Major plot hole (spoilers) - The I Inside (2004) Discussion

[–] peter_reed 20 years ago

My take on it is that all 3 of them died in that car crash, and in his afterlife he has the choice of going back over it to try and change what happened (obviously impossible) or accepting it as his brother seems to have and stay in the house (which could be heaven or purgatory or whatever). Simon chooses to go back over it and this takes the form of an accident in the future (2002) where he is in the hospital. I think all the 2002 stuff is just his head as he is already dead but trying to change what happened.

reply

[–] seantj 20 years ago

About the only thing that I can figure out of the entire thing is that yes, all 3 died. As I'm sure we all noticed, Dr. "Justin" (Jeremy) whats-his-face was Simon and Peter's dad (pediatrician being the link to childhood), Anna was at the scene of the accident assisting Peter and Simon seemed concious enough to hear and see what was around him. He was obviously guilt ridden and associated her with Peters death (which would bring on the blackmail memories). I think that the people in his room in 2000 were all pieces of his thoughts about Peter. The body cast man being the broken bones from the fall, the heart guy (I forget his name too) being his anger towards Peter (which he finally kills, though unintentionally). Travis was obviously there as he was Simons orderly in the ambulance. Aside from that all the other doctors, etc... seem to be from around him at his time of death.
There are certainly a lot of holes that need filling, but that's part of the fun with this movie. I'd be curious to see the actualy script as I'm sure that the modified script cut out a lot of crucial moments.
I'm not thrilled that the year 2002 was based on the time of death though... what if he'd died at 03:48? I suppose there comes a point where a story is still a story though... and this, I feel, was a good one. Perhaps we'll get a "this is how I wanted it to be" version from the writer in the years to come.

reply

[–] Tasku 20 years ago

Thänks for clearing it up for me guys, I watched it like 10 minutes ago, and sure, I had a theory, but the end left me baffled. That kinda makes sense what you two described there. Very observant of you.

I gave it an 8/10, even before I understood it. Totally kept me on the edge of the seat. Love these kinda movies :)

reply

[–] insaneg0d-1 20 years ago

The only thing that really bothered me was that doctor he kept seeing trying to kill him.......That's the only part that made no sense.

What I got at the end was the he was in his own private hell cause he couldn't let go. I thought this movie was great! Not a keeper, but I didn't feel like I wasted my time seeing it....

reply

[–] mwbubelah 20 years ago

Hmm... interesting theories. I've just finished watching it, and I too had questions about the timeline.

True, it seems fairly clear (although not completely) that all three died in the accident, at least according to Peter. You may have noticed that toward the end, when Simon brings wine, there are already several bottles on the table, supporting Peter's question "How many times do you want to relive it?" (or something to that effect). Why he goes back to 2002 [other than the fact that he dies at 20:00 hours (military time) and is revived at 20:02 (hence 2002)] is also a mystery to me. Why not only go back to the sunroom "I love you" moment with Claire and fix things from there? Personally, I think it is an authorial technique so that the writer could use the Pediatrician/Dad connection. Thoughts?

However, the flipping between 2000 and 2002 kept my interest throughout, and I have to add that the editing for those changes was pretty impressive for the most part.

Another troublesome part was the fact that if he actually died in the crash (as Peter reports), then how could there be the married/continuing blackmail scene with 2002 Anna? Timewise, this would require him "living" into the future, which doesn't jive with the go-to-the-past-and-fix-it premise of the film, as I understand it.

So, my theory is this: he did NOT die in the first crash, only the brother, as Dr. Truman said. Instead, the brother's declaration refers to the second crash, which is the "relived" crash, that is, after he "went back" to fix the situation. I say this because nurse Anna (of 2000) had the recording of the brother saying that Simon had killed him, but in the final crash (so to speak), Peter is the one that distracts Simon, causing the car to crash into Claire's car, so Simon didn't kill him but was trying to save him. Am I reading too much into this?

The question I have is, who is the guy in the doctor uniform behind the door in the MRI room and, especially, on the ledge outside the attic of their parents' house? I suspect that it is supposed to represent one of the doctors in the emergency room trying to revive Simon, but why on the ledge? It is as if there was some "spectre" that was trying to keep him from reliving those 2000 moments, since after his appearance the film "forwards" to 2002.

Which brings us back to "why 2002?" if all three died in the original accident? MAYBE, the 2002 business (wife Anna, continuing lover Claire, guilt, etc.) was just ONE of the "fixings". If so, then there is no real conflict timewise with 2002 even being in the film. In other words, we are just seeing the fifth or sixth "fixing," which is why there are so many bottles of wine already on Peter's wine table and why Peter asks him "How many times...?" Personally, I think THIS is the answer to the puzzle of this film. If so, most of the so-called plotholes disappear. Hmmm...

