A technically superb thriller about a man that after an accident loses memory of the last two years. He struggles to remember what happened during that time and soon finds himself switching between the past and the present and possessing the ability to alter the future.

Heavily inspired by other more famous films dealing with memory loss and past/future actions 'The I Inside' is nonetheless an entertaining and interesting thriller that grabs you and never lets go.

We're thrown into the story with no background and feel exactly like the main character and it's almost impossible to lose interest in a smart plot that only loses its edge towards the end.

Phillippe proves he is up to the task heading a competent cast filled with strong performances.

The biggest achievement however is the superb direction that provides us some wonderful shots and gives a lesson in tension build up and suspense.

Even if the idea behind it is heavily abused and the end is anything but original 'The I Inside' is certainly worth a view.

Perhaps more could have been accomplished but still it's a good ride.


Simon Cable (Ryan Phillippe) awakens in the hospital after an incident where, at least according to his physician, Doctor Newman (Stephen Rea), he was having convulsions and had to have his stomach pumped. His doctor is worried about him, for reasons that he doesn't specify very well to Simon, but Simon seems okay. At least until Dr. Newman asks him the date. Simon has to look outside his hospital window to even see what season it is, and he says that the year is 2000. It's really 2002. Somehow, he lost two years that he cannot remember. Worse, two different women seem to appear as his wife. The more he tries to figure out what happened, the more of a living nightmare it becomes. Is he losing his mind? The I Inside has him trying to remember his past, solve a number of mysteries, and figure out what is really going on.

That a film like The I Inside has an American release on the Starz! Mystery channel (and not until January 2005), while a film like Alone in the Dark (2005) has a major multiplex release across the country makes as much sense as leaving the Ferrari at home and cruising the strip on a tricycle instead in an attempt to impress the chicks. Even though it has clear stylistic and thematic precursors, The I Inside is a gem of a film that should have had a theatrical release at an earlier date. It ended up as a 10 out of 10 for me.

In a film like this, you can't say much about the plot without providing spoilers. To give you an idea of what the film is like, though, it would be sufficient to cite the other works that the I Inside cast and crew have mentioned as influences--The Sixth Sense (1999), The Others (2001), Donnie Darko (2001), Memento (2000), and perhaps most significantly Jacob's Ladder (1990). There are also a number of similarities to The Butterfly Effect (2004). But as The I Inside and that film were actually completed at about the same time, it seems like another of those too-numerous-for-coincidence eras when there was "something in the air" that led to a number of similar films. It's not that the films are copying from one another so much as that they share influences, ranging from precursor films to concurrent societal concerns and even scripts that are being shopped around.

The structure of The I Inside is complex from the start and increases in complexity as the film plays out. That director Roland Suso Richter is able to keep it as coherent as he does is a remarkable testament to his skill. Phillippe is in almost every shot of the film, as by necessity, we have to see the film as his character does, to piece it together with him. This is the best performance I have ever seen from him, and he's usually good. He has an ability here to turn on a dime and provide a believable character who gradually comes to a realization as he bounces back and forth between temporal settings. It's even more complicated than that, as when he's playing the character in the previous temporal setting, he has to be two characters at once--the character as he was when that temporal setting initially occurred, and the character from the later temporal setting experiencing it again, as a voyeur, while piecing together the puzzle.

Richter also manages an eerie mood of displacement throughout the film. This puts the viewer in a frame of mind similar to Phillippe's character, helping the viewer feel the disorientation and encroaching paranoia and madness along with the character. It works marvelously. It's also worth briefly mentioning the fantastic music by Nicholas Pike, as it does much to enhance the mood.

The I Inside is the perfect example of why originality isn't the most important criterion for a good film. Although it wears its influences on its sleeve (or its hospital gown in this case), this is one of the best films ever made in this horror subgenre.


Here is a film that will keep you wondering just what it's all about. For those who are into such movies, you're in for a treat. The familiar theme of going back to the past to "fix" certain wrongs is offered here with an engaging plot and a bang-up twist.

Simon Cable is a wealthy young man who wakes up in a hospital after some kind of accident in 2002, supposedly due to wood refinishing fumes. We soon learn that he has been in this hospital before, in 2000, which is when his brother Peter was killed. His wife Anna comes to see him but apparently was somehow involved in the cover-up of the truth behind Peter's death. All of this is unknown to Simon, since he has amnesia (or so his doctor thinks) and now believes he has lost two years of his life. It is here that we movie-goers become intrigued, and the attention-grabbing twists do not stop. Who is the blond woman Claire? What is the secret of Simon's brother's death? Why is his doctor unfathomably a pediatrician?

As Simon recovers from his accident, he seems to have flashbacks to 2000, filling the holes in his memory. Or does he? His doctor in 2000 makes a pretty good case that his mind is creating images that Simon feels are actually premonitions of 2002. Confused? Well, so's Simon, and we come to understand the "real" story in bits and pieces, just as Simon does. Eventually, he believes (based on a rather shocking incident during a "flashback" to 2000) that he can go back in time to undo past wrongs and, as in so many other films of this type, things do not go well.

Seen it before, you say? Well, this is a well-wrought presentation of the basic premise, with a possible murder and wife/mistress conflict, some good editing, and more than respectable acting, especially from Ryan Phillipe (Simon), who seems to be blossoming as an actor, or at least is getting better roles. This is a good thing, considering that Phillipe is in every scene, and the other actors all have rather small parts by comparison. Big-name actor Stephen Rea as Doctor Newman is nothing to write home about, but that may partly be because his role is relatively less significant to the total story. The role of Simon's brother Peter, played by Robert Sean Leonard, is even smaller, and Leonard seems to barely walk through it. However, watch for Stephen Graham's portrayal of particularly crabby heart patient Travitt in the year 2000 scenes.

In any event, go into this film with an open mind, and try not to compare it to others of its genre, most recently "The Butterfly Effect." The last few minutes of the film will make you rethink your comparisons anyway and leave you with a new confusion worth discussing at your favorite coffeehouse afterwards.


The first two-thirds of "The I Inside" are fantastic: very intriguing and engaging, recalls "The Butterfly Effect", "Jacob's Ladder" and "identity", just to mention three similar movies. The situation of Simon Cable resuscitated without memory in the hospital in two different years is disclosed like a puzzle, and I was mesmerized with this film. Unfortunately, it seems that the screenplay writer raised so many weird situations that he was not able to conciliate all of them in a satisfactory ending, and indeed the plot has a very disappointing conclusion. I regret and feel sorry, since this movie could have been a masterpiece of the genre. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Terceiro Olho" ("The Third Eye")


There should be another category to describe films that don't exactly fit the accepted genres of horror, supernatural or psychological thriller.

I call it the "Puzzle-Box" genre. Puzzle-Box films challenge you to think and discover the answers, rather than spoon-feeding them to you. Not everyone enjoys that when going to the movies. Classifying a film as a Puzzle-Box would make it easier for that film to find its audience.

THE I INSIDE is one of those films. Others are MULHOLLAND DRIVE, IDENTITY (same writer as THE I INSIDE), JACOB'S LADDER, and many modern Korean films, such as OLDBOY, HYPNOTIZED, TALE OF TWO SISTERS, and the brilliant but obscure SPIDER FOREST. And to a lesser extent, MEMENTO, which is fun on the first watch, but bored me on the second, since no new clues are revealed.

THE I INSIDE give more answers at the end than OLDBOY or MULHOLLAND DRIVE, but it is still a fascinating film.

This is is Ryan Phillippe's most challenging role, and he does an excellent job, but the standout for me was Piper Perabo-- she went through some tricky personality quirks (I'm purposely leaving things vague) which added to the mystery.


This movie showed some potential with time travel and mysterious memory loss, however the plot never really unfolds and the hospital suspense scenes feel totally forced and bland.

None of the characters really develop past the basic storyline which is poor at best, although the acting is OK. Visual effects and the strange time traveling are all it has to offer..

"the I inside" tries hard to be intelligent and mysterious but is ultimately uninteresting but of course you don't find that out until the end of the movie...where you are left scratching your head and disappointed.

AVOID!!!


I'm surprised that some user comments found "The I Inside" even marginally watchable; there may be some star attraction in Sarah Polley or Ryan Philippe, but they are both ill used, and it is difficult for me, at least, to imagine genuine tears falling from Philippe's eyes as he mourns his existential condition with lines like, "This can't be --expletive deleted-- true!" and a moment later (as we switch to existential condition #2) "This can't be --another expletive-- happening!" (A reflective person, one gathers, this character apparently isn't.) Indeed, the action of the film (such as there is) is so preposterous, one can't imagine it happening anyway; but then this film knows not whether it is sci-fi or thriller, mystery or psychological drama -- no wonder the audience is reduced to focusing on its stars rather than on what they say or do as characters. Sorry -- a 2 star rating to a film that features glamorous actors in unglamorous, unflattering roles, and is absurd in the event to boot.


(Not possible spoilers, MAJOR spoilers, you can rest assured...) I'm writing this review because reading the other comments, I think this movie is being misunderstood by many people. Many people give it a low rating because of the ending which they see as a kind of cheap way to "solve the riddle".

But actually, I think the ending is not a "solution" to a "riddle". The fact that Simon, the main protagonist, is dead at the end of the movie is not a clue to the story, it's rather the RESULT of the different choices he makes while time-travelling to the past.

What I want to say is: according to me, the time-travelling is not some fantasy by someone in a coma, or someone in the process of dying. It is REAL (in the fantasy world of the movie). Simon starts out in hospital in 2002, being a victim, presumably of inhaling poisonous fumes while working in the house (but it is also suggested that this might be a poisoning attempt by his wife Anna). He lost his memory, but for some inexplicable reason gets caught in a continuous time-travel between 2000 and 2002. The significant thing is that he was in the same hospital in 2000, after the (rather unintentional) murder on his brother, and the car crash he got involved in together with his nearly dead brother (presumably while on the way to the hospital). Because of the car accident, he was able to cover up the murder, but got blackmailed by Anna, his future wife, who is after his money.

