original enough, however for me it seemed like a cop out. It works fine, it's just not quite as exciting as it could have been. Kind of left me thinking "Oh... that's all?"

There's a small bit of nudity, a sex scene, and lots of dirty dancing. So if your decision rests on one of those things, now you know.

Surprisingly, there are several gory scenes as well. I wouldn't recommend bringing small children to see this, though I doubt that will stop some people from bringing their kids along. It isn't scary, but the gore in some parts might be a bit much for younger audiences, or people who really can't deal with it. It's nothing like SAW or Hostel in the area of gore, but there were a couple scenes that made me flinch.

In the end, the film really didn't bring anything new to the table. The storyline is simple, and easy to follow, some of the shots are nice, and the acting on a whole is mediocre at worst. So if you have nothing better to do, it's an alright film to waste an hour or so with. But don't go expecting an award winner - you'll be left disappointed.


So I just went to go see an advance screening of this movie and I don't know why the studio would do such a thing-- the audience was constantly laughing and this is no comedy. Usually screenings I've seen have been of fantastic movies (Wedding Crashers, Hairspray) and I'm telling everyone I know to go see it. Also, I've never seen such a general consensus of "WOW, what were they thinking?" at the end of a movie. I cannot WAIT to read the reviews on this! It's going to be slaughtered by the press.

Despite Ms. Lohan's troubles, I do think she is talented and, if only for her sake, I was hoping this would be a good film. I like her, and I love movies and tend to see the good in them, but this does not do enough redeeming. It does have a promising premise, but it is done all wrong. The parts that need build-up have none and time is wasted on other pointless scenes. Very graphic film as well-- definitely not an R that any child should be seeing.

Seriously, this isn't even a case of "so bad it's good". It's just bad.

Save yourself the $10 movie fare on this one-- and go see "1408" for a real psychological thriller. This'll be on DVD before you know it anyway.


"I Know Who Killed Me" is about a young college student named Aubrey Fleming (Lindsay Lohan), who disappears one night while going out with some friends. She is found on the side of road weeks later, still alive, with her hand and leg viciously amputated by her captor. But when she awakens in the hospital, Aubrey claims to be somebody else... a woman named Dakota Moss, a rough-living stripper who says that she is being mistaken as Aubrey, and that the real Aubrey Fleming is still in mortal danger. Aubrey's worried parents try and uncover the truth, while Dakota tries to convince others that she isn't Aubrey... but is Aubrey really just pretending to be someone else? Is she suffering from a psychological problem triggered by her kidnapping and torture? Or could Dakota really perhaps be a real person? Watch and find out.

After seeing the trailer for this movie, I knew I had to see it. I'm not a fan of Lohan particularly, but this film looked good. Unfortunately, it has its ups and downs, but overall I thought it was a pretty good horror/thriller. The plot is original in its essential form, but does contain some clichés here and there - all things considered though, this is an original premise that deals with certain scenarios not often seen in cinema (if at all). It's a mystery film, and it did do a very solid job at keeping the viewer guessing. The expected twists and turns take place as well, and I thought for the most part the plot twists were fairly well thought-out. You don't really know what to think or expect for the first hour or so, as the story is pieced together linking Aubrey and Dakota, and whether or not they are in fact one person. I did become a little confused at moments, and there were a few plot holes (which I expected considering the complex storyline), but overall I didn't see anything that affected the course of the movie. Things pieced together fairly nicely before anything became too much of a problem, but there were some holes that needed filling.

Another thing that succeeds in this movie is the cinematography, it was really beautifully shot. Color (mainly the color blue) plays a vast amount of significance in the story, and while it is there for a purpose, it almost seems too obvious because the color pops up continuously in practically every scene. Still, beautiful cinematography and some stylish editing get good points in my book, and this movie had both. Even in the sexual stripteases done by the Dakota character (where Lindsay's body is the main focus), the color use and cinematography shine. Good soundtrack as well that plays along with the flow of the film quite well, and really adds to the movie's energy. I was surprised at the amount of violence in this movie, but don't dismiss it if you are thinking it's something along the lines of a blatant torture flick, because this movie has a lot more to it than just that, unlike the recent trend of horror flicks that are nothing but one big gory torture show. "I Know Who Killed Me" manages to pack some suspense and tension that are vital to a good horror and/or thriller, and there were quite a few really scary scenes. Strangely enough, there is some unexpected humor to be found in the movie as well. One scene in particular was really quite funny, and while I'm not sure if it made the film less believable or was in it's favor, I know it made me laugh a few times.

As for the acting, I think a lot of people are slamming this movie unfairly because of it's lead actress, Lindsay Lohan. Whatever the reason that some may despise her, I'll put it like this - if it were another actress playing the lead, people wouldn't be as harsh as they are. Honestly, I think Lindsay gave one of the best performances of her career (so far) in this movie. Her previous films mainly consist of pointless teeny-bopper trash, so I respect her for doing something with a little more depth, and while her acting and delivery is a bit flat on occasion, she carries this movie well. Julia Ormand and Neil McDonaugh play her concerned and confused parents, and both do a good job in their roles too. As for the big secret ending (which I won't reveal here), I thought it was fitting. The showdown between Lindsay and the killer, while a bit contrived, was pretty scary, as was the villain. The explanation behind the Aubrey/Dakota mystery was really strange, and I wasn't expecting it to turn out the way it did, but I think that's a good thing. It may be a bit of a stretch for some because of the obscure subject (and the revelation seemed to kind of come out of nowhere), but I liked it for being different and not what I'd normally expect in a twist ending.

Overall, "I Know Who Killed Me" is a different but original horror/thriller. Cinematography was excellent, the storyline (while a little problematic at times) was original and very intriguing, there are some pretty creepy scenes, and the big plot twist was different from the norm. The acting wasn't that bad either, don't judge the movie by it's lead actress - I'm not a big fan of her either, but I found her to be fairly solid here. Recommended to horror and thriller fans if you're interested in a bit of a strange but nonetheless interesting movie. It's got a few plot holes and problems, but as I see it, the good outweighed the bad, and I was happy with the two hours I spent at the theater. 7/10.


Okay. I have been dodging this movie ever since it was released on DVD. Not because I didn't want it - I did. But after reading all the bad reviews (who I quote) say it's "The worst movie they've ever seen" It kind of puts you off. I decided to just go with my instincts and buy the movie. I mean, I'm already a massive Lindsay Lohan fan so I figured If the movie sucked, at least there are some great pole dancing scenes.

I've just finished watching the movie, and I must say I'm glad I went ahead and purchased. I think the people who called this movie "Boring, pathetic, confusing" didn't understand it. They didn't get the story. I also have to say, to the people who said the film was extremely predictable, are you joking? It's not at all. The movie has you guessing right to the end. You will be asking yourself all different kinds of questions. Isn't that what a great movie is about?? I think the reason this movie was panned was because "Lindsay Lohan". At the time of it's release, Lindsay was in the media constantly for partying, doing drugs, getting DUI's etc, so when the movie finally hit the screens, most of the public categorised the movie with her personal life - this is unfair. Lindsay is a great actress and carries the movie amazingly. She showed her fans she can make the stretch from cute girl in "Mean Girls" to sexy, pole dancing, tortured girl in a thriller. She done a great job. People on here calling her performance "laughable" are obviously haters.

Take a chance on this movie, like I did.

SPOILER.

Audrey Fleming (Lindsay Lohan) has a twin sister named Dakota Moss (Lindsay Lohan) that was separated at birth. Susan Flemings real baby died at birth and a junkie woman down the hall had twins, so behind Mrs. Flemings back Daniel Fleming pays the junkie to keep one of the twins. The real Aubrey was kidnapped by a serial killer (who turns out to be her piano instructor Douglas) and while he's torturing her, in another town Dakota is having the same exact things happen to her unexplainably (turns out to be they're stigmatic twins). So Dakota comes to her town to find out what is going on and is found severely injured on the side of the road so they believe its Aubrey. Dakota spends the whole movie trying to prove that she isn't Aubrey. She eventually finds out what is going on and Mr. Fleming helps her get to the killer. Douglas kills Mr. Fleming then Dakota kills Douglas and in the nick of time finds Aubrey who was buried underground and digs her out from a shallow grave.