Nevertheless, I have to say that I enjoyed the film and plan to wtch it again soon. Perhaps, like with "The Butterfly Effect," a second or third viewing will clear up some things and solidify the theories.

Martin

reply

[–] p-miguel 20 years ago

Thanks for your thoughts. You really try to figure it out.
But for me there is still some questions you didnt answered.
In the end of this film he goes to 2002. Why? It seems to me that most of his illusions hapenned in those 2 minutes he was dead in 2002. His brother apeared to him in the house telling him to decide if he want to live or if he want to die. He hasn´t decided because in the first place he was rejecting death and all the events sorrounding death of his brother and the betrayal with Clair. Second because he want to live but in a diferent present, so he tried to change what hapened.
He must have decided to live because he wakes in 2002.
But if that is the solution, what hapened between 2000 and 2002? Married with Anna? Why he had the second acident? Anna tried to kill him? In this 2 years, he hide regrets for what hapenend in his subconcious? And the second acident brought them to consciounsness? Why his mothe don´t apear in his illusions? His brothe tell him his mother gave soft education to him, so they probably would be close.
Many questions but i think he couldn't die in 2000 because he wakes in the end of the movie in 2002.
If someone has more ideas please share. I'll be glad to read it
Pedro
Portugal

reply

[–] bnett 20 years ago

I think the reason he woke up in 2002 at the end of the movie, was because he decided to relive all that stuff again. It a big cycle that ends with him and his brother reuniting for a breif conversation ala matrix. But I guess it only happens in his "dead subconcious".

reply

[–] mwbubelah 20 years ago

Even though I LOVE my theory from a week or so ago, I have just re-viewed the film and have to revise a chunk of it. I have to go along with the idea that he, in fact, did die in the first accident and ALL of the events thereafter are his post-death consciousness (aka, spirit) trying to accept the fact that he is dead and that he was responsible for the death of his brother (and by accident, I guess, Claire).

He is merely "reliving" the events, changing them slightly but ultimately arriving at the same conclusion--they're all dead and it's his fault. He just hasn't let go of it yet (as his brother already has) so that his spirit can rest easy.

Pedro (and others): From this explanation, NOTHING happened between 2000 and 2002 because for him, there was NO 2002--he was already dead. His spirit/mind simply chose 2000 and 2002 because he was declared dead at 20:02 (military time). The marriage with Anna, the tape-recorded blackmail, etc. was a product of his spirit/mind in an attempt to make sense, or at least deal with, the guilt associated with his brother's death. As for waking up in 2002 at the end, we have to assume that the very last scene is Simon's spirit attempting to start over again despite the brother's spirit asking him "How many times do you want to relive it?" (or something to that effect). Again, the collection of wine bottles at the house supports the brother's claim that Simon has done this before.

General thought: The literary device of the father as pediatrician/doctor still works, but I am still troubled by the brother's causing Simon not to pay attention to the road in the final crash scene. Seems strange that Simon's spirit's attempt to relive/fix the past would make the brother be involved in the event. Trying to put part of the blame on the brother? Hmmm...

reply

[–] koko-29 20 years ago

yes I think so too...

the whole story takes place within 2 minutes time, exactly between 20:00 and 20:02. There is no year 2002.

So all what we see are Simon's last thoughts within this short period of time (the moment he got hes conscious back and before he dies) in the hospital.

I heard people saying that you pass your whole life again like a fastforwarded movie when you know you have to die. Maybe this is exactly what happens.

Simon figures out how life could be if he still was a "good" boy. But he's no more the good boy. The amount of bottles of red win (blood) stands for this guiltiness and stands for the "life" that Simon likes to give back to his brother.

That incognito doctor (the one who tries to kill Simon) is the "Grim Reaper" waiting for Simon to "come".

Another thing :)

The 2002 part of the hospital is mostly friendly (there's even a sunny outdoor scene). Where in contrast the 2000 hospital part is totally grim.
Mayby you can connect those two parts to Simons sheltered childhood and his later life? Which connects again to Simon's wish to make things unhappen.

So I think this is no scifi movie where people travel in time and space through wormwholes or so... it just happens in Simon's head.

Puzzling out the plot is actually more fun then viewing it :)
koko

reply

[–] mwbubelah 20 years ago

Hmm... The mysterious doctor as "The Grim Reaper"... Interesting... I like it!