At least, that's what we are told to believe.

None of the "facts" in this movie are unconditional fact, namely. Almost anything that happened, could have happened in a different way if the protagonist would have made different choices while travelling to the past. I'm going to give a few examples of that.

1. The road to the cliff vs. the road to the hospital: As we can see, originally Simon takes the road to the cliff after his brother's death (well, near-death). He clearly intends to throw his body down the cliff to simulate a suicide. However, his plan fails because some other car is there with a couple making love. After a long time, he decides to turn back. But it's not clear to what place. His house? The hospital? Has Claire already returned to the house and found the mess that is there or not? Anyway, when he had a "bad intention", Simon chose the wrong road, because it eventually led to him getting involved in a car crash, and Anna blackmailing him. When he had a "good intention" (when revisiting the past and trying to change things around), Simon chose the "good" road (the one to the hospital). And this turns out to be fatal, since he gets involved in a car crash with Claire (who is the classical blonde haired female character representing the "good") and dies just like everybody else.

I think a strong suggestion is being made here that it doesn't really matter which road you take, the "wrong" one or the "good" one, since either everything is predetermined OR the real "wrong" (the murder) has already taken place.

2. The unanswered phone call: We see the struggle between Simon and his brother Peter twice. The first time Simon, who is warped back to the past, sees himself getting involved in a struggle with his brother, which leads to Peter's unfortunate death. The second time, he is the protagonist himself and tries to prevent Peter's death, but unfortunately causing the exact same event to happen. Twice, we can hear an unanswered phone ringing. This is one of those points in the movie where you know that Simon made a "bad choice". I guess this phonecall is supposed to be from Claire, who has just left the house and is calling that she is on her way back.

Actually, the fact that no one answers the phone in both cases might be exactly the reason why the fateful car crash appears in both scenarios (although in one of the scenarios, Simon survives and in the other, he doesn't): Claire decides to return because she is getting worried about Simon and/or Peter.

Anyway, there are a lot more intriguing things in this movie that I cannot even discuss here. I'm giving it a 10 nonetheless, not because I think it is worth a 10 (I would give it a 7 or 8 or so), but because I find the general ratings given here ridiculously low (There's more to rating movies than only giving a 1 or a 10, people...).

This is a haunting movie with a really nice, twisted plot, a lot of suspense (especially in the first part of the movie), overall decent acting (I thought the character of Anna and the guy waiting for a heart transplantation were done especially well), but rather uninspired music (although the sound effects are nicely done). I suspect that the fact that this movie was hardly ever promoted in the USA has more to do with the lack of appreciation here than anything else.


If you understand it you'll love it!

Not a film for those wanting to be spoon fed.

At first look it's "Egads not that kind of stuff again!" But it's much more than Mememto, Butterfly Effect, Dead End, Sixth Sense or other great movie of (similar?) "paranormal" genre.

This is truly original and is probably closer to only one of the above mentioned movies. But to say which one would spoil it.

I really didn't want to write a review and certainly it's hard to get in ten lines, but the low reviews given previously may have been from those who did-not understand the movie.

You "gotta" have brains to enjoy this movie!


This is a so-so thriller with a pretty boy hero going through a lot of convoluted flashbacks ala "jacob's ladder" and "butterfly effect". I noticed a taste of "identity" in the mix too. This movie has good suspense right up until the end where it just kinda goes limp without delivering the goods in a most pathetic manner. It replaced intelligence with obscurity since the writers only had the latter as a tool for plot development. Basically you are left wondering - huh? And .. do I even care what the real deal is with this story or is there even a cohesive story to be uncovered here? Or is it just some dumb ending slapped on the end in an attempt to tie up the hundreds of loose ends this weird script leaves hanging?


This movie does not get the credit it deserves, in my opinion. Cooney wrote something beautiful in this script. He brought upon questions and ideas subject to us, and approached it in a manner that keeps us guessing  keeps us curious. Cooney is not a philosopher, he is a film writer: he is simply doing what he does best in life, and in my opinion with great merit. We have seen this theme before, and even after this film (The Butterfly Effect), but that does not give any reason why Cooney should not take his stab at it. Pure originality is few and far between these days, maybe even non-existent. As for the directing: nothing bad to say. There is some great camera work, cinematography and use of effects. There were some beautifully placed dark and gloomy scenes, and a wonderful recreation of the act of dying and being brought back to life (exactly the way my grandfather described it to me when it happened to him... not to say that each resuscitation isn't unique and individual, but we do hear of a common trend: see the white light; see your body below you).

My only real problem with the film is that I think Piper Perabo was slightly overacting. Not that the acting did not fit in some way, but it seemed a tad dry and much, but this is a subjective outlook. Others may find her fitting.

******** SPOILER ******** DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU HAVE WATCHED THE FILM

Consider what the orderly said (and I'm paraphrasing): how and why people die is the question. It may be the only question.

I am writing this comment not to be audacious or to act superior, but I feel I have read a few other unintelligent comments that brought me to be motivated to say my piece. What some people do not realize, or have yet to realize, is that the story is about a man who is at the edge of death. Some people in this world die, but have a chance to be resuscitated  some people come back to us, some don't.

Consider those who do survive. Why is it they live and other before them did not? The same tools and similar (maybe even the same) circumstances are at their temptation. Maybe those who died gave up, and those who lived still had something important to live for. This is Simon Cable.

Now, of course, there are holes in this hypothesis: is this important calling of God (Peter seems to think otherwise at the end: we decide), there are those who come back to us without amnesia (but at the end, does Simon not go back to where he once was, unaware and unknowing once again), and does this make him insane (the old cliché that the insane are truly those best in touch with the world). The last idea I don't personally believe, but this movie is about the questions. It doesn't end in obscurity or lose its' intelligence, it simply explores an idea and leaves us wondering: how and why do people die? And is this phenomenon even more than we, as believers of our own trend, realize.

Though the rating of a movie to simply overall 1 to 10 can be difficult, and I am still on the fence of how much I like it (having just seen it, and would like to come back to it a few weeks from now). I gave it an 8, though I think a 7.5 would be more accurate to my opinion at this moment.


I found this a very refreshing film in that the camera angles are creative without becoming annoying, and the focus is on the characters rather than on effects. As has already been said here, though, "The I Inside" does try to get a bit too clever for its own good, and the very last sequence should simply have been dropped in my opinion. Interestingly enough, there is an alternative ending supplied, which was much closer to how I would have liked things to have gone. I'd recommend this to anyone looking for something off the mainstream, but it should be taken with a "the film's what you make of it" approach towards the end to still be enjoyed. Oh, and if you liked "Jacob's Ladder" it's a must-see...


I rented the I inside the other day and was intrigued from start to finish.I did have to re-watch parts to understand it but ended up with more questions. Like another person said on here,i'm surprised this movie wasn't in theater's.It would have been cool seeing it on a big screen,and Ryan Phillippe's performance blew me away.He really made me believe how tortured the character of Simon was right up until the end. It started out as a good mystery with interesting characters. The one thing I didn't understand was why Simon Cable's mother was never shown.There was only a quick mention of her being dead.His father also died but later appeared in visions along with his dead brother and his girlfriend. The story was slowly coming together and the mystery was solved but confused about the character of Anna and why she was even in it.First she's his wife,then she's a nursing student,and then a blackmailer.Her character in the whole story just did not fit.I understood at the end how all the other characters fit in to what was going on.At the end each person in the hospital,both doctors(including his own father as one),his brother and his lover Claire who was his brother's wife had a part in Simon's head as he was wanting to go back to the past and make things right but it was too late. I have seen other movies like this before like the movie dead end,but I thought the ending of the I inside was more real.He was either in a coma for 2 years and while under imagined all the scenarios of bettering his life and making up for the people he wronged,or was stuck in hell tortured with never ending memories of what he did while he watched with his own eyes the sins he committed.And his guilt was making him see how he would change things if he had another chance. At one point in the movie he felt he was lost in a never ending confusing void and the one doctor who was also his father was telling him he died.The spooky thing about the ending is that it gets you thinking about what lays ahead after our own death. This was only my perception,another person may have seen it differently.Or maybe he did wake up from the coma and had to face up to what he did.


When I saw this movie, I thought of it as a cheap rip of the Butterfly Effect, but when I saw the year when this movie was released it might be the otherwise. Not that I thought Butterfly Effect was original or extraordinary but I liked it. It had an amount of suspense and a good pace that kept you alert. Then The I Inside looks cheap, dull and boring. I'll outline the plot first.

Simon Cable is a reach guy who wakes up in a hospital after being poisoned by his wife. The doctor mentions to Simon that he was dead for a couple of minutes but he recovered ( this is where a gap in his parallel life begins). Physically Simon looks to be healthy, but he suffers from a loss of memory for a period of two years. From here Simon starts to question his past and the reasons he got into the hospital. Somehow he travels back in time to the next day he last remembered, and finds himself in the same hospital after being involved in a car accident ( this he learns in course of the events). By traveling from 2000 to 2002 he sees that changing the past affects the future so he tries to amend things.What things to amend? Well, Simon's brother, Peter, had a fiancé, Clair, which was in love with Simon. Simon deadly injures his brother and covers it as a car crash ( In which he was also involved). Now Simon tries to amend things and tries to save Peter only to see that Clair dies in the same crash. He understands that he has given a second chance, but someone still has to die, so he must choose between his life, Peter's or Clair's. The movie ends the way it has begun and we conclude that he hasn't changed anything: Peter died. The missing part: Ana is a nurse in the hospital that hears ( and tapes ) the last confession of Peter where he tells her that Simon is the one who killed him ( and it wasn't an accident ). Ana blackmails Simon and the gets married to him. After a couple of years Ana decides to kill Simon and leave all his fortune to herself.