Paraplegic Sex.

There are different degrees of bad...

There is Toxic Avenger Bad...

There is They Live Bad...

There is even a bad reserved for the Shaft Series...

Generally you get the idea of Bad...

There are movies that are so bad that they are good...

And then there are movies that are so bad you want to tear your eyes out and burn them, and then mix the ashes with something edible so you can digest and crap them out again...

This movie was ten steps below that...

I read somewhere that this movie is destined to be a cult classic... Which is why my wife and I decided to watch it. We like cult classics. We like the low budget movies that try so hard, and yet end up being somewhat less then serious.

But this... This was so horrid...

Let me try it this way....

"You can't quit playing piano now, the BIG COMPETITION is coming up"

"But I don't want to play piano like Mozart anymore, even though I am amazingly talented on it, and my writing skills are just above a 5th grader, I know I am destined to be a writer!"

"Okay, but just so you know, I am going to become a deranged serial killer who will want to punish you by cutting off your playing hand and your foot pedal leg, and then bury you alive in a stain glass coffin."

"That's okay, because I have a twin sister that I never knew I had because me real birth mother had twins, and i was purchased by this guy who's wife had a miscarriage (she doesn't know, by the way). And she is suffering from this conditioned called "twin stigmata", kinda like the twins on GI Joe (You know, you have to hit one to hurt the other type of thing), which is how I know how to write my only crappy story about her cause deep down inside I know she exists, and that is also the reason that she is randomly losing limbs while she is poll dancing in a strip club where she in the only one who doesn't take off her clothes (of course flashing her hooha to all the paparazzi is totally acceptable, but parish the thought that she flash a teet and get paid for it) is because that when you cut them off my body it falls off of hers. Oh, and by the way, two weeks after you have abducted me, she is found in a ditch, missing the same limbs that you cut off of me cause of the whole twin stigmata thing, and within a 24-48 hour period, she recovers, is interrogate by the FBI, is outfitted with a fully articulate artificial hand and leg (almost the same type of hand that Ash got in Army of Darkness, imagine that), has insanely wild sex with my boyfriend while my mom scrubs the sink downstairs...

*breathe*

"...And then once she puts it all together that my father, who really isn't my father, bought (as in purchased) me at the hospital from my crack whore birth mother, she confronts him and says the key line "I know who killed me", and comes to find you. She then proceeds to get locked in a closet and then in a fit of poetic justice (of course) as you are sticking your hand in the door, cuts off your hand with the very same stain glass blue knife which you of course made yourself. She then proceeds to use the whole stigmata thing to our advantage, finds where I am buried (oops alive of course, cause if I die then she dies) and with her bionic woman powers unearths me and breaks through the glass and then the movie thankfully ends."

...

...

"All that, huh?"

"Yup"

"Including this really horrid dialogue?"

"Oh yeah"

"I think I will spare everyone, including myself, and just kill myself now instead of becoming a disgruntled piano teacher. Enjoy living with your under aged stripper twin sister, because with the way you write your stories, that is about the only place you are going to end up."

"Wait..."

"Yes?"

"Before you off yourself, could you explain something to me?"

"Uh, sure..."

"Whats up with all the blue?..."

"Yeah, I really don't know. It's something that the director came up with to be deep and esoteric."

"...missed the mark on that one didn't they?"

"...Yeah, well... Nice knowing you..."

*bang*

The only thing that can be noted from this waste is that it is prophetic. Oh yes, no one would guess that this movie catches a rare glimpse of the future. The near future in fact. The future career of Miss Lohan. Because after this, there will be no more jobs left for her, other then that of a stripper in a seedy low rent strip club.

Don't see this, don't even rent it...

If you really need to see this, I would suggest downloading it...

And even that might not be worth the waste of bandwidth and tear on your hard drive...


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.


It's easy to see how I Know Who Killed Me has garnered so many unfavourable reviews, since it doesn't follow the standard rules of your typical Hollywood horror, and stars Lindsay Lohan, whose popularity has been steadily waning since her much reported 'drunken episodes'. But to label the film as crap is doing it an injustice: had it been made in Italy, it probably would've gone down a storm with fans of Euro-horror.

With its preposterous plot laden with totally bonkers moments, a crazy killer who is revealed only in the film's closing moments, and over-stylised direction with a strong use of colour, I Know Who Killed Me shares a lot in common with Italian horror, and, in particular, the 'giallo' genre of movies: horror/thrillers that are often weak on story, but loaded with great visuals.

Considering I was expecting this Lindsay Lohan vehicle to be a tame, teen-friendly Hollywood horror, I was actually rather pleasantly surprised by its absurdity (but then I love Argento films, which rarely make sense).

In addition to the constantly surprising narrative, viewers are also treated to some surprisingly nasty bits of gore, but, unfortunately, no nekkidness from the star (although there are still a couple of moments in which she does turn up the heat: as a stripper performing a pole dance, and during a sex scene).

Lohan plays Aubrey Fleming, a pretty teen who becomes the latest victim of a serial killer who has been abducting girls and cutting off their limbs before leaving them to die. Eventually, the girl is discovered, mutilated, but still alive, and is taken to hospital. But when she is interviewed by the FBI, she claims that her name is Dakota, and she has no recollection of her attacker...

Things go a little crazy from this moment onwards, and those who prefer their horror to be completely believable need not bother to watch any furtherany film that features a stigmatic twin who falls apart for no apparent reason isn't going to impress your 'average' cinema-goer. I, however, was in the mood for some silliness and found the film pretty entertaining, despite being a tad overlong.

By no means a modern horror classic, but not the complete waste of time that some claim it to be, I Know Who Killed Me is something a little different in a genre currently packed with predictable gore-fests, awful sequels and dodgy remakes. 6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.


I do not get it. Why are so many people rushing to call this film the worst film ever? If it was competing for an Oscar, I would say it was a bad choice. But this film is actually above average for the genre that it is in. It sort of reminded my of "Blue Velvet" only much better in my opinion and everyone went nuts over that film.

If you ask me, the movie reviewers are giving this film low ratings because they are haters. Plain and simple. I fail to see how this film is "hillariously bad".

The film is suppose to be funny in parts like the scenes where the strip joint manager comes off almost cartoonesqe. Were she not this way, the viewer of the film would not get the proper queues that this may or may not be simply a figment of the protagonist's imagination. But you are suppose to see the life of Dakota as story-like because you don't really know what is going on until toward the end of the movie. The plot, however, is solid enough to carry you entertainingly to that point when everything become clearer. It is a thriller and I must say it is executed with textbook formulaic perfection.

One of the better films I saw in 2008, which is not saying much . . . especially when you consider that I sat through "I Am Legend". :(

I am giving this film a 10 out of 10, simply because someone needs to balance out all of the falsely low ratings. If I thought everyone was voting thoughtfully, I would give this film a 4 or maybe even a 5. But I see several users have given this film a rating of 1 and, take it from someone who is a very skilled appreciator of film, even if you did not like this film, it at least deserves a 3.

All in all, I would say, not as bad as some films that everyone says are great! A relatively intelligent film . . .


After seeing I Know Who Killed Me yesterday, surrounded by a New York/East Village crowd, I am getting pretty annoyed by the sadly anticipated reviews claiming to whoever might want to hear it that this movie is as much of a joke as Lindsay Lohan's latest "career" moves.

Being familiar with miss Lohan's personal struggles much more than I am with her movies, I bought my ticket with a somewhat open-mind, even though after seeing the trailer (maybe the only bad element of the movie), I admit that I was basically expecting a teenage slasher movie. Obviously, so did the critics but they won't have the decency to review the movie for what it actually turned out to be.

From the little promotion we got, we basically were told that this would be Lohan's first "adult" role as a leading lady. I guess the people waiting for a 20yo to play an "adult" are indeed going to be disappointed, but let's leave those thinking about the absurdity of their expectations. Lindsay Lohan actually offers "adults" viewers a respectable leading performance. Because here what the movie is: a campy, slightly trashy, cult comedy for young adults familiar with the cheap horror flicks from the 80's and critical of the American values of suburban loss.