However, I can't go along with your sheltered childhood theory. If we go with the original line of reasoning, it would make sense that the 2000 hospital would be grim because it is the "real one," whereas the sunny 2002 hospital is the fantast, in-his-mind hospital. What say you?

reply

[–] koko-29 20 years ago

@mwbubelah

I think it's all about metaphors. As lekaido2 said, the puzzle scene in the coffe-room and the boat picture are almost identical but again the puzzle* is part of the 2002-hospital. So this is just another relationship to childhood here (besides the pediatrician/father-offering-the-lollipop-thing)

*The puzzle is disordered (something wrong is going on in his life) and the father is missing (of course... he is dead).

reply

[–] lekaido2 20 years ago

Notice how there is three dead bodies on the autopsy tables in the basement when Simon is running away from the guards. All of them under sheets, though, but still.. exactly 3! The most ironic scene I think is when Peter and Claire are in the elevator and a body gets wheeled in on a table and the comment goes like "this never happens"...

Also the title I think has a dual meaning - the eye motive in the beginning.
"Eye Inside" - maybe that means "the short time that there was left and "ran in Simons' eyes" or something..
The times also are just too much like the years to be a coincidence.

The dad/pediatrician of course is a dead giveaway. Literally.
The picture of him and the boys as children together on the boat does not only appear in the end but also is the puzzle on the coffee-room table! Only there the piece with the dad's face is missing.

The orderly says "gonna take you on a little trip" both when he's coming for Simon in the rain and when he's coming to take him to catscan in 2002.

In the end it also shows that Simon sees Anna in the rain.
There she looks a lot like he looks in 2002.

I guess this is just like the people say here.. Simon's dead and just does not yet fully get it. Or can't accept it. Just like in the 6th sense :)

It's weird though that at times pretty smart and persistent he seems to totally fail to do things right every new chance he gets! Why not just bolt out of the door and into the woods instead of talking to Claire?

He could have said all he needed to say later and save everyones life.. or maybe that's the key to all this? He wants Claire so bad that he cant miss that moment in the flower room and that's why he is unable to change anyhting?

Good movie - makes you really wonder :)

reply

[–] mwbubelah 20 years ago

lekaido2:

I see that you have just joined IMDb. Good for you...glad to have you.

I never noticed the puzzle/dad/pediatrician connection (although I normally consider myself fairly observant). I'll have to go back and look for it.

You may also have a point about the lead character being fairly on the ball but still messing up on life "retries." Perhaps he IS so enamored with Claire that he can't seem to stick to the task at hand, mainly not allowing his brother to get killed. In other words, from a drama point of view, Claire continues to be the conflict that keeps him from "doing the right thing."

reply

[–] kadeskiss 19 years ago

General thought: The literary device of the father as pediatrician/doctor still works, but I am still troubled by the brother's causing Simon not to pay attention to the road in the final crash scene. Seems strange that Simon's spirit's attempt to relive/fix the past would make the brother be involved in the event. Trying to put part of the blame on the brother? Hmmm...

well, I think the reason why he put part of the blame on his brother the second time around, because He couldn't prevent his brothers accident the second time around. Simon tried to stop his Peter from going out there, but his brother went anyway, even after he told him not to...therefore, his brother is partly to blame, because if he never went out there, he would not have accidently fell, than Peter would never had to rush him to the ER,( he would have answer the phone, and found out Claire was coming back for him) and the car accident would not have happen. Simon had warn Peter the second time, Since Peter disregard Simon's warning, Peter is partially to blame for the accident.

Luv

Kades

reply

[–] davebandfan5 19 years ago

I think its obvious Simon and the other two die in the one and only crash, but his spirit continues to relive the past and change it, but obviously he cant, and the brother and fathers spirits are trying to help bring him out of the loop and into "the afterlife". I think what really happened is that he originally wanted to dump the brothers body, but couldnt because of the truck so he turned around (maybe to go to the hospital) and thats when he crashes with Claire. But when he tries to "fix it" in spirit the diversion from Peter is not Simon shifting blame for the deaths, but the spirit of Peter forcing an accident to attempt to end the loop. Basically Peters spirit trying to help Simon realize no matter how many times he changes what happened they are going to crash and die. And then of course after he continues to loop and revisits Peter in the end with the bottle of wine, that is when Peter says "how many times are we going to do this, how many chances should you get". It doesnt matter how many he gets, the end result is the same. And for people who thought Peter was alive in the end, yet still noticed the collection of wine bottles, if Peter were alive, wouldnt he have drank some of that wine? Since it was his favorite, and he wouldnt be wearing the same shirt as when they had the accident. Either way, I think this is a movie I should see again, like the Sixth Sense, to pick up on more things.

reply

[–] weepingwillow314 11 years ago

^^^ I like this roundup the best.