Now for some discouragement. First of all The I Inside is boring. All the movie occurs in Three or four places, constantly repeating it's scenes. The music is disturbingly awful. Inspide of some known lead actors it looks like it's budget is ... Same characters appear as worker's in the hospital and the first aid in the ambulance.

In the recent years, the "puzzle movie" genre is seems to be flooded. some of the movies are good, others replicas or just trash. I don't know whether it's a replica or not but I would definitely put this movie in the trash category.


I hated this movie, but I dislike a lot of movies that others seem to love--like A Beautiful Mind or the Usual Suspects. So if you loved those shows, read no further. I'm only posting this for the benefit of people with similar tastes, so they can avoid this one. At least A Beautiful Mind and the Usual Suspects had some entertainment value. This show has none. Only weirdness, and in a very annoying way.

For me, a film has a duty to the viewer to be fair--to not resort to the cheapness of portraying a dream, delusion, or fantasy as reality. It's fine if the character doesn't know what's going on. It's even fine if the audience doesn't for a while, but I find it incredibly annoying to invest a couple of hours into a story only to find out in the end that it was all just a dream.

This movie is very cheap in that way. You might like it if you're fifteen years old, don't care if a story makes any sense, and just like weirdness, but I hated. I sensed early on that this was one of those annoying movies that offered no clarity, so I fast forwarded and watched the ending. Well, the ending made no sense and so at that point I gave up on the show and came to IMDb. After reading the posts here and the tremendous amount of confusion this movie caused, I have no interest in watching it all the way through. This is one movie that should have never been made.


I've read some posts, I didn't have time to read them all, and I did have some questions, but after writing them down, I've made my thoughts on how this story makes sense.

It's a man who dies, and his spirit runs through the scenarios that could of prevented his death, but his ego, spared relevant memories to realize the consequences of escaping his own death, leads the ego to act in order of what actually happened, and this could be said to be in spite of the true nature of his spirit, leaving the spirit to accept that death is the order the ego would take over living, since living with the consequences of escaping death would not satisfy the ego. This can be demonstrated through his struggle to make things right, his struggle to resolve the dissonance of his morality versus his will to live.

If this were the intended interpretation, theoretically, what the spirit chooses becomes the choice made by the ego, and this only being realized by the spirit after manifesting the ego in all possibilities. It would seem that the spirit would manifest an ego to learn the ego.

It's also interesting to consider that a spirits ego may be capable of realizing its spirit, and maybe it was meant to realize more than just that, maybe it was meant to realize itself as the spirits instrument to experiencing a projection of individuation, which would further assume that the spirit is singular, and this would align with what could be considered as god, or maybe it's just something that couldn't otherwise be explained as the answer to life due to the bounds of our existence.

I liked this movie, I give it a 9 in concept, but a 7 in execution due to the lack in originality employed by the director. There are too many cliché story telling techniques to prevent me from knowing what I maybe should have not known in certain parts of the film.


What happens when you go to the cinema to watch "Just My Luck" but it is sold out, and so is "RV" and "United 93", and "The Ant Bully" and, believe it or not, "Curious George" where films you could see earlier? You end up watching "The I Inside". I don't want to write about this movie I don't want to write about this movie. With a lot (a lot) of delay, "The I Inside" has arrived to our cinema theaters.

What on earth went wrong here? I can do some research and find the answer, although if isn't worth the space of my page. Roland Suso Richter, a German director, came to try in Hollywood and directed this picture. He's too stylish for what the viewer is used to see. He invents too much and ends up confusing him (although that's in part fault of the screenplay). What happened to him? He is directing TV in Germany and Hollywood hasn't looked for him in three years.

Writer Michael CooneyIs this the same guy that wrote "Identity"? Is it possible for him to write such a mess as "The I Inside"? Apparently it is, and if you want to save him you could forgive him because the screenplay was adapted from his own play, and as I have said before, a play can be good but it doesn't have to make a good movie. Joined by Timothy Scott Bogart, Cooney takes you inside the world of a man who is able to change the future by changing the past.

I mean, of course the material they had in their hands was interesting; it could have created a cult classic or something everyone would have talked about. But that's not how it went down, and if you try to understand the film, you will get to the bottom of it. There is an explanation; but you're so tired by the time it arrives that you don't want to figure out anything.

Tiring is one of the best words to define "The I Inside"; and it is impossible not to compare it with "The Butterfly Effect", a film where you don't want to get to the end. You've got to compare then because the first one sucks and the latter one is great; because the cast of the first one is way superior to the latter one's

I like Ryan Phillippe is a starring role: I liked "Cruel Intentions" and very much liked "Antitrust". But how can an actor like him not carry a film like this one? How can Ashton Kutcher do it better? Sarah Polley is much more talented than Amy Smart, but the same situation occurred. And Robert Sean Leonard; he is better than the whole 'Butterfly' cast put togetherAnd Stephen Rea: he is an Oscar Nominated actor; please!

You can also find Piper Perabo in "The I Inside" but I doubt you'll be interested after all I've said. Forgive me if I'm to harsh, but there are few movies as bad as this oneIt's the truth.


I was thrilled to see Ryans performance in this movie and i must say I wasn't disappointed by it. The movie is about letting go and how every choice you make shapes your future. I was disappointed by length and the ending of this movie. This movie isn't a must see but it sure is nice for the eyes and thinking material. If you like movies about destiny you'll probably be thrilled but not impressed. This movie isn't a classsic but it deserves to be watched. Rent this if you're in the mood to be creeped up and entertained. There's not much more i can say without revealing contents of the movie. If you are delaighted with uncertain movies that clear up in the end this is the choice for you. Hop you aren't disappointed


A film about the fight against the traps of past, the search of gestures sense and about the truth like puzzle. A story about the dreams, guilty and death. A strange travel in the days of a past who may be yours with the nuances of other person. The interpretation of Ryan Philippe is impressive. Powerful and subtle, it create the forms of fear and hope, touch of reality and rebirth of events. The subject is old and the science to build a new image of theme is impressive. Ambiguous and clear in same time, game and dramatic discover of yourself, bones of recollections and dreams in the cells of lost life, love as ridiculous fragments of lost pictures, a wife, a brother, a car accident, some words. And the rooms of a hospital, the details of ambiguous sin, the details and the faces in a huge mirror.

The life as possibility. The rules of a sin. And the sleep in far year.


How unfortunate to spend time on these sort of inadequate movies. I suppose Butterfly Effect was even a better movie at least it was more entertaining than this one. The Script was bad and inadequate, acting was terrible the actors must have picked up on a rush or they didn't have enough budget for good ones. Neither of Simon (Phillippe) i suppose due to the script and director, Dr. Newman (Rea), Anna (Perabo), Claire (Polley) or Peter (Leonard) could act, i think the only good actors in this movie was Mr. Travit(Lang) the patient and Nurse Clayton (Ayola). The opening was like trying to create a suspense which fails and the audience were literally pushed to that suspicion other than naturally creating the atmosphere, he killed Mr. Travit and he was there in the future and suddenly started to bleed, he banged Anna's had and she had the bleeding in the future all of a sudden which does not correspond with the other events if u changed the past it happens so you wont see it in the future, it would be the past. The ending was meaningless does it mean he has another chance and why Dr. Newman was his father then became Dr. Newman again in the ending... such a waste of time and money...


The I Inside is a complex movie and while some may dislike it for it's complicating story lines others may just because of it.

When Simon(Ryan Phillippe:Cruel intentions,Gosford Park) awakens in the hospital after a near death experience, amnesia has erased the past two years of his memory. He learns that his brother(Robert Sean Leonard:Drive,Dead Poets Society) was killed, he has married a young women he doesn't remember (Piper Perabo:Cheaper by the dozen,Coyote Ugly)... and he is haunted by mysterious visions of the women whom he loved(Sarah Polly:Dawn of the dead,Go). Soon he starts to uncover the truth behind his brothers death and unravel the unbelievable turns his life has taken! So in my opinion if you enjoyed the movies Identity, The Jacket, and Memento you will probably enjoy this Psychological thriller.


You know those twilight zone episodes where you are instantly enraptured into the plot and then at the end there is a surprise twist, and all of a sudden the episode come across differently? And you are shocked and awed by what happens..

Well I think the makers of this movie were going for this but instead decided to fire the writer halfway thru and get someone else entirely that could bandage the rest of the plot and jam the contents of their script in with the previous writers story.

It reeks of it. The ending is one of the worst I've ever seen. (SPOILER/ It says hey look we took this amount of time to tell this story and since we have no resolution whatsoever with the characters or the story we are just going to kill the lead off. WTF??!!

It is extremely sloppy and it completely leaves entire script holes that without resolution or at least acknowledgment become Script sinkholes!

Like for instance why is the "dad" shown in the photos at the end the doctor at the beginning? Why does the blackmailing girlfriend have a wound that is freshly bleeding in 2002 from a wound that happened in 2000 In the alternate reality?? /SPOILER)

Arghhhh This is just a frustrating movie in which you think the lead is just psychotic then you learn no it's really you, you are the crazy one who bothered to see this Ryan Phillipe movie! I want my 90 minutes back!


I will make this brief.

This is a decent movie. Is it completely groundbreaking? No. Will you enjoy it?

I DID.

There are ton of people on here talking about how it doesn't make sense, theorizing about the ending...comparing it to Butterfly Effect/The Jacket/... yadda yadda.

If you have half a brain in your head, you will at least think this movie is worth watching. The end is NOT hard to figure out. There really AREN'T any massive plot holes. Its just a good psychological thriller... with a hint of sci-fi/horror. The acting is 85% good.

This movie will not change your life. But. If you are like me and you have seen almost everything else the world of cinema has to offer.... this movie really isn't as bad as a lot of what is out there.