I read about how terrible the movie is because some genius knew who the killer was from the start. I read that the chills are laughable... Reviewers, guess what. You're not cleverer than the writers and director. However you might be one more prototype that movie studios rely on to produce pleasing blockbuster hits.

I know Who Killed Me could be classified in the same category as movies like Grindhouse or TV's Twin Peaks. It has a permanent subtle humor about itself and what it depicts. Bored teenagers, immature parents, unqualified teachers and overpowered police... here is the bunch of characters you will get to know. The casting was well directed and miss Lohan does suck you in the movie with her well known attitude and an unsuspected self-cynical humor. She's a teen actress playing a stripper, she knows it sounds bad and it makes the movie good.

The ending might be open to interpretation, like most interesting endings always are (Mulholland Drive, Basic Instinct, etc.) but who killed the poor girls won't matter much by the end of this movie. The psychological journey of Lohan's character is the central piece of the movie, and the foundations to it are its own comical elements.

Of course, I referred to Lynch, Tarantino and Verhoeven (who interestingly enough suffered the same kind treatment after the camp classic Showgirls) but I would not go as far as saying that I Know Who Killed me has the same rare genius that will make it last through the years, but it absolutely delivered the cynical fun that comes out from somewhere in between utter stupidity and sharp wit.

My little East Village crowd surprisingly was open-minded enough to clap the movie throughout the end credits. Of course I pleasantly joined the applause. I pretty much anticipate the movie to join the lot of "love them or hate them" flicks, so, just like the movie did, I will not take myself too seriously and just claim that: "I looooved it!"


I'm not saying this is the best suspense movie I've ever seen, but I was surprised by how well put together this movie was. I've heard so many bad reviews on this movie, I was expecting it to be horrible. I understand why Georgia Rule was said to be bad, because it really was...but this movie was really good! The way they made the color blue a huge statement throughout the whole movie was brilliant. I love movies that you don't get until the very end, and this movie provided that. Lindsey is a very talented actress and plays her roles very well. This movie is actually one of her best. I'm not a big fan of the teenage Herbie and Drama Queen, etc. This role was a good next step in my opinion. I think everyone should go out and see this movie. It was really good.

HERE COME THE SPOILERS...

1. I can just see Dakota explaining to her new found sister that she slept with her boyfriend, in her room, with her parents in the house.

2. Why the hell was the piano teacher the murderer? Was he mad because she had a talent and was throwing it away? That's the only reason I can come up with. Who cares really, the movie made me forget about the killer. I was focused on how it all happened in the first place and the girls.

3. Lindsey Lohan playing a stripper? Not a shocker. Lindsey Lohan playing twin sisters that found each other by fate again? I did not see that one coming.


I thought that this film was absolutely fantastic. It was very impressive to see Lindsey play the part of two different characters. She had done this in the parent trap movie but never before has she pulled off such a great performance. I went to this movie hearing all of the negative comments but left the film thinking the critics had surely missed the point of this great thriller.The use of symbolism in the film such as with the blue rose was nothing short of artistic brilliance.The ending was also superb as we find out that it was the piano teacher. I had a great time watching this movie and I sincerely hope that viewers do not miss out on this one.


It's difficult to imagine a film getting all the way to production as bad as this one. Riddled with torture porn and meaningless editing, this could be one of the most awful movies I have experienced in my life. The plot is incoherent and the acting is beyond terrible.

The constant flashbacks and confusing cuts to unknown locations and time makes the film go nowhere fast. I actually attempted to watch it twice just to give it a second chance to make sense, but I got about 30 minutes into it the second time and started feeling sick.

It would have at least reached cult status or B-flick glory if it wasn't so tasteless and seriously gruesome. I suggest you save your 2 hours of life and avoid watching body parts falling off strippers, wait I think I may have just made the movie sound good!


It wasn't horrible in the horrible kind of way. I actually think I Know Who Killed Me was a pretty good movie, aside from what most people think. Of course there was plenty of bad acting and definitely scenes that had no sense in them at all, but I am a sucker for a very SMALL amount of bad movies, and while this movie is kind of bad, I liked it. Lindsay Lohan makes her characters somewhat... likable even, and while the plot isn't the best, it is decent. It did not deserve all the razzies it got. Some of the material is just flat out stupid and raw, yet it entertains, and if blue is your favorite color, which it is mine, I'm sure you won't find the over-use of it annoying, haha. Well, this movie is supposively supposed to be one of the worst films ever, but I have a really big soft spot for it and found myself not being disappointed with it at all.


I admit, I thought this was going to be a throw-away film. I have an all-you-can rent membership with Hollywood Video and this was the only new release left on the day I rented this title. I'm a pretty harsh critic of films, so I just knew this was going to be awful. I hadn't read much about Lindsay Lohan (sorry, not of that generation), but I knew she'd been in the news in a bad way some time ago. For the people who rate a film mainly on the actor/actress involved - get a life. Please. Don't troll here. This was a GREAT film. Take a look at my ratings history and you'll see I don't rate movies highly.

It's not Grindhouse. It was a lot better. It was almost Memento good. Really. I recommend going into this film with an open mind and you may also end up being pleasantly shocked.


Hi.. I'm quit surprised with all the negative reviews this movie is receiving, i mean did i watch the same movie as other reviewers watched, i mean i thought that this movie is a really good one. Im not a Linsday Lohan fan, the fact is this is the first movie i watched for her, i must admit that this was a really nice and cool thriller, very very enjoyable movie. the script and plot were engaging and intriguing, it never dragged or slowed down or felt boring, kept me intrigued. Yes it did have some over the top gory scenes, but isn't that a good thing for adult fans of the genre, i mean how come SAW became so popular and recommended, if you don't like gore then don't watch it, but don't give bad reviews of the film because you are too weak to stomach these scenes, i totally enjoyed it !!! Acting was very good from most of the cast, as i mentioned before this is my first Linsday Lohan's movie i saw and i thought she did a good job. In summary, i thought that this movie was very enjoyable and one of the good movies of this summer, keeps you guessing till the end and has a good plot, so if you haven't seen this, my advice is to go ahead and watch it, it is totally worth it, i really don't get why too many people hate it, it succeeded as a thriller movie, what more do u want !!?? this was more enjoyable to me than : Captivity, Pirates of the Caribbean 3,Evan almighty and I pronounce you Chuck and Larry. so please guys stop the winning and just go watch another PG 13 Disney movie and leave the R rated adult movies for the grown ups !!!! 9 out of 10


I went into this movie thinking I knew what was going to happen. I was expecting just another Lindsay Lohan "cute" film.

I was wrong on both counts.

I had no idea what was going to happen. I was continually surprised and that in itself is surprising. I'm usually really good at figuring out an ending.

This was not a cute movie. I was disgusted, I yelled, I screamed, I covered my eyes with my hands. Lindsay wasn't cute, she was very naughty.

This is an original, well written, well directed, well acted film.

It's silly that some people are saying they don't like the movie because they weren't impressed with her strip dancing. That's hardly the point of the movie. You don't need to find Lindsay attractive to enjoy this movie.

The acting was great. I have always enjoyed Julia Ormond's performances. She delivers here and is awesome as the distraught mother. Lindsay, for all her personal issues, is still a really good actress. And I've seen Neal McDonough in a few things recently and he's impressed me.

My advice, don't listen to all the nonsense out there right now because people are negative on Lindsay due to her bad press. This is a good movie that doesn't deserved to be trashed.


I have read with amusement the comments of many viewers who have utterly trashed this movie; well, they are entitled to their opinions, and they may have them. How many of them have a personal animus against Lindsay Lohan? Of course, I don't know, but my guess is that many of them are reacting to what is happening in Miss Lohan's off-stage life and are piling on with the bile and venom, kicking her when she's down; how chivalrous of them.

Yes, Yes, YES, I know her personal life is a shambles, and I really do hope that she can turn things around, and if she doesn't, she will have no one to blame but herself. That being said, her personal troubles don't automatically sentence this movie to the rubble heap. I have seen this movie three times already, and I feel it is artistic in a very dark, chilling way--but hey, it's a horror film; it's supposed to be that way! Helloooooo!

Reviewers have been talking about plot holes and ridiculousness; don't most horror movies have a measure of this (a murdering doll named Chucky? vampires in Alaska, coming soon to a theater near you?) Horror films require us to suspend belief in one way or another--heck, lots of other film genres require that, as well! Why all the bile for this film? (Oh, and let's not forget a little 1960's sci-fi TV series called "The Twilight Zone"; certainly no plot holes or reality suspension there!)

I must admit that I probably would not have seen this film except for the fact that Miss Lohan stars in it, since I'm not in the habit of seeing horror films. Yes, I have a bias, and I am putting it out in the open, which is more than most commentators I've seen have done. As far as I see, Lohan has an intenseness and a force about her that few other actresses have, an earthy, in-your-face kind of energy that other actresses don't possess, as far as I'm concerned (and I realize her major problem is how to control that energy off-camera). This was a gutsy film choice for her to make, considering the subject matter and, of course, the fact that she didn't know how it would be received. She really went out on a limb on this movie--and yes, I know, people will be snickering that she sawed the limb off behind her-- and made an artistic choice, and, well, what can I say? Art is in the eye of the beholder, and this particular piece of art is disturbing, scary, dark, bloody, and so forth, but so what? It's supposed to be! I do realize that those reviewers, both amateur and "professional" (as if having a journalism degree and a job at a paper makes someone's opinion somehow more worthy than anyone else's) who laughed at or ridiculed this film are entitled to their opinions, but frankly, I can't see where they're coming from, and I don't share their venom and bile. Call me crazy, if you want.


This film is graphic and in some cases extreme. This movie will please Lindsay Lohan haters in that we get to see the drug abusing girl get tortured to the greatest extent. This film is very good in it's genre and offers many facets of horror and thriller/drama genre. The film was not the best film in the world and definitely not Oscar worthy. I gave it a 7 because even though it lacks in some departments some of the torture scenes were new and ones i've never seen presented on film before. The plot of the film was a good premise but may have been executed a little below average. Although it is a good film the acting is standard and decent while the dialoque is sort of wooden and flat it does feel real and almost accurate.


I loved this movie! I trust that most of the people who choose to see this movie will be intelligent enough to form their own opinions, without being influenced by movie reviewers. If I allowed movie reviewers to sway my interest in seeing a movie, I'd miss a whole lot of great performances.

"I Know Who Killed Me" is an exciting roller-coaster ride that combines the best of several genres: thriller; horror; crime and mystery. One fellow commenter on this site compared it to Twin Peaks. Those of us who love the works of David Lynch will see similarities in the use of color (blue in this case) and the "film-noir" feel of the production. I do not mean to say that the director was attempting to model his movie on the style of Lynch. The similarities are most probably unintentional.

It is very unfortunate that Lindsey Lohan had a few bad incidences in her personal life almost immediately before the national release of this movie. There is no greater death knoll for a new movie than bad publicity so close to its opening day. Yet, I feel confident that the intelligent viewer will be able to put the "bad press" to the side and enjoy this movie for its many strengths.

The movie was filmed with an side of gritty realism that keeps you on the edge of your seat throughout. The scenes of torture and mutilation seemed worse to me, by far than those in the movies Saw, Hostile or Captivity. In those other recent movies, the torture seemed staged to the point of unbelievability. In "I Know Who Killed Me" it was never overdone, and therefore seemed more believable. I really felt victims' hysteria because the scenarios seemed plausible and therefore much more realistic to me.

This is where I have to credit the cast for their very strong performances. I really was touched by the emotions generated by the parents of Lindsey's character and those of the first murdered girl. But, it was truly the amazingly powerful performance of Lindsey Lohan that drove this movie. She possessed her characterizations so completely, that I never felt the need to question the reality of what I was seeing. So, the bottom line is ... ignore the reviewers, keep an open mind, and you can't help but love this movie.

P.S. Let's all try to be a little nicer to Miss Lohan. I know she's made a few poor decisions lately. But, the only difference between her and most young people is that her mistakes are broadcast simultaneously on MTV, CNN and the world-wide web. She has accomplished amazing things for her young years, with pressures that most of us could never imagine. I personally wish her only the best!


but I thought it was a very interesting story.

SHORT REVIEW: Gruesome, gratuitously sexual, interesting story, well acted.

MY BIASES: I rarely watch horror movies. I never, ever watch gruesome horror movies like "Saw" and its ilk. I was really in the mood for a horror movie and LL in a more adult role. UPSHOT: I might be marking a little easy. Maybe. Or maybe not.

I felt that the story, characters, and actors were all plenty good enough to entertain me for 2 hours. I suspect that the critics and other people who are dumping on this movie are somewhat reactionary against the fact that it definitely has some gratuitous violence and gratuitous sexuality.

I will not spoil any more than the trailers do. Briefly, the story begins with an artistic girl named Aubrey Fleming. A girl at her school goes missing and her dead body turns up with some amputation. Everyone fears a serial killer, particularly when Aubrey disappears. I girl is brought in to the hospital who looks exactly like Aubrey. Everyone thinks she's Aubrey, but when she wakes up, she claims to be a stripper named Dakota Moss. Here we have a problem. This girl is either Aubrey or Dakota. If she's Aubrey, then why is her delusion that she is Dakota so convincing? If she's Aubrey, then is there really a Dakota? If the girl in the hospital is Dakota, then where the hell is Aubrey, and why do these 2 women look identical? It's a fun set-up and I felt that the end result was satisfying and revealed effectively.

There were at least 3 scenes that were so gruesome and horrifying that I couldn't watch. I did the old "cover most of the screen with your hand" trick.

In playing a character who has a drug problem and has an identity issue, I couldn't help wondering if LL was trying to exorcise some demons with this movie. Or possibly she was rebelling against her career which has composed of playing many good girls in movies with more general appeal. I have to admit that some of her fans will see this movie just to see her and will really wish they hadn't seen it. If you're expecting "Mean Girls" or "Herbie Fully Loaded", you will need some therapy to recover from this one.

I should mention that while there is no Lindsay Lohan nudity per se, there are some extremely raunchy scenes involving close shots of various body parts of Dakota's while she is wearing next to nothing and writhing around a stripper dance pole. Just in the interests of full disclosure.

In a side-note about cinematography, this movie is very blue, in the literal, colour sense. It's fun to watch just how hog-wild they went with all the blue. I started watching for blue objects and there were many: bright blue lights, clothing, ribbons, glass, eyes, gloves, etc. Not to mention that every shot seems to have a blue tint.

So consider yourself fairly warned and enjoy the twists and turns of this movie, if you choose to give it a shot.


Lindsey Lohan was miscast and the conclusion to this was more than just absurd, unbelievable, etc... Lohan plays Aubrey, a high school teen who gets kidnapped by a serial killer. We see her tortured in very grotesque ways. A woman finds a mutilated young girl by the road who is still alive. The girl is identified as Aubrey; however, she insists her name is Dakota and does not know her parents or friends. Dakota's personality is not like Aubrey's. She says she is a stripper and her mother died from drugs. The Flemming's take Dakota home with them; hoping to get their daughter back. Dakota insists her limbs just started falling off. The twist at the end is more than far fetched. The explanation for how fingers and legs could just fall off was more than silly.

As many have said, Lohon is pretty bad in this. And her stripper scenes make her look used and cheap. This in not the script to pick for someone trying to move their movie career along.

FINAL VERDICT: This movie is so bad that it might actually be one of those films people watch to get a chuckle and play a drinking game. But if you are a Lohan fan, I say don't watch this because it does not make her look good.


Most comments here are biased probably by the fact that his main character is Lindsay Lohan I see a lot of bashing , and i've seen worst movies, so this is not a bad one, if you skip certain details.

The overall script i think is very original, could be better of course, but it kept me on my sit the whole time.

The BAD: This movie could be better, but the cast was awful. Most actors can't act, and Lindsay who did a nice role, didn't warm me as stripper either.

Some details were too stupid, like the " time to make a phone call", or the peaceful way in which Dakota seems to take his situation

The Good: The overall history, the photography, the way they portrait colors and his significance, the ending was nice also.

I think the identity of the "bad" guy, is well chosen. I think people is mostly wrong in take the critics on that direction.

Is a worthy movie, entertaining, strong scenes, but is intended to see it to enjoy it, not in critic plan , because that way is easily to stick on his flaws instead of have an entertainment moment with it.