Oh. P.S. The fact that every time a movie like this comes out... people compare it to THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT... makes me want to vomit.

Butterfly Effect = 2 stars. The I Inside = 7 stars.


Just like the TV series "Lost", it seems all exciting while you watch and wait anxiously for the ending, which is supposed to explain everything, but when it ends, nothing is explained.

The whole point to movies like this is the ending which is usually a really fascinating twist, explaining why things happened the way that they did, e.g. "The Others", "6th Sense". This one had absolutely no conclusion and left me feeling cheated and like I had wasted the last 2 hours of my life.

At least it's fun to sit here and write how sh1t this move was and hope someone reads it :) By the way, I can't stand the TV series "Lost" either, and I did understand every single word in the Matrix, so I'm not dumb.


the voting for this movie is a shame! its probably one of the most underrated movies on IMDb and it makes me sick how some people who didn't even get the plot talk sh*t about it! it deserves at least a 7.5 in my opinion! and to all the people who didn't understand it: the movie doesn't have plot holes - its hard to get okay - but once u get it u well see what kind of an awesome movie it is! and ryan phillippe did a great job - i somehow didn't like him to much after cruel intentions, then in way of the gun he was pretty cool but now I'm a real fan of him! please go and see this movie - u wont regret it if u get it!


"The I Inside" is an excellent psychological thriller which will linger with you days after you see it. Simon (Ryan Phillippe) wakes up in a hospital with no memory of how he got there and no memory of the last two years of his life. Early on he meets Claire, whom he doesn't remember and Anna, a wife he doesn't know he had. Simon is also not aware his brother Peter is dead. The last thing Simon remembers is that he went to see his brother in 2000 and that he had an auto accident that evening.

Thus begins a tale of past and present as Simon relives the experiences of 2000 and 2002, discovering along the way he can change change past and present.

Some have compared this to "Memento," but the story is really closer in spirit to an old TWILIGHT ZONE episode, titled "Shadow Play" and the play "Steambath," with touches of "Mulholland Drive" and "The Sixth Sense" though lacking the emotional wallop or terror of the others. Nonetheless, "The I Inside" is a great psychological suspense film and I highly recommend it.

WARNING: SPOILERS

Some seem confused about the nature of Mr. Travati, Simon's wisecracking hospital roommate" and the reason for the "2002". Simon saw "Mr. Travati" walking down the passageway of the hospital, hooked to an IV bottle, when he was brought after the car accident. Simon is DEAD, and his conscious integrated Travati, Anna and the emergency room doctors into his illusion, in order to give cohesiveness to the illusion that he was still alive and experiencing "time travel." The "2002" was actually 20:02, military time (8:02 PM), when the emergency room doctor called Simon's death.

END OF SPOILERS

This movie was released directly to cable, where, fortunately, there should be a big audience for it. I predict "The I Inside" will become a cult film and is certainly worthy of a "9".


This film begins extremely well and you are looking forward to an interesting and intriguing plot. Instead this film is too confusing, and you do not feel satisfied or entertained at the end. Ryan Phillipe portrays the character Simon extremely well, and his performance is worthy. Although I do not understand why directors insist films be so complicated we actually loose the simplistic enjoyment film audiences require. I found this film to be extremely disappointing and didn't fully understand the meaning of the text? This is actually the first film I have watched and thought what?? Very Very Disappointing! I recommend watching twice with a pen and paper in order to take notes and then you can maybe begin to understand the over complicated story line. I would recommend this movie for Film/Media Students. I like films with complicated twists but this was not the best. I recommend you watch Butterfly Effect, it is a much better attempt of this genre.


A Fine Movie, but lacking in story... A puzzle-box movie, similar to rather Butterfly Effect than Memento.

Mostly it turns you on in the beginning, sliding through the story, keeping you thinking - when starts the thrill. Some good moments - similar to the Butterfly Effect.

Sarah Polley reminded me her next movie - My Life Without Me - all the time. It's a pity. Ryan Philippe though had his best presentation yet.

Still worth a look. Liked characters, and it had some style. Not all the answers will be answered, but still most of the points it lost are due to the ending...


I was totally not expecting the whole sixth sense twist. I really thought he had lost his memory and that someone was trying to kill him. The end totally confused me. Why did Simon wake up again at the end? Was he about to relive past mistakes all over again? Apparently by the number of bottles of wine on his brothers desk he'd done it before. I keep wondering why he followed his brother up the stairs each time. Or for that matter, why he never bothered to answer the phone? I guess I'll have to watch it again with a more observant eye. It really bothers to me to watch a movie and not have all the answers. At least the sixth sense took the time to explain its self in the end.


This movie is in no way good. The music in the movie, although sometimes too much, was often used to good effect. Many of the scenes were shot in average to above average ways. The acting by some of the secondary characters was believable. And that's the best I can say about this movie.

The protagonist, Simon, wakes up from a car-crash induced coma in a hospital into which he was admitted two years earlier. The 'plot' quickly, if ungainly, unfolds. I would outline this but for two reasons: I don't want to 'spoil' the movie experience for those of you who are looking forward to the movie and I don't think that the plot is worth outlining. My biggest complaint about the movie is the plot - as there is little to no chartacter development, the storyline has to be that which holds our interest. While I will admit that the plot held my interest for a while, it was largely due to the poorly handled time travel logistics (which are ultimately explained/explained away).

Even the ending refused to yield a satisfying conclusion - yes, I can imagine what the ending was SUPPOSED to convey, but if it's left ENTIRELY up to my imagination (which it most certainly was) then why not just dream up scenarios myself?

In fact, you'd probably be more entertained if you just sat at home by yourself and thought about movie plots that you'd like. Stay away from this movie.


Tom is out for a fun day at the beach, but everything turns out to be a disaster, right from the start when his bathing suit gets stuck in the door! Then he dives into the ocean, but the tide goes out and he hits nothing but sand and a bunch of tin cans and other garbage.

One thing after another goes wrong, but Tom, to his credit, remains upbeat. Then he discovers Jerry in the picnic basket eating all the food. Jerry then takes big bites out of poor Tom, to gets further bitten by a crab, on and on and on. Tom - and the crab - gets a few licks in on Jerry, too, but only a few.

This is non-stop action, almost wearing you out in just seven minutes. The frenetic pace is almost too much.


Tom is spending the day at the seaside with his girlfriend and is trying hard to impress her, as usual. But Jerry has stowed away inside the picnic basket and does everything he can to torment him while scoffing the food for himself. You might find this cartoon very, very similar to the more popular Muscle Beach Tom from the 1950s. But this one came first.

There are some very funny painful tricks played on Tom, but they do get a little tiresome after a while. But most of them work. Highlights include Tom drinking some very sandy tea and chewing his own broken teeth. How this is physically possible I don't know. But it's funny.


Probably one of the most memorable Tom and Jerry animated shorts, has Tom the cat hopelessly smitten with his love interest at a day at the beach. Jerry the mouse, with the help of a crab (in the crab's defense he hates Jerry as well as Tom), plot to of course turn Tom's good time into a day of pain, degradation and humiliation, often with hilarious results (the clam sandwich, the sand tea, the fake wooden lady, the spit-take, and of course the umbrella spring to mind) Viva Tom and Jerry!! This hilariously great cartoon can be found on disc one of the Spotlight collection DVD of "Tom & Jerry"

My Grade: A


"Salt Water Tabby" is another nice little classic by the duo Tom & Jerry. It is one of their funniest, apart some violent gags.

For one thing, the designs, general quality and artwork of this short is quite pleasant, like in much of the cartoons from those times. Because this one takes place in a beach, on a Summer day, it gives the impression of being a «Summer blockbuster». He he he!

There's lots of humor and funny gags on this one, starting by the way Tom introduces himself to that pretty female cat and the way he tries to impress her. Another funny thing about Tom is that he eats her hot dog and drinks her soda.

Right after that, there comes more comical moments: our little rodent friend Jerry is in the picnic basket, throws a tomato and a banana peel and eats salami from a few sandwiches. Next, Jerry throws a couple of eggs to Tom's eyes. Tom's eyes sure look funny with those eggs and some "decorations" - lol.

However, the most hilarious moments of this short are when Tom drinks sand instead of sugar in the coffee. That is so funny! And then Tom, tormented by the sensation of having his mouth full of sand, drinks water from the bucket, but it's ocean water and Tom spits it straight to the female cat's face! Oh my God, that is hysterical! It's true that Jerry is kinda mean by doing those things to Tom, but it's just so hilarious!

Overall, aside the violent gags with a crab and some of other kind, this short is among the most amusing by Tom & Jerry.


Wow, I love this short. This is about the best Tom and Jerry cartoon you can find, as it is absolutely tops in both quality of animation and laughs. In fact, I think that Tom and Jerry cartoons of the 40s are highly underrated and in many cases are superior to those of Warner Brothers--especially in regard to the quality of the animation.

Tom is at the beach trying to woo a cute lady cat. And, to help woo her, he brings along Jerry as his slave. Jerry is throttled again and again by Tom until finally Jerry escapes and decides to get revenge. And in this case revenge includes shoving an angry crab on Tom's tail, nearly drowning Tom and finally making the moves on Tom's girl. The film is nearly non-stop action and fun.


Tom is spending a day at the beach, and is out to impress the sexy white cat who is sunbathing nearby. Mischievous Jerry, however, is determined to scupper Tom's plans.

I love it when Tom and Jerry get away from their usual domestic setting to cause havoc somewhere new, and the seaside proves to be the ideal locale for plenty of inventive mayhem and violent hi-jinx: the cat and mouse get in trouble with a cantankerous crab, who is keen to use his pincers on the duo whenever possible; Jerry gets Tom to swallow sand, break his teeth on a shell sandwich, and leap head first onto a wooden post (which the cat is tricked into thinking is a drowning woman); Jerry is launched from a soda bottle into the sea; and Tom swallows an inflatable horse.