I knew that the lead actress won the Razzie for Worst Actress, but I didn't realise she won it twice, or that the critics give it three out of five stars, which I think is nonsense. Basically Aubrey Fleming (twice Razzie winning and nominated Lindsay Lohan) is a regular high school girl who disappears one night, we see her violently tortured, having an arm and leg severed, and she is found unconscious in the woods. When she wakes she has forgotten her identity, thinking she is a Dakota Moss, a stripper she created for an English assignment, so she is denying her supposed identity. "Dakota" is now trying to unravel the mystery of her identity, how she and Aubrey co-exist, and the person/people who abducted her. In the end, after finding out she is in fact a twin, she finds her other self buried alive. Okay, I'll be honest, I confused after about half an hour, so I can't be accurate about the full plot. Also starring Razzie nominated Julia Ormond as Susan Fleming, Neal McDonough as Daniel Fleming, Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon as Agent Julie Bascome, Spencer Garrett as Agent Phil Lazarus, Gregory Itzin as Dr. Greg Jameson and Eddie Steeples as Saeed the Prosthetic Tech. The only reason I have given it an extra star out of ten is because of the quite inventive gore scenes, other than that it confused the hell out of me, and Lohan may be have a hot body, but she and the film as a whole are terrible. It won the Razzies for Worst Picture, Worst Director for Chris Sivertson, Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie, Worst Remake or Rip-Off (ripping off Hostel and Saw), Worst Screen Couple for Lohan as the twins, Worst Screenplay and Worst Picture of the Decade. Pretty poor!


**SPOILERS** Garishly photographed in intense blue and red colors the movie "I Know Who Killed Me" gives us a clue to what's about to happen within the very first few minutes of the film. This all has to do with honor student and future concert pianist Aubrey Fleming, Lindsay Lohan. Aubrey is torn between following her music teachers Douglas Norquist, Thomas Tofel, advice in putting all her efforts into a musical, playing the piano, career or Aubery's real love in becoming world famous mystery writer.

During the opening sequences of the movie there's a search for this missing girl, Jennifer Toland, who's eventually found murdered with her right hand and lower part of her right leg amputated. Jennifer will play a major part later in the film to not only bring out what the motives of her murderer was but how they connected her to both Aubrey and what later turned out to be her identical twin Dakota Moss also played by Miss. Lohan.

Attending a New Salem high school football game to see her boyfriend the teams star running back Jerrod Pointer, Brian Geraghty,in action Aubery is later kidnapped by this Man in Blue who holds her hostage for some two weeks. Aubery is brutally tortured by her abductor and left for dead on the side of a road outside of town. Found with the exact same injuries as the late Jennifer Toland, an amputated right hand and foot, it's believed by the local police that Aubrey's abductor and Jennifer's murderer are one and the same person.

The big surprise comes later when Aubrey regains conciseness and insists that she's not Aubrey Fleming at all! She's a stripper who works out of the Strip Nightclub in the red light district of town called Dokata Moss!

The film has a difficult time getting the ball rolling in what exactly Dakota's state of mind really is. Is she really who she says that she is and if true were does that leave Aubery Fleming? The unseen killer, or kidnapper, had somehow overlooked the fact that he had two, Aubery & Dakota, victims whom he kidnapped and brutally tortured were in fact related related to each other! One of them, Dakota, not only wasn't whom he wanted to do a job on, by torturing and leaving her to die, but that in the end she would be the one who does a job on him!

Far too confusing to really follow "I Know Who Killed Me" leaves so many loose ends that you feel in trying to understand it's storyline that you'll slip and fall on your head like you would if you forgot to tie your shoelaces when you got dressed in the morning.

Lindsey Lohan in what may be, I'm not really sure, her first adult acting part is surprising good as both Aubrey Fleming and Dakota Moss. I never expected Miss Lohan to be that believable in her two parts in the movie with all the bad publicity that she's gotten over the last two years as an out of control drug and alcohol abuser. The really big surprise in the film is not that both Aubrey and Dakota are really identical twins it's that their mother as well as father isn't Audrey's and Dakota's real parents Susan, Julia Osmond, and Daniel, Neal McDonough, Fleming! Thats' what fooled everybody in the movie and most of all the Man in Blue who's both Aubery and Dakota kidnapper and torturer as well as Jennifer Toland's murderer! That major mistake on his part in the end was what not only tripped The Man in Blue up but caused the confused psycho to expose himself where he ended up getting run through by a hysterical and wildcat-like Dakota Moss!


This movie shows that my strategy of knowing only stars and genre about a movie before seeing it, actually pays off. I just read somewhere that it got a prize for being the worst movie of 2007. I knew that it was just because LL got a bad press in middle America (which seems to be all America these days) so i decided to give it a go. I was a bit afraid to see a grown up LL, however. This is a good thriller. The story-line is a bit surprising at times, when you don't overthink it. Sure, if you really try and think about all the possibilities you will have figured it out before you've seen half the movie, but be honest: which movie has surprises for the seasoned movie goer?

And while LL might have lost her Parent Trap appeal (the freckles, although this film shows that she still has some on her back) she can actually act. Most negatives here are cheap shots at LL's behaviour outside the film, or stock replies like bad-bad-bad or morons who went to see this expecting the gore from Saw and Hostel, I mean, how stupid can you get?

I kinda hated Ormond though, I don't see why she had to speak in that awful accent.

The only thing what was a bit disappointing was the actual identity of the killer. But hey, you can't have it all. And Lindsay shouldn't do stripper like roles with the reputation she's got. Now, if Alexis Bledel did it ...

All in all good film in it's genre, and it's not afraid to break some genres along the way.


So i am not a big fan of Lindsey Lohan but the trailer looked really good so I was excited to see this movie. I finally got to rent it. I found it to be slow at various points especially when she finally discovers about the stigmata thing and then tries to solve the case. The trailer was misleading in the fact that most of the scenes shown were from the last twenty minutes of the film. The confrontation between the killer and Dakota should have been more suspenseful/longer. Then when Dakota and Aubrey meet there was no response from Aubrey. I could have done without the drawn out scenes of Dakota stripping. Overall the concept was good, i just think the script should've been edited a little.


This one is truly original. A Cult film for the Geriatric crowd. It is good to see that I am not the only one who was impressed with this obscure film from when HBO was in its infancy (channel 6 anyone?) There are some very good actors associated with this project for anyone who was conscious in the 60's and 70's. From Ruth McDevitt to Ian Wolfe you have seen them before in many supporting roles, here you get to see them lead. The film almost has a strange aura similar to The Sentinel (1977) although without the supernatural aspects. Here we have a social satire which focuses on the geriatric crowd affirming their rights in the face of oppression. Coming out of the era of civil rights don't think this subject matter wasn't a projection of society in which many sub-cultures where finding ways to be empowered. This film takes that premise and twists it into some very humorous and macabre situations. The cement pouring scene is a memorable one which stands alongside any early giallo for inventiveness. Dated but still worth it if you can find it if cult is your thing.


Genuinely unique and creepy, Homebodies tells the depressing story of what life is like after society has discarded you. A group of elderly people have had their apartment building, home for much of their lives, condemned, and they have been asked to move to a new residence. When they realize they don't want to move, they take business into their own hands. They stab, sabotage, drown a man in cement, and kill in numerous other ways to keep home, sweet home. While director Larry Yust doesn't have a huge budget at his disposal, it clearly is not needed given the subject matter and the tenements of Cinncinatti serving as a backdrop. This film has a seedy, dark, futile feel to it, and underlying its sick,twisted plot - the deaths are executed with little remorse or feeling. The elderly, who at first illicit pity, soon turn into cold killing machines - very much like what they attack - a huge conglomerate business and "progress." Homebodies is a bona fide horror film and a black comedy as well. The humour is subtle but definitely there. I particularly liked the ending and thought that was a very clever bit to end such a film with. Solid direction and a perverse yet fresh and interesting script aside, the acting for me is what carried this film. The elderly inhabitants are all equally played with polish and pathos by a crew of geriatric character talents - all unfortunately no longer with us - that bring their characters alive - foibles, fears, and all. Paula Trueman plays the biggest role as Mattie. She is sort of a Ruth Gordon type. She is also the personification of evil in the group. She shows us what the elderly are able to get away with because everyone discounts them and their worth. Trueman does an able job creating a woman who is selfish, willful, and downright bad. Ian Wolfe and Ruth McDevitt play the couple that ran the building for so long. Both do very good jobs and create possibly more than anyone else the compassionate side of being old and "left out." Peter Brocco does a wonderful job as an elderly blind man - who has powers that probably any realistic elderly blind man would not possess. Brocco does an incredible job. The last two members are played by William Hansen and Frances Fuller. Fuller plays a woman that has not left her room for twenty years and speaks to her dead father at the dinner table. Hansen plays a man consumed with writing his memoirs of his marriage of 55 years. All of these actors did a marvelous job with their characters. Homebodies is a good film. It is a scary picture, subtly humorous, and thought provoking. The scenes of these tenants being moved to a soul-less huge apartment complex where every room is the same and people just sit on benches waiting to die struck me as particularly horrific. Or the scene with an elderly blind man being shoved into a room - not having learned the dimensions of the room at all. Or maybe the scene of a man pleading with a socially progressive woman about how moving his things, which had taken him a lifetime to sort, would never be able to be put together in the same fashion. He said he literally did not have the time left. These images and many more in Homebodies frightened me more than anything else. Because the sad truth is we offer little time and reflection to those concerns unless we are directly affected as a society. That is the real horror in Homebodies! A wonderfully old-fashioned song begins and ends the film. It reminisces about the joys of a day gone by.


Grim, sad, nihilistic drama about abandoned elderly people who pull together to preserve their home and dignity. That's the soft sell. The hard sell? After uncaring developers condemn a building and threaten to toss the aged residents onto the street, the residents retaliate with murder.

For a drama, there's plenty of horror here, and there's much food for thought, too. The harsh way we treat our elderly citizens is directly addressed, as is the issue of the limted tenure we all have on this planet. An interesting message buried here-in is that the young underestimate the old at their peril because the old are smarter, more sly, more patient and more experienced.

The performances are excellent, as is the direction, photography and music. The murders are cleverly conceived and executed with grim resolve, and one scene involving permanent incarceraton in concrete is a showstopper.

When I first saw this film, I was struck by its cold, depressing tone and I admired it for its recognition of real problems associated with aging. The idea of the old killing the young is a novel one and employed to great effect in "Homebodies".

It's a silver-haired classic.


Looking for something different? Then look no further! HOMEBODIES is an absolute gem of a film that has unfortunately become difficult to find over the years. In fact, it's been released on a home viewing format in the States just one time - in 1984 - by Embassy Home Entertainment. Now that the tape is 25-years-old, I think it's about time someone rescued this one from complete obscurity and put it out on DVD already. Why we need a dozen special edition reissues of films like "Friday the 13th Part 20" and a great film like this is able to slip through the cracks is something I'll never quite understand.

In Cincinnati, Ohio, a construction company is busy at work erecting a huge skyscraper. Across the street, the city has condemned a block of tenement buildings. One by one, the buildings are being demolished after its elderly citizens are dragged from the comfort of their homes to live in some colorless, sanitized new apartment home against their wishes. However, the tenants of one of the buildings set to be torn down are not going down without a fight. This is, after all, their home we're talking about. They've been living there 30 years. And since no one seems to care about them and their welfare, why should they return the favor? Mattie (Paula Trueman), who spends her days sitting by the construction site munching on prunes, witnesses a fatal accident and then conspires with her friends to rig similar accidents to delay the destruction of their home. One thing leads to another and before long they're resorting to stabbing a cold social worker and burying a wealthy land developer alive in wet cement! One could accuse the film of being far-fetched, but most dark comedies are, and the film manages to skillfully blend social drama, horror and black comedy together in an entertaining, thought-provoking and unique way.

One of the big pluses here is that the plight of the low-income elderly is shown in a grim, though very realistic and plausible, light. These people ARE often bullied, pushed around and treated if they don't matter, so despite their murderous schemes, there's never a moment where we don't identify with, and sympathize for, the people involved. Another huge plus is the cast and level of characterization. Many genre filmmakers mistakenly believe the target audience for these films only want to see hot young things strutting their stuff, not a bunch of senior citizens. They're wrong. Here we get six veteran character actors capable of adding those intangibles to their roles that only come with experience.

Trueman as the spunky, unpredictable and increasingly more unstable Mattie seems to be the centerpiece of the film and she does an excellent job. Just as good are Ian Wolfe as the building superintendent, Ruth McDevitt as his wife (also the conscience of the group), William Hansen as a widowed writer, blind Peter Brocco and Frances Fuller as a wig-wearing agoraphobic who still talks to her dead husband and hasn't left the building in 20 years. Each of the performers bring a human element to their role, and the characters aren't just tenants. They're created their own little microcosm in the building and each depend on one another in equal measure to simply get by. To disrupt their environment is to destroy their lives, so why should they care if a bunch of greedy big wigs or whoever else go down with them? Co-stars Douglas Fowley, Linda Marsh and veteran horror/sci-fi star Kenneth Tobey as the construction boss also deliver fine performances in less-sympathetic roles.

Quirky, unique, thoughtful, very well-written, directed and acted on a modest budget; this independently-produced film is probably not going to be for all tastes, but for fans of both horror flicks and black comedies, I can't recommend this one enough. It's worth the search.


Six feisty old folks -- blind Peter Brocco, hard-working superintendent Ian Wolfe and his nagging wife Ruth McDermott, kindly writer William Hansen, agoraphobic eccentric Frances Fuller and fierce, formidable old battle ax Paula Trueman -- refuse to leave their crumbling tenement building despite the fact that it's going to be demolished to make way for expensive high-rise apartment complexes. The extremely loyal, hidebound and resourceful over-the-hill group resort to murder so they can remain in their beloved brownstone, bumping off a condescending young woman social worker, a greedy jerk land developer and various hapless construction workers who are victims of random fatal "accidents."

Director/co-writer Larry Yust, who also helmed the bang-up funky blaxploitation blast "Trick Baby," fashions this absorbingly off-kilter plot into a delightfully quirky and deadpan black comic horror oddity, skillfully alternating between shocking moments of brutal violence and inspired bits of uproarious wackiness in a deft, screwy, throwaway style which proves to be both amusingly nutty and occasionally quite unnerving in comparable measure. The murder set pieces are truly jolting and the climactic poky last reel paddle boat chase sequence is nothing short of brilliant. Better still, Yust shows a genuine warmth and compassion for the elderly, scoring points for his incisive critique of our society's gross disregard for senior citizens and how said elderly are among those luckless and powerless people who often don't benefit a bit from progress and urban renewal. Brocco, Wolfe, McDermott, Hansen, Fuller and especially the marvelously sassy and sprightly Trueman (who was also great as Sondra Locke's redoubtable granny in "The Outlaw Josey Wales") all give lively, colorful, thoroughly engaging and touchingly dignified performances as the shrewd, lethal, lovably stubborn and indomitable geriatric protagonists. Beautifully photographed in the rundown Cincinnati slums by Isidore Mankofsky, this splendidly singular and whimsical fright film tale of inner city blight and the resilience of the elderly rates as a definite fabulously off-beat and original must-see sleeper.


I watched this movie with my grandmother when I was about 6 years old. The movie was PG, so I could get away with watching it then. What a hoot! We managed to watch that movie every time we could catch it on and the last line in the movie kept us laughing for the longest: It's me, Mattie.

I know that a movie about old folks killing to keep their homes may be totally horrific to today's society that salivates over brutality performed on perky-breast blonds, pencil-waist brunettes, and their associated blockhead boyfriends. The irony of "Homebodies" is that you're force to have to acknowledge those old folks for what they were doing -- whether you liked it or not. They refused to be pushed around and their tactics were crude, yet effective.

Having said that, I watched it again recently and I found it just as funny, but with a better understanding. While I could say that the murders were truly without warrant, they were in better context than what you see in most slasher flicks nowadays, where the killings are for shock value and good measure.