I bought this film solely on the promise of Chad Allen's acting skills. I am an ex-Christian who, while never having done the whole "ex-gay" scene in my church years, have held nothing but contempt for the movement and the promises it makes.

So it was doubly remarkable for me to see not only the excellence of this film, but the subtle, thoughtful and beautifully written story as well. Hats off to both writers (Craig Chester, Alan Hines) as well as the screenplay work by Robert Desiderio. The directing, filming and acting were outstanding. The story is a beautiful discussion of both the goodness and healing qualities of the Christian faith, while also exploring the brittle, rigid quality that faith by rules brings to the table. It does perhaps the best job I've ever seen of painting the complexity of homosexuality and Christianity, as well as the intricate dance that has developed between the two.

I am in particular struck by the roles played by the two males leads (Chad Allen and Robert Gant) and the nuanced, powerful performance by Judith Light. The transitions Allen makes from addict/bad boy to hopeful believer to the beginnings of a healthy gay relationship are brilliant. Robert Gant does exceptional work in the wrestling with the need to please a father he'll never win approval from, and in the dialogues where he confronts (in the person of Judith Light) the issues around Christianity, homosexuality and what it means to be a whole person. And Judith Light is a character I believe only a Christian or ex-Christian can deeply appreciate - believer, teacher, mother in denial for the way she feels she failed her son, defender, injured soul. I've met her echo again and again in my long walk through Christianity. Exceptional story-telling.

Thank you Robert Cary. Thank you actors and writers. Thanks for a kickin' piece of film.


There is a whole list of things I liked about this movie. Though it has some flaws, they are far outshone by the good.

The setting of the movie and the approach to the characters is brilliant. Most movies that show non-urban, non-coastal US cities fall into a trap of playing the setting and the characters for laughs, or at least exaggerating the local color for effect (witness Coen Brothers movies, for example). This movie didn't fall into the self-conscious exaggeration, which inevitably keeps the audience at a distance. Instead, it shows most things in a very human level--you're not looking down on, or sideways at, or with an outsider's view of the people or situation. This is the water you're swimming in. You're there to witness what is going on without the self-conscious, ironic and "precious" aspects that many directors are afraid to leave behind. This view of the rural West feels very genuine (and I know because I've lived there before).

The acting by Judith Light and Stephen Lang is phenomenal and that by Chad Allen and Robert Gant is very good. The large cast of supporting actors is largely very good, too. It becomes even more amazing that they pulled this off when the movie makers undoubtedly were working on a shoe-string budget. The performances are better than many big budget movies. The script allows for complex characters and the acting is nuanced.

The production values are similarly good for the small budget: beautiful filming, a good musical score and songs that worked just right for the tone.

There is a sense of space and stillness that allows things to breathe and it's a little bit "Zen" once the movie gets going. I didn't find the first few scenes of the movie fit in particularly well with the rest of the tone, but it was a minor annoyance. Some people may be expecting more of an emotional roller-coaster. The script and the direction were taken in a different direction than "hero-against-conspiring-world." You're meant to identify with different aspects of many characters and not only see things from a single perspective. It's harder to maintain a singular emotional intensity based on this focus. I found it quite effective for what it set out to accomplish (not what some reviewers wished it had accomplished instead).

A minor quibble is that some of the quiet lines were hard to hear and understand (though it could've been bad audio compression artifacts since I watched it on Netflix instant watch so it was not full DVD quality).

You really should see this movie if you care about any of the themes it addresses or you love to watch good acting.


This movie touches all of us on some level. We all know people who struggle with identity and faith. I find the conflict between faith and sexuality to be a very delicate and personal issue. This movie deals with the internal and external struggles gay Christians face as they confront who they are and what they believe. The storyline/plot is interesting and the character development is thorough and convincing. It fairly deals with many different perspectives and allows the viewer to come to their own conclusions.

Oftentimes Christians are criticized for being bigoted and judgmental, not without some merit, but these labels do not fairly describe all Christians. This movie does not make use of these stereotypes; instead, it shows that even Christians are people struggling with their own identity.

Judith Light's (Gayle) performance is outstanding, and although you may not agree with her beliefs, you can understand and respect her perspective. From her past mistakes, revealed in the movie, she has learned that love and acceptance are better than the unhealthy, sometimes destructive, consequences that come from denial and rejection. Gayle's husband, Ted, played by Stephen Lang, portrays a subtle contrast to her more rigid beliefs, and his 'coach vs. referee' approach serves as a fine example.

Despite how some people view it, Ted and Gayle's ministry, Genesis House, does not force or seek to brainwash the residents. The residents all are adults who have chosen to be there, for whatever reason. One memorable scene in this movie is when Gayle tells Mark, "I don't change people. I try to show them how to get closer to Jesus Christ, and let them make their own way."

The real heroes in this story, however, are the "boys," with excellent performances given by Robert Gant (Scott), Chad Allen (Mark), and Robert Baker (Lester). Their individual journeys are a mixture of pain, love, rejection, and acceptance.

This movie is not anti/pro gay, nor is it anti/pro Christian. It is merely pro love and pro people. I know this description sounds corny and trite, but for those who have seen this movie, perhaps you can agree.


This was certainly not what I expected. having seen But I'm a Cheerleader, I thought it might me another film about some misguided bigots that think they can change a person's sexual orientation. It was much better than that.

Judith Light was fantastic in a subtle and deep performance as the head of a house that gives those with addiction issues, and who also happen to be gay, a chance to find themselves. Yes, it is done from a Christian perspective, but it really seems to be Christian, and not the counter-programming or brainwashing we usually see.

Mark (Chad Allen) has issues with drug and alcohol addiction and was sent to Genesis House after a suicide attempt.

Gayle (Light) and her husband Ted (Stephen Lang) work to keep the wolf from the door as they help their residents find Jesus and themselves. There always seems to be something going on in their marriage. It really get heated as Scott (Robert Gant) and Mark become closer.

We never really find out why Ted and Gayle's marriage is so strained. maybe it is because he is coming from an alcohol addiction background and is more accepting, while she is trying to make amends for driving away her son without really understanding that love exists in all forms, straight or gay, and that acceptance of others is the only truly Christian way of living.

Judge ye not...

There were some excellent performances in Robert Cary's film, along with beautiful New Mexico scenery and a great soundtrack.


Interesting that this 2007 film is only now getting the recognition it deserves (a 2009 GLAAD nomination for Outstanding Film / Limited Release -- see Message Boards). Having never even heard of it when it was released, I just now finished watching it, and was deeply moved by its even-handedness and lack of melodrama. Instead of being a potboiler, Save Me (which indeed could have used some rescuing from the back burner of publicity) gently simmers its characters in a subtle stew of reason and emotion. One might expect the climax of such a film to concern sexuality, but instead it reaches out to encompass the gestalt of human relationship, of being and belonging.

As someone who watches almost no TV, I didn't recognize any of the actors, so I was pleased to discover them in this film. Gant and Allen were fine, Lang was excellent, and Judith Light was an absolute phenomenon: an astonishing performance of understated depth and nuance. She deserved an Oscar nod. The writing was thoughtful and well-balanced between character interaction and personal introspection (through individual disclosures to an off-screen presence revealed at the end of the film). Production values were superb, given what I assume was a small budget.

Along with exploring the psycho-dynamics of the individuals and their subsequently conflicted relationships, the film places the viewer at a level of detachment which promotes compassion for all of the principals - as well as a sense of forgiveness that is Christian in the very best sense of that word.


"Save Me" starts with a drug and sex addicted, care-free man named Mark. After a suicide attempt and being released from the hospital, his elder brother pays a Christian Rehabilitation House for two months of his stay. This is no "ordinary" rehabilitation house. It's a rehabilitation for men. GAY men. Mark is gay and is placed into this "Genesis"house ran by Gayle and her husband Ted. The goal of "Genesis" is to "cure" Mark, and the fellow house members consisting of several other men who've each been there different amount of times, of this "affliction" society likes to call "Homosexuality", in hopes that Mark and the others can learn to lead the "right" path and follow in the footsteps of Christ. This is where it all begins.

One thing I truly like about this movie is that it is NOT afraid to cross the boundaries of Religion and one of the biggest taboos in society. Stereotype Christians constantly seem to be at war here with society about what gets you into hell and what gets you into heaven, and that if you do not live by God's Word, (The Bible) that you will be damned for all Eternity. This movie isn't afraid to cross that line and say, "You know what?! This isn't correct." And, "What if...?". It's not afraid to question the rules, the rules that were always MEANT to be followed with no questions asked. This movie DOES ASK those questions, resulting in an amazing final outcome.

I myself as a Christian gay male have been asking myself these questions for YEARS, not ever getting a straight answer. I was either shunned, called a hypocrite, or immediately hit in the face with Bible quotes I was already well aware of; pointless. If you have an open mind, or are/have been in a similar situation, or just want to see a DAMNED good movie, then this one is definitely worth sitting down and watching.


This first screenplay by Robert Desiderio is very commendable,

He is from TV & so are all of the other actors.

Judith Light & Stephen Lang are devout Christians, They run Genesis House, a home to help homosexuals be saved by the love of Jesus. A few years back her own son killed himself because he was gay, & this one of the reasons they run Genesis House, We are concerned with 2 of the guys. Robert Gant (he was Ben in Queer as Folk) & Chad Allen (many TV shows) Judith Light & Stephen Lang are TV Veterans of many years,

Miss Lights role is not that of a bigot,it is one of a devout Christian misguided but definitely not a true bigot.

This excellent performance & the roles done by Allen & Gant, make this a love story to be seen & discussed.

It does have many clichés as one would expect, they are well handled

This is another film made in New Mexico & the scenery is superb.

It had a few month run in only a handful of theatres this fall.It should of had a better run.