I was surprised at how clever and darkly humorous this film actually was. It's wonderfully cast, beautifully acted, and totally different from most movies out there. A group of ederly people find that they will go to any extreme to keep their apartment building from being torn down. Led by a their motivated, stop at nothing, leader Maddie they take out any obstacle that gets in their way. It has a surprise ending that I was shocked to see. A really great movie. If you want a strange, witty, twisted and funny movie definitly rent this. Unless you can find a resonably priced used copy, then you should definitly buy it!


I found this movie under the Comedy section of Blockbusters (God knows why...it should be in Horror) about 10 years ago. It looked interesting so I rented it. It's certainly different. It's about a bunch of elderly people turning into killers to prevent their building from being torn down. The acting is pretty good and the killings are pretty scary (but within a PG rating)...but this is treated as a comedy. I found nothing funny about the situation at all. And when they start killing each other off over nothing the movie went too far. Lousy ending too. Still, it's worth catching if you want to see something different and the acting is quite good from the entire cast.


I saw this about 15 years ago when my mother rented it. Why Blockbusters had this in the comedy section, I'll never know. Seniors defending their block of flats against developers at *any* cost. Really creepy, or just bad acting? If you're looking for some _Exorcist_-era horror, it might be worth a look, but only if you've already seen everything else on the shelf.


Senior citizens can be shrill, depressing, and very boring, so you might think a movie that casts old people as 'hit men' would be good for a few laughs. "Homebodies" tries but fails. It's just a silly film about greedy land developers trying to knock down the house of some stubborn old people, who in turn start picking off the workers in an attempt to stop construction. All the characters are annoying caricatures that'll be grating on your nerves after the first 15 minutes. Save yourself the trouble of searching out this movie and just go volunteer at a nursing home.

3/10


Danika had the potential to be a great movie but it ultimately went no where. There was massive build up and it seemed like there would be a big pay off but then the ending ruined the entire movie.

If you ignore the last 20 minutes or so of the movie, the acting was great, the characters had enough depth to draw you in and you will really want to see how it all plays out. Where are these visions coming from? Is Danika psychic? Is someone hurting her daughter or is her daughter hurting herself? Did her son kill the neighbors dog? Why is there such a tension between Danika and her husband if they had supposedly moved past him cheating on her so many years ago? Its that last 20 minutes that destroys it all. You find out everything you just saw was a lie. The kids died long before they got to that age and it was ALL a hallucination of a crazy bag lady.

I was really excited to see this film but it stumbled and fell at the very end. Bottom line? Don't waste your time.


It seems that many people couldn't understand this movie and were unwilling to accept their own limitations and therefore decided the movie was to blame. Reading some of those comments made me in turn annoyed enough to post here for the first time. The short version for those who haven't seen the movie is there is no 'twist' in the now common cinematic style there is only the version inside Danika's head and the revelation of the reality.

For the hard of understanding I'll break this down into simple terms. DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T YET SEEN THE MOVIE.

There are basically only 3 scenes in this movie.

1) Danika's fantasy life where she rejects the terrible thing that happened to her and tries to substitute her own reality. It doesn't work for her, she sees glimmers of reality through it (herself as a bag-lady, her "brother" dying from her "Mothers" neglect which is clearly her own guilt and many more). If you are looking for the reality of the movie imagine this is what is going through her head as she sits on the bench at the end of the movie. 2) The event that caused the break down, killing her kids. It is as though she is remembering the truth sitting on that bench but it is too painful for her and she quickly retreats back to the fantasy (her kids come back to life and join her and her husband) 3) The real world present day where she is down and out listening to parts of scene one and scene two replay in her head constantly courtesy of her Schizophrenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia)

The whole film up into the last scene is there to give you an impression of what being her and being schizophrenic is. She completely believes her version of reality and the only way to share that impression with the viewer is to "lie" that this is the reality of the film right up until the final scene.

So yes this film has no plot, it's a snapshot of an insane mind. Yes Danika's over protective soccer mom persona is fundamentally unlikable but that person never existed, she is a reflection of her very real guilt over causing the death of her children.

The hallucinations within the scene one fantasy are perhaps the weakest part of the film, they are used as tool to keep a viewer interested long enough to see the film through and while the provide clues that nothing else that is happening is real or at least that there is some level of menatl issue. They do perhaps serve to confuse more than illuminate in some situations. They are however representative of the way a schizophrenic's beliefs may vary and may represent her additional fears and paranoia.

In short you are not ever likely to see a film that will give a better impression of what its like to be insane in this fashion (i.e. believing scene 1 is some kind of reality) but if you can't handle a film that does not have a completely sequential plot, or a writer changing the 'rules' of a film to make a point this will be wasted on you.


I think far too many people are going into this film thinking it's a supernatural theme - it really isn't. I thought it would be as well (based off of the DVD case description) and I was pleasantly surprised to find that I was wrong about that when the final credits rolled.

Ultimately, this movie is a study of the effects of guilt on the human psyche and how our fears can ultimately consume us. Paying close attention to the movie is required to fully unravel the twist ending. If you're not watching it (or rewatching it) carefully, most likely you will miss out on important clues and end up disliking the movie. I thought the cast did an incredible job of being believable, especially Marisa who fluctuated beautifully between sanity and fantasy.

Is this the best movie I've ever seen? No... but I would recommend it to anyone who likes to be surprised.

One bit of advice for those people reading this review after watching the movie and not understanding it: go back and look >closely<, this time, to the items in the shopping cart at the end. Quite a few puzzle pieces that you need to put together to understand the twist are laid out perfectly for you.


Danika plays with supernatural elements but is in fact a psychological thriller! For the horror fans there will not be enough scares! But the scares that were in this movie were very effective! I must admit that Marisa Tomei often got on my nerves,but if you see the ending you will understand why! And then it becomes clear that Marisa Tomei has done a wonderful job! The great thing about this movie is the use of hallucinations! You never know if it's real or not! They are so convincing that one minute you will doubt the main character! And the other minute you will believe her that she is having visions! Also I think that the ending they chose makes sense! I cannot go into more deeper without spoiling the plot! But having read several books on he subject it is not uncommon for this to happen! For this movie it is very important that you watch it closely otherwise you will miss important clues for understanding the ending! Great movie! Check it out!


Danika is about a young mother whose hallucinations and reality mix together in a strange story of a life gone wrong. A great family and nice life slowly deteriorates as experiences get stranger and stranger. The perfect life starts digressing with each flask of knowledge until the audience is left with nothing. In the end, everything comes together in a powerful tale of woe. Close to the end of the end of the film you are almost guessing what actually happened, but it does surprise. Tomei does a wonderful job and it is a wonder that she is not in more mainstream films. The rest of the cast does a nice job during the film. Technically a class A- film with few continuity errors and a typical story told in a very atypical way.


We really enjoyed the first part of DANIKA, but it got more and more confusing as it went along. As the drama progressed, we held out hope that the many questions we had would be answered, but that did not happen. After the movie, we went online and searched and only THEN did we feel like we partially understood the movie. There are still lots of loose endings and unresolved questions, but maybe this movie was just too "psychologically thrilling" for us to understand! :)

When all was said and done, it felt like a waste of 80 minutes of our time. If you are someone who enjoys tidy endings to movies, DON'T rent/buy this one.


What a lame ending. I kept watching it to try to figure out just what was going on, and was so disappointed and confused when they revealed the ending. This movie made no sense. The only positive I can say is that I didn't turn it off because I genuinely wanted to find out what the heck was going on. But unfortunately, it just kept spiraling into more and more plot twists until nothing made sense. Is she having premonitions? I don't know. Is she crazy? I don't know. Are her kids in trouble? I don't know. Are we in the present or the past or the future now? I don't know. Is this all just a dream and Suzanne Plechette is lying next to us when we open our eyes? That would have been a better ending, honestly.

Skip this movie. You'll thank me.


The acting was good, the plot seemed interesting, the directing and scenes were good, and the movie keeps your attention well. But in the end, the plot is horrible. You watch the whole movie trying to piece the multiple themes together; e.g. the murdered child, the bank robbery, her visions or premonitions, her marriage, the safety of her daughter etc. In the end, you simply learn that basically the whole movie was a hallucination. It's like the old episode of Dallas where the entire season was a dream. You feel cheated, especially if you were struggling to put the plots together. From a plot standpoint, it really does not take much skill to throw twelve random plots into the mix, and then in the end reconcile all the threads by saying that it was all imaginary. We watch Columbo or Monk intensely because we hope that in the end it will all come together; when it simply does not, we are robbed.