There is only one very short sex scene at the beginning & a few uses of the 'F' word.

I recommend SAVE MR for lovers of good love stories.

I am glad I saw this film.

Ratings *** (out of 4) 87points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)


Robert Desiderio wrote a wonderful role for his wife, Judith Light, in "Save Me," a 2007 film about a religious group, Genesis. At Genesis, the idea is to make gay men straight. One of the heads of Genesis, played by Light, blames her son's suicide on the fact that he was gay, unable to face up to the fact that it was her rejection of him that helped him along. Her second husband (Steven Lang), not the boy's father, is a little more lenient in his views, and this causes conflict. When it's obvious that two of the men at Genesis (Jeremy Glazer and Chad Allen) are attracted to one another, she becomes increasingly more disturbed.

This is a very good film about, as far as I'm concerned, a misguided attempt by fundamentalists to "straighten out" gay men on the premise that it's in the Bible. There's so much in the Bible that contradicts itself, but there's one thing pretty obvious in the New Testament - judgment is to be left to a higher power. A religious group that condemns someone not of their belief system isn't, in my opinion, Christian or religious.

So much for that. The film beautifully demonstrates its own point of view - love and meaningful relationships are what matter, whether between the same or the opposite sex. Jeremy Glazer and Chad Allen give fine performances as two men who have found their way to clean lifestyles but still need to be who they are and seek love with another human being.

The star, of course, is Light, who, deglamorized and with darker hair, bears NO resemblance to the elegant Mrs. Mead on "Ugly Betty." What a performance - and she's been giving great performances for 30 years. One hates her prejudice but realizes that it's born out of her own denial at the same time. Her husband's attempts to understand her, his loyalty to her, and his desire to help her, are very touching. But he doesn't feel as she does.

In "Save Me," we're shown that a place like Genesis has its good points - there's nothing wrong with getting off of drugs and booze and contributing to the community - but it needs to stop there. You can be gay without drugs, booze, and indiscriminate sex. You can also, as so well shown in the film, be gay and religious at the same time. No matter what anyone says, God doesn't discriminate.


Wow - this movie really blew me away. It managed to tackle an extremely difficult subject with Honor, Love, and Respect for both sides of the issue. I agree with another reviewer that Judith Light was overlooked for an Oscar Nomination that year. What an incredible performance.Cad Allen, too I think gave one of his best performances to date. Can you believe that this is the writer's only work, so far? I hope he is working on other things, as a writer. If anyone who worked on this film reads this....a big CONGRATULATIONS & THANKS! This is what film making should be about. A film that can help to bridge gaps with honesty, understanding, and self awareness.


Of course, I couldn't help myself longing to re-watch 'But, I'm a Cheerleader' while viewing 'Save Me.' Though two different genres  'Save Me' is hard drama, while 'Cheerleader' is strictly comedy  they both present the same premise: unwilling homosexual participants admitted into a "Go Straight for God" isolated home. Sure, 'Save Me' tackles the straight-converted more realistically (RuPaul was just laugh-out-loud as the former gay male leading men to a heterosexual lifestyle) but unfortunately, 90% of the film sides with the Christians. If they were shooting for that, more power to them; they have a right to free speech. However, it was painfully obvious this was a movie about knowing oneself, accepting your sexuality, and tolerance. Equally as apparent was who was going to end up with whom (and this is coming from the very first shot this person was on screen.) Not to give any spoilers, and anyone watching 10 minutes of this will already figure this out, but the one character I would've liked Chad Allen's Mark end up with, was the heavy-set Lester. Too often, the most attractive (and usually, most straight acting/macho) men find love in these gay-themed films. One notable exception, a movie I absolutely loved, 'Big Eden,' and a big kudos goes out to that film for breaking the stereotypical, clichéd and predictable mold, as seen in 'Save Me.' We get some depth into Lester's character, even a Lifetime moment, and learn he's searching for love and the existence of love between men. This would've been a perfect opportunity for the 'Save Me' writers to steer off the beaten path and surprise me and "save" it as an original piece. Well, anyways, they went for the, ah hem, straight path and showed redemption with somewhat good acting. You could do worse than 'Save Me.'


This is a superb film all the way around. The script is top-notch with writing that has the sound of truth throughout. This production is a labor of love and this can only be attributed to the principals behind it, Chad Allen, Judith Light and Robert Gant. Most importantly, it tells a relevant story in terms that are clearly understood and hits every note just right. It is very timely and has a feeling of being right out of today's headlines. The cast is uniformly excellent and the two male leads, Chad Allen and Robert Gant really light up the screen with sparks flying the moment they lay eyes on each other. Gant, of course, is the stud from "Queen As Folk", the main reason I watched the series. But he and Chad Allen play off each other in a very effective and dramatic manner which really grips the viewer and makes you want to know what is going to happen. Judith Light, one of my very favorites from daytime television, nearly steals the film from everyone she is so wonderful. And it is utterly shocking how unglamorized she is. One aspect of the script that works is how it keeps you at the edge of your seat so that you really do not know what is going to happen until the very end when it does happen.


In this genre of film, the flops far outweigh the quality movies. Usually, there is more camp and unnecessary nudity, stereotypes and sex scenes to fill the time. I'm not sure if this is suppose to be related to the audiences the films are produced for, because if so, they are undermining these moviegoers. Now about Save Me. I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I enjoyed the fact that its central theme was more about finding one's self than about depending on someone else. After all, the best relationship one has is with him/her self. I thought the performances were excellent. Judith Light did carry the movie with her incredibly realistic and heart-wrenching performance. However, I also believe that both Chad Allen and the actor that played Lester were great as well. Over the last little while, I have been catching up with Mr. Allen's work, both on and off-screen and he not only seems to be an impressive actor, but an amazing human being. Being a future filmmaker, I do hope to work with him one day. In retrospect, although the summary explains that it about a powerful love between two men at an ex-gay ministry, the title really exemplifies the message. One must find themselves before one can give him/her self in any relationship, be it gay or straight. We must all remember that love doesn't discriminate and that one must live life to its fullest and in a way that makes him/her happiest. They say it was a struggle to get this movie made and to advertise it. I believe it, but I am happy that they persevered and got it produced. It is a movie of fine quality and an important one for anyone to see. Yes it is a movie about sexuality and religion, but it's mostly about choices and healing.


The film is probably the finest example of a gay cinema I can think of. The production values aside, this movies shines because of a simple plot, appropriate music and an outstanding lead cast.

JUDITH LIGHT!!!! Wow. There is no question now about Who's the Boss! Judith gives a powerful performance that I never thought possible from a SITCOM escapee. After watching this film, I immediately hopped onto IMDb hoping to see that she'd been recognized for her acting in this film. Sadly, she has not been. The woman deserves an award. It's a tragedy that a little loved film such as this doesn't get the audience it deserves.

As opposed to a "good gay movie" this is just a great film where some of the characters happen to be gay.

I loved this film. I can only hope for more like it.


A labor of love that affirms love. I came expecting something cynical and one-sided, featuring caricatures of anti-gay religious zealots--and imagined I would be vaguely entertained by such a depiction. Instead I was deeply moved by the vulnerable humanity of the characters.

Apparently the producers (who also happen to be the 3 lead actors) worked for years to secure financing and otherwise make this project happen. Obviously they had a clear vision of what the film could be, and their rapport with director Robert Cary helped him achieve that vision although he joined the project relatively late. It is rare for a movie to open my sometimes jaded mind and heart. From now on, thanks to SAVE ME, I will be able to look for the humanity in gay "recovery" crusaders, rather than condemning them out of hand as bigots.

Judith Light deserves an Oscar. SAVE ME is her best work.


This is NOT a gay romance, or gay love story (even though there is a kiss and some meaningful / longing looks). I never developed a feeling I was seeing true romantic love. However, I was often noting something that purported to be religious love. So, no, you're not going to see any memorably well-done love scenes such as witnessed in the movie, "Shelter" (definitely need more films like that one). Instead, this is a "Message Film".....a tale of persons / organizations who aim to remold who people are----to remake people's innermost selves. BUT.......as a viewer you should remain aware that, in the end, such a goal is not going to be successful. Still, there will be cases / instances of supposedly successful personality change presented in order to convince us otherwise (just know that if personality alterations are brought about, they will be surface ones only).

Through the way this film has been set up, and especially in its ending, it is almost as though we are being expected to just accept that a deep romantic love was / had been taking place. Well, I'm sorry; I didn't sense it happening between characters, Mark and Scott. Lips meeting, dancing with one another, building bird houses together are not enough for me; they are all just surface acts. The two actors filling these roles weren't able to produce that "magic"......that "whatever-it-is" which I was given in the film, "Shelter." In that movie, I knew I had watched love begin and grow. (Interesting then, isn't it, that "Shelter" contains the heterosexual leads and "Save Me" the gay ones). Admittedly, I do recognize that perhaps most of "Save Me" was not written / planned to focus on a "couple" but, rather, was aimed at exposing overzealousness by some in the religious community and their need to "reform" homosexuals. Having said this, I'll now step aside and leave commenting on that aspect of this production to filmgoers far more qualified than I.

As to the performers, a subject on which I'm able to comment: Judith Light is near-phenomenal (you'll never, never, ever relate her to that TV "Ugly Betty" role). Here, before your very eyes, she BECOMES the message of this film. No one else can touch her. We can see Chad Allen trying, as we watch him with her in their one-on-one scenes. Sitting together in a truck at one point, we can almost see his efforts to absorb and keep up with what Light is putting out there----a special ability of hers that not all actors possess. Yet, in his own way, Allen does acquit himself quite well in this film. Then.....there's Robert Gant: I've followed much of Bobby's performing, from his 2002 "Providence" (TV) performance, on up to today. My best impression / description of his acting style is that it's a "tentative" one; he's tentative, subdued. It's like you're always waiting for him to break out----but he almost never takes you to that point. In the end, that's frustrating for an audience. And yet.......few actors project "sincerity" in a character any better than Gant does. In one last point about another longtime thesp, Stephen Lang comes across very admirably.......and when you're able to do that when playing against Light's extraordinary performance, you really are accomplishing something.

To say that this is not a good film, I cannot do. But I expected more.........I hoped for more. (This will not make it to my "Addictive" DVD shelves).

****


Die Hand Die Verletzt (German for "the hand that wounds") is another gem from the pen of Glen Morgan and James Wong, the X-Files writing duo. This episode was directed by the excellent Kim Manners. It's his direction that helps this particular episode shine. I really liked at the beginning of the episode where the shot cuts from a hand on a teenage boy's throat to Scully's hand dropping the sheet covering the dead boy's body. Also, Scully's reaction as the toads drop from the sky is priceless. Although the PTC are the devil worshipers, Mrs. Paddock the substitute steals the show as the Devil(?). She manages to stay one step ahead of the the PTC and the FBI. This episode has a high scariness factor, so you might want to consider whether you watch it late at night or not. Beware that there is some disturbing subject matter regarding child abuse. So if you're in for a good scare, Die Hand Die Verletzt is the episode for you.


Die Hand die Verletzt the Limerick:

Something is wrong at this school

When a girl uses a dissection tool

To cut her own wrist

If you get the gist

When you worship Satan you become his fool.

Morgan and Wong really should have stayed on the X-Files. But that's really a different subject entirely. This episode is another of the great episodes that these writers/producers gave to us in their run on the X-Files. This is such a creepy episode for me even years after having seen it the first time, which is rare for me as most of the episodes I used to be creeped out by are now pretty mild. The story is based around a school board who are devil worshippers. However, certain crazy things start happening around the town revolving around the death of a teenager and later a girl's memories of ritual sacrifices taking place in her own home and finally Mulder uncovering the truth from a deserting member of the group. The episode takes a turn in which we are led to believe that Mulder and Scully are helpless and will end up as the devil's final victims for the episode.

There are a few scenes which make this episode stand out as memorable for me. First the scene with the girl telling her story to Mulder and Scully and the looks on their faces of complete horror and unbelief. I have had personal experience with random strangers telling me stories like this and asking for help and I remember how completely helpless I felt and I can see the same kind of pity and helplessness in Mulder's face. The second scene is that of Jim Asbury handcuffed in the basement crying as the python slowly crawls down the stairs to kill him. Chills. I also love the frogs falling from the sky scene and I love Scully's need to explain it somehow and showing up to tell Mulder about the tornadoes that could have picked them up and dropped them down on top of them. I love the pig coming alive and the girl totally freaking out and screaming bloody murder. That must have been an interesting class to be in you know that? First you got the kid being grabbed by the FBI after trying to escape through the window then the girl screaming her head off during pig dissections and then suicide and a python and the teacher disappearing. I remember when I was in class once and a guy got arrested in class because he tried to run instead of just escorted out to the hall. Anyway what I'm really trying to say is I like this episode. 10/10.


Holy shyte, my, my, my. this episode is amazing. I remember it being good... but... DAMN!

They pushed the envelope once again. It's probably the darkest episode of the show besides 'Home', or at least in the top 3. Man, o', man!

What's not to love? We had a snake eating up a guy, a girl cutting her wrists, piggies, cults, executions, satanic rituals. My, it's like going to the circus!

I loved Miss what's-her-name. Seriously creepy and evil. An incarnation of Satan. Satan's very cool. I should really think about getting my own cult.

Like I said, dark, well written, creepy as hell. ***** freggin' stars.


"Die Hand Die Verletzt" is one of my favorite X-Files episodes, and IMO it ranks right up there as one of the scariest of the series. Glen Morgan and James Wong came up with a great teleplay here - after a darkly humorous teaser, where we discover that the seemingly priggish, uptight-about-swear-words members of a PTC in New Hampshire are in fact a bunch of Satan-worshippers, the story begins as a worthy entry in the bad-things-happening-to-teenagers-in-the-woods genre which was especially popular in the first two seasons of the show. Things escalate rapidly from there, and Mulder and Scully wind up in the midst of occurrences which are particularly baffling even to them. The story has numerous twists and turns which disguise what's really going on for awhile, although clever editing does give us some hints. Kim Manners does an absolutely superb job as first-time director on the show - his weird camera angles and movements and spooky lighting really ratchet up the horror factor as the story progresses. "Die Hand Die Verletzt" is rife with unforgettable and terrifying visual images.

IMO this episode also has some of the best guest-actor casting in the series. Heather McComb is riveting in her scene where she reveals apparently repressed memories of ritual abuse, and Dan Butler makes a big departure from Bulldog on Frasier to convincingly play a straight-laced suburban dad who's hiding some big secrets. Best of all is Susan Blommaert - as Mrs. Paddock, who turns out to be literally the substitute teacher from Hell, she conveys both innocent mentorly concern and murderously evil Satanic intent with equal skill. The second half of this episode is a genuinely frightening horror tale with no letup till the memorable ending, which leaves our heroes M & S still basically in the dark, only able to guess at what just happened.

"Die Hand Die Verletzt" is just one of the reasons I like season 2 so much. I give this ep 10/10.


This is a really neat episode, but it has an annoying lack of answers atypical of the X-Files. For example, what about all the things Shannon says have happened to her? Is it all completely made up? And if so, why? If it is true, why don't they show an investigation into it or something? Finding THAT evidence would have made for a pretty powerful sequence. And the agents clearly couldn't just ignore it all, they would have to look into it at some point, and the episode ends so early that we don't get to see what they find out. I get the sense that they might have run out of time while making this episode and had to cut things out, since a lot of plot threads are abandoned. And aside from this episode, the X-Files normally seems to cater to the curious type of audience that wants to actually find out what's going on. It is an investigation show after all. I wish this was a "to be continued" episode, because as much as I hate those, this is an interesting story and they could have gone a lot deeper into it.


It was hard to imagine when I first watched this just how devastating the hysteria over Satanic Ritual Abuse was to families and communities during the 1990s. Having since looked into it, the episode becomes a lot more powerful, and a lot more interesting. The reactions make a lot more sense, and the characters seem less like obsessive lunatics and more like genuinely frightened people.

"Die Hand Die Verletzt" starts out so quirky, with the rain of frogs and the teens out to try and "get some". Or maybe it's the welter of teenage horror since then that makes these things seems light. Either way, even for The X-Files, this one gets dark fast, and the moral ambiguity present is wonderful as the cultists' lies turn out to be rather more well- intentioned than the comparatively friendly words of the demonic substitute teacher. Ms. Paddock is remarkable in her power to dominate the episode, even when not on screen, and it's great to see the agents (to quote a later episode with similar themes) not knowing which side they're on.

In a way, the story tries to do a little too much in too little time, but does at least show the right things. We don't need to see the rituals, the sacrifices or whatever; they're far more interesting for being a mystery to us. Through skillful editing, we as the audience are kept only slightly less in the dark than the agents, enough to trick us into thinking we know what's going on and which side we're on, but at the end, we're left with a bittersweet little epilogue that serves best to show us how foolish we were for thinking we understood what was going on. It encapsulates everything the preceding hour was about, and if that means we don't get all the answers we want, it's much better for it.


OK back in 90whatever in the UK,the episodes of different series were not shown a year apart in order to catch up with the years and also since I didn't have a TV for most of 94/95 I ended up seeing episodes either on video or in whatever order they were on TV,so I saw them in totally the wrong order and never knew which ones were series 1,2,3 or 4 until 10 years later when I found an episode guide online. I say that because the order in which people see episodes generally determines how good,scary,dark and maybe life-changing each one was.Also because all those episodes were filmed around Vancouver in the same forests,fields,villages etc they looked so alike visually that it might as well all have been one continuous series to me. So different fans have their different favourite episodes for whatever reason.This is one of mine. Its the only one that ever scared me during and especially after,for...OK weeks.The eye effects have been used in things since but at the time they did freak me out.The child abuse stuff is damaging.The satanic ritual stuff,even though its been the reason it seems that oh so Christian Americans like to believe that true evil in their country exists for the last few centuries and is thus THE stereotypical scapegoat,and even though it's as unbelievable as any other religion,well it is scary anyway.After all it's TV so a level of disbelief must be maintained.I think a major reason it scared me was the concepts,if they were true just feel more fear inducing than an individual who kills with electricity (DPO) or inbreds(Home) or any of the many reincarnation ones. The only problem I have with it is that it has Bulldog from Fraiser in as an evil,scary non-Christian type and I just kept seeing Bulldog and his gong and sports crap...But thats just having to deal with people from other roles being someone else so it shouldn't really detract from believing in a programme..except it did which is why I give it 9/10 instead of full marks,which is what it should get from someone who doesn't know who Bulldog is/was.


This is a documentary about the people of Pitcairn Island. In among what is straight documentary, there are a few scenes which acts out the mutiny on the Bounty. If that were not bad enough, the action opens with a few old tars telling yarns in a tavern. And if that were not bad enough, the acting in these scenes (Errol Flynn excepted) is really, really bad.

It is worth watching as a documentary of Pitcairn Island. It is also worth watching to see the germs of stardom in Errol Flynn.

I have never ever seen another film quite like this one - which is just as well.


This film combines documentary, travelogue-style footage with dramatic 'reconstructions' of the mutiny on the Bounty.

Much of it is silent, ie with music only, as I recall. It's very much a primitive sound-movie, in which the director is still working with silent movie techniques, although not in any sophisticated way.

The acting in the dramatic scenes is uniformly abysmal; very 'stagey' acting even by the more experienced performers. The only interest is in seeing Errol Flynn in his first movie role. He's dreadful: very wooden delivery; as stiff as a parody of amateur theatricals, with no star presence whatsoever.