Were it not for the fact that Marisa Tomei is one of most undervalued talents in modern film entertainment, and someone who has consistently delivered heartfelt characterizations in the past, I would have skipped "Danika" entirely. The teaser or blurb on the DVD made it out to seem like there was some kind of a psychic element in the plot, and given that "Medium" on NBC has been such a success, I thought that perhaps this film would be a surprise.

What was surprising was precisely how bad this movie really is.

Frankly, Marisa Tomei is now and has been for a long time, one of the truly luminous beauties in modern films. She's got a subtle way about herself, and a lovely speaking voice. She is expressive but not in a 'femme fatale' kind of way. None of that was put to use in this film from someone's creative Dead Zone.

Speaking of the Stephen King novel ( which we weren't, but hey, we should be ), and the film made from that story featuring Martin Sheen and Christopher Walken, there is ample evidence that this theme of trauma-induced precognition can be made believable, intimate, and effective. That is what made "Dead Zone" a four-star success.

That wasn't done here. There were plenty of "psychic" elements tossed into a mixer and poured out as a script, but that script started SOMEWHERE interesting and ended up going NOWHERE at a glacial pace.

There are three people to blame for this cinematic disaster: the screenwriter who got the credit for this garbled mess of a movie, the director, who was apparently powerless to get script changes, or so totally clueless that he could not see the powerful beginning of a precognition-based plot simply disappearing halfway through it all, and me for wasting my money on this DVD rental.

Additionally, the various and sundry persons who got "credits" for being this film's "producers," should be ashamed of wasting however much money this effort cost. Seldom in the history of modern film production have so many good and talented actors and actresses been paid to do a movie that turned out so very badly.

Regina Hall was good and the film earned a 2 because of that, and because Marisa Tomei made an obvious effort to interact with Hall in several critical scenes, keeping her 'angst' low-key while Hall's character got a chance to shine.

If a meteorite or a comet comes by and burns every copy of "Danika" known, into dust, including the master and the daily rushes ... nobody will complain much, not now and surely not in a hundred years from now. It's that bad. Honest.


Danika (Marisa Tomei) is a thirty-five years old overprotective mother with a beautiful family composed by her successful husband Randy (Craig Bierko), two sons - the teenager Kurt (Kyle Gallner) and the little Brian (Ridge Canipe), and one teenager daughter - Lauren (Nicki Prian). Danika is disturbed and near a breakdown, having dark and terrifying nightmares and daydreams; distracted in her work and consequently committing mistakes; and under psychiatric treatment with Dr. Evelyn (Regina Hall). Her problem was originated when her husband cheated her with the nanny of their children, breaking her confidence on him. The lack of attention caused by her disturbed mind leads her family to a tragedy.

"Danika" is an impressive and challenging American dark movie showing the complexity of the human mind. My interpretation of the story is very simple: after finding her beloved husband cheating her with the nanny of their children, Danika becomes an insecure, stressed and overprotective mother, affecting her professional life. While in her treatment with Dr. Evelyn, she revives her innermost hidden fears about the lack of confidence in her husband. This situation is very clear when Randy tells that she cannot forget and forgive him, after the incident with the police. Danika insists on not having a maid to help her, and while having a daydream driving her car with her children, she does not pay attention in the traffic light and is hit by a school bus, killing her children, but surviving. When the reporter asks the paramedic if she would survive, the other man responds "yes", but asks "how could she live?". She asks for her children and her imagination sees her happy family together again. In the last scene, we see the reality, i.e., how she survived, deranged and homeless. I am a fan of Marisa Tomei, and in "Danika" she is simply brilliant. The promising director Ariel Vromen and the writer Joshua Leibner have great beginning of career in the cinema industry. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Danika"


This movie has some depth so if your just into blood,guts, and mindless action and gore(which I love too) it may not be for you. This is a drama/Horror with a little more depth then your average horror..I have seen this movie a few times on cable and saw the screener before it came out. It took me 3 times to fully grasp everything that was going on with Danika. For those who think its only people involved in the production making good reviews, I feel sorry that you couldn't grasp this film. I have absolutely nothing to do with this film and I give it 8 stars.

Marissa Tomei is still very Hot and a great actress who gave a stellar performance. Watching her come unglued emotionally on screen is very believable. She carries most of the film, but the rest of the performances are excellent too. An all around great film, good acting, cast, plot, etc for those who don't like spoon fed plots.


I got REALLY excited when I saw this movie in a Blockbuster one day. I kept telling people I wanted to see it really badly...as the title is my name. I finally caught up with this movie about a month ago and was thoroughly disappointed.

It cracks me up that so many say that people who don't like the movie just didn't understand it's "brilliance." I understood what was going on. I got the "twist" ending where everything ends up being a sad delusion. The fact is, it just wasn't that great.

People kept asking how the psych was also the nanny. In her delusional world, all the characters still had parts. The psychiatrist visits weren't real, just like none of the life after the accident was real. These are known as coping mechanisms. She was trying to cope with the loss and pain, so she created an alternate reality in her mind.

At the end of the movie, you get the real story.

TBH, I enjoyed it at first, but at the end, I felt like I had just wasted that time. It's rare for me to say that about a movie. I can almost ALWAYS find something I like. I really WANTED this movie to be good, but the the whole point didn't seem very original to me, and I feel like I've seen twists like this done a lot better.

There just weren't any redeeming qualities about this film. Itw as awful.


There movie is the epitome of awful. Even with the obvious plot devices this movie is one you should not spend money on. Do not go to see it, do not rent it, do not add it to your Netflix. Marisa Tomei is wonderful as always and Kyle is gorgeous. You should not have to go on the internet to understand a movie. Definitely skip it. This movie is not worth the price of gas to go see it. It actually is not worth the price of the movie channels to see this movie. People who say they can figure this movie out on their own are lying. Or they simply do not want to agree with those of us who appreciate good movies. The only good things about this movie are Marisa Tomei and Kyle.


Not only have many of the comments on this page mentioned Marisa Tomei's acting chops, the only thing that should be chopped (besides that horribly fake and unbelievable "head in the fridge", are the microphones that you see in just about every other scene. At one point, there are 3 microphones above each character in the same family kitchen where said fake head lies in a pool of ketchup. Marisa is on the telephone, and it looks like a big black adult toy is about to smack Ms. Tomei in the noggin. Now, this is only in the HD version, so let's say the microphones weren't there. THIS MOVIE STILL BLOWS!!! Like I said, things are chopped, Marisa Tomei's acting chops are not part of this "film", if we can call it that. We can replace her with a robot and get the same quality of emotion. Perhaps she was in a financial pinch, and needed the quick cash to keep up on the payments of her Land Rover. Put this flick on the chopping block, watch The Wrestler, and perhaps then you'll remember why Ms. Tomei is an actress, and you may get a bit more enjoyment out of that film than this horribly edited, scripted, and cinematic disaster. Shame on Ariel Vromen, who needs to go back to NYU, shouldn't have transferred to LA Film School, and needs to stick to dark comedy, rather than supposed dark films that lack intensity or research. To see better works from Arial Vromen, check out Rx, starring Colin Hanks. I prescribe that Vromen stick to writing his own scripts, as Joshua Leibner wrote this script, which is flimsy, and not worthy of Tomei.


There are numerous movies out there that handle psychosis and paranoia and some of them handle it pretty well. Danika most certainly does not.

The only way you could defend the setup of the movie is by saying that we as viewers see the world through the eyes of the disturbed Danika. Well, after 30 minutes of that, it becomes pretty annoying and tedious.

At first I thought the movie was setup to make it hard to follow what was happening. But in the end there was nothing connecting to anything in it. Non of the plot-points that were introduced during the repetitive scenes had any relevance to the eventual end of the movie. And the result is a viewer who is left feeling like a fool.

I believe that it was the directors intend to let the audience be unaware of what was real and what wasn't. But the moments of unclarity were too obvious to achieve that effect.

This movie has not much to show for besides a woman and her delusions. It is devoid of plot, impressive special effects or memorable acting.

Not recommended.