But I find it of interest for this very reason. It shows that even a superstar like Errol Flynn didn't hatch from the egg fully formed, and that however bad you are to start with, there's still hope ...


As the second cinematic presentation of the 1789 mutiny aboard the Bountythe first was also made in Australia in 1916this film is required viewing for anyone interested in that historical chapter.

A pre-credits crawl announces the documentary and travelogue endeavor, to follow in the Bounty's wake: promising this is the first of a series from Expeditionary Films that should also entertain. As the movie opens, there is singing in an old English tavern, and the initial impression is that this is not so different from the 1935 Frank Lloyd version. A crusty old sailor recalls for his fellows the strange incidents of that voyage, in a series of flashbacks, and the differences become apparent. There are no topside nautical scenes of the Bounty, just brief shots of sails interspersed with tight settings below decks, mostly among the grumbling, mistreated sailors, and a couple with Bligh and a mute Christian. Errol Flynn in his first film is barely recognizable in that role at this point.

The setting shifts outdoors, as the Tahitians spot the Bounty in the distance, eagerly gathering their boats to go out and meet it. Ashore, they put on a dancing spectacle for the crew, who are drawn into romantic relationships with the natives while living on Tahiti when the Bounty is at anchor. However, after months of bliss, the crew must return to the ship, and depart for England, a placard promising death to those who may seek to desert.

After a few weeks of the voyage home the mutiny erupts, at which point Christian takes command. He denounces Bligh's treatment of him and the crew, the starvation, insults, and lashings, and sets him adrift. Flynn gives his most notable monologue asking no one to follow himbut all are eager to do so. Back in the tavern, the sailor says that Bligh made the voyage back to civilization and two decades have now passed and none knows what has become of Christian and his followers. This leaves open the question of the sailor's own point-of-view and how his omniscience was acquired.

Here the movie shifts from reconstruction of historical events to become the first motion picture event to document the mutineer's haven of Pitcairn Island. Three months were spent filming there by Hollywood-trained pioneer Australian director Charles Chauvel, his wife, and cameraman Tasman Higgins, with an additional two months in Tahiti. Most of the budget was spent on this portion, leaving little for the studio shooting at Cinesound in Bondi.

This second half of the dual narrative strategy is vastly more successful than the first and gives IN THE WAKE OF THE BOUNTY its timeless quality. Beginning at Tahiti, its thriving commerce and tourist aspects of the day contrast with the reception that had greeted the arrival of the Bounty, shown earlier.

The expedition departs for Pitcairn Island and there finds a thriving community of fifty families. While acknowledging the bloodletting of its initial years, the aptly-named John Adams, final surviving crewman of the Bounty, took up the Bible and by his ministry created a paradise. Life is simple and agricultural, the rugged terrain supplying needs and providing the residents with a landscape photographed so as to make the viewer see Pitcairn as a new Eden. The black-and-white photography both captures the natural beauty as well as conveying the sense of a time gone by. The production of IN THE WAKE OF THE BOUNTY, particularly on Pitcairn Island, was related in a book by the director published to coincide with the movie's release, In the Wake of the Bounty--To Tahiti and Pitcairn Island (Sydney: Endeavour Press).

On Pitcairn, the devout people are devoted to one another, sharing all they have equally, everyone contributing their labor, demonstrating the viability of socialism on this island. With the mix of races, and despite the inbreeding, the residents are strong and healthy, even when one individual with the Christian surname marries another. Indeed, one of the Christian descendants is described as the "Beau Brummel" of Pitcairn.

Yet while there are eager visitors to this nearly inaccessible spot, with a harbor that only the trained inhabitants can navigate, there are drawbacks. In the final sequence, one of the resident's first-born is near death, and in need of a physician. A passing freighter with a doctor on board, unwilling to detour from its own course, ignores their distress signal.

This startling, harsh conclusion separates the movie from other South Seas documentaries of the time. An island idyll comes at a price. The second half, with only one very brief coda of another flashback of Christian and another mutineer on the island, becomes a time capsule of an apparent paradise lost; today the island has fewer than 50 inhabitants.

IN THE WAKE OF THE BOUNTY fulfills its purpose of discovering the outcome of that fateful action so long ago. Although it faced censorship over both the depiction of floggings aboard the Bounty and Tahitian women in indigenous garb, the movie was finally given educational endorsement upon its Australian release (one of seven feature-length movies made in the country in 1933). It serves as an ideal companion piece to other filmic presentations of the Bounty saga, which have either so lightly touched upon the Pitcairn portion or outrageously misrepresented its history, most notably in the shallow renditions of 1962 and 1984. The fact that IN THE WAKE OF THE BOUNTY carries forth its story to the final outcome for the mutineers was recognized by MGM when releasing its 1935 spectacular, when the studio bought the rights and used some footage in the 1935 promotional shorts PRIMITIVE PITCAIRN and PITCAIRN ISLAND TODAY. IN THE WAKE OF THE BOUNTY is distinct from other representations, a fitting monument to a historical incident and an enduring legend.


"In the Wake of the Bounty" is one of the worst films I've ever seen. However, it has the special Ed Wood quality badness where the film's incompetency crosses the line over into surrealism at times. The blend of dramatic reenactments and actual (probably staged) documentary resembles "Glen or Glenda", except without the enthusiasm Wood had. It has plenty of unintentional laughs also, and is rather entertaining at moments. To prove that first impressions aren't always everything, we also have Errol Flynn giving his screen debut, in a performance that doesn't show any signs of the charisma and appeal Flynn would have only two years later in "Captain Blood". "In the Wake of the Bounty" is mostly a curiosity for die-hard classic film buffs. (4/10)


Return of the Boogyman is a dreadful movie which doesn't play like a movie, it plays like an episode of a TV sitcom when they flashback to older episodes. Return of the Boogyman is just a clip show.

Mutch of the film is constant and annoying flashbacks from the first movie. Over and over again the same footage. How boring this is.

The movie really is about a psychic woman who has visions of the first movie.

I have seen the first movie I don't want to see the same scenes over and over again and I don't know who would. The whole movie looks like it was quickly made to make a few bucks and thats it.


Ulli Lommel's 1980 film 'The Boogey Man' is no classic, but it's an above average low budget chiller that's worth a look. The sequel, 1983s 'Boogey Man II' is ultimately a waste of time, but at the very least it's an entertaining one if not taken the least bit seriously. Now II left the door open for another sequel, and I for one wouldn't have minded seeing at least one more. One day while I was browsing though the videos at a store in the mall I came across a film entitled 'Return of the Boogey Man.' When I found out it was a sequel to the earlier films I was happy to shell out a few bucks for it...I should have known better. Though the opening title is 'Boogey Man 3,' this is no sequel to those two far superior films I named above. Well, not totally anyway.

Pros: Ha! That's a laugh. Is there anything good about this hunk of cow dung? Let's see...it has footage from 'The Boogey Man' and, um...it's mercifully short. Yeah, that's about it.

Cons: Where to start? Decisions, decisions. First of all, this movie is a total bore. It goes from one scene to the next without anything remotely interesting or scary happening. The acting is stiff at best. The "actors" are most likely friends of the director who had no acting experience whatsoever before, and probably none since. The plot is nonexistent and script shoddily written. The direction is just plain awful. The director tries to make the film look all artsy fartsy by making the camera move around, lights flicker, and with filters, but it adds nothing. The music is dull and hard to hear in parts. Ties to the original are botched. Suzanna Love's character was named Lacey, not Natalie! And the events depicted in the beginning of the original did not take place in 1978. Also, if this has a 3 in the title, why is there no mention of what happened in II? Finally, this adds nothing new or interesting to either the series or the genre.

Final thoughts: The people behind this waste of time and money should be ashamed of themselves. It's one thing if that had been an original film that was the director's first and sucked. But instead it's supposed to be a sequel to film that is no masterpiece, but is damn sure far more interesting and entertaining than this. If there ever is another sequel, which I doubt it, then it needs to forget this one ever happened and be handled either by Lommel himself or someone who has at least some idea of how to make a decent horror film.

My rating: 1/5


I was previously unaware that in the early 1990's Devry University (or was it ITT Tech?) added Film to its wonderful repertoire of technical degree programs. Well this movie must have been the product of the class valedictorian. My friend and I rented the original 1980 Boogeyman on my Netflix and this movie was on the flip side of the DVD. Do not waste your time with this movie. Awful awful awful.

The filmmaker adds 2 main character's, a woman and her therapist. The woman has been having dreams about the Boogeyman and his victim's from the first film. Over 50% of this film is stock from the original movie. The rest of the movie is the main character having the bad dreams while her therapist drones on a the narrator. These scenes are shot through a filter so thick the characters glow. They would make Angela Lansbury look 25 years old. So, to recap, awful. Don't watch this movie.


I got a DVD of "Bogeyman" and this stunker was an extra feature. I assumed that it was "Boogeyman II" because it was paired with the original. But you know what they say about those who "assume": it makes an "ass-" out of "u-" and "me." I had read before viewing that BII contains a lot of footage from the original and that it starred actress Love. While watching "Return of the Boogeyman," I decided to stick around through the original footage to see the notorious death-by-toothbrush scene. Before I knew it, the film was over. Rip-off. I think that I thought this was BII because this has a similar title to one of BII's alternate titles. Oh well, at least this was just an extra feature, right?

Let me stop talking about my mistake and start talking about the movie's mistakes. Many, many, mistakes. Who does this guy Ulli Whatever think he is? Does he really think the same movie will sell in different forms. There is nothing original holding Part III up. It is basically a flashback of the original through the eyes of a psychic, who is giving us a gruelingly boring play-by-play as everything happens. That's the movie. Oh, and one death-by-stereo scene, but you can read that off someone else's review. My interest in "Boogeyman II" is forever lost.

Final Note: This is not a series of films to watch back to back.