also ... Simon used to be the shallow rich boy - at the beginning Anna's blackmail, he fights against her perception of his privileged life, and he could have taken the recorder then but didn't! why? - but as he is a clean slate when he "wakes up" with no memory, he has the chance to re-create himself as a better person. so he keeps trying. seems like purgatory.

poor Clair, though! Simon thinks keeping his brother alive is as simple as ending it with her. makes her seem disposable, somehow. she functions as his guilt in the "2002" 20:02 purgatory.

looking carefully: there are 5 bottles of wine, the 6th is added. so he's tried to change everything 5 times before, without success. but he is becoming a better person each time, perhaps. each time I re-watch the Peter/Simon/wine scene over, more things pop out at me. like, you can tell Peter really just wants to move on.

_________
don't blink

reply

[–] goddess_isis82 20 years ago

I still do not understand who the "doctor" is who keeps trying to stab him with the needle, both in the MRI room and out on the ledge. I think that a LOT of this movie doesn't make much sense, even (or especially) after you sit down and think about it. I love psychological thrillers, but ONLY when they follow an actual story line and don't just jump around trying to fit as many thrilling elements in as possible.

reply

[–] Hattrem-4 20 years ago

About the bottles of wine ...

That shot of Peter putting the bottle down on the table made me think he was going to poison Simon. Remember, Dr. Newman told him (in 2002) that they found traces of something poisonous in his system.

But, I admit, the "clues" that Simon is in fact dead are quite convincing.

reply

[–] mwbubelah 20 years ago

Hattrem:

WOW!

First, I am glad to see that there is still interest in this movie. It WAS, after all, overshadowed by the appearance of "The Butterfly Effect", but I still think "The I Inside" is a good film.

Second, I am amazed that you bring back the topic of the wine bottles that I made back in January! It's good that people are reading (!) and taking notice of the details, which DO seem to point to Simon being dead.

I had never thought of a possible connection of the wine and his supposed poisoning. I always thought the "poisoning" had something to do with the fumes from wood refinishing, if I remember correctly. But, as I mentioned, the wine bottles seem more of an underscoring of his already-dead status.

Language is my life, but Peanut Butter is my passion.

reply

[–] bingolong 20 years ago

Dag I just took the movie back too ,I would like to check if there is a connection between those two incidents

reply

[–] beast_-2 19 years ago

thanx people, after readin ur comments i finally understand that after the car accident in 2000 where he clearly died, that all of 2002 didn't really happen and that him trying to go back and change things can't happen. so i pressume thats why at the end it just goes back to him in '2002'. tho this movie really left me *beep* up cos it made no sense, it led to no conclusion.
but yeh i've seen butterfly effect as well as i didn't like dat either i dun even remember how it ended up working out.

reply

[–] hayling100 19 years ago

i think that things are randomly associated in his memory so his time of death, 20>02, only needs to seem like a year.

reply

[–] coffeegirl18 19 years ago

This is what I thought only the year was 2000 but he thought it was 2002 because he was still somewhat alive.

Here are my thoughts that I posted earlier:

I think that he was dead during those 2 minutes and his mind was racing as to how he could change his life, etc. A sort of 'if I get out of here this is what I'll do' type idea. Brain function continues even after you're dead (for a little while) which is probably why he saw the numbers on the clock. So he did die (the flatlining part) for the 2 minutes then they rescusitated him. I've seen it quite a few times and this is what I personally deduce. I'm not a doctor I just learnt a few things from my biology class.

reply

[–] Bob-45 20 years ago

The "2002" refers to the time when the doctor called his death, military time (2002 is 8:02 PM, military time).

reply

[–] mwbubelah 20 years ago

Bob:

Yes, I mentioned that, but what do you think of my other theory? Is it just me?

Martin

PS: I see you're from Savannah. Love that city!

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stepheninsanger 20 years ago

It's the old you can't change time and the idea is to keep you guessing even when the movie is over. Life is grey not black and white so we don't have all the answers.

reply

[–] restlessspirit25 20 years ago

I read most of the responces, but there were a lot so I kinda skipped some of them, so if I am completely repeating something forgive me I beg of you:
The way I understood it, the first time the crash happened only Peter dies because Simon didn't take the right fork in the road {to the hospital} and so he missed hitting Claire's car.
The reason he went onto the balcony thingy was because he didn't know that he would push him off. When he had viewed himself conversing with Peter in that instance before, Simon had assumed that it was what really happened in the past and not his time travelling self with his brother {did that make sense?}.
When Peter says that they all died, I precieved it as just because they all died, it doesn't mean that they weren't brought back.

I was wondering about the man trying to kill him too. It could have been an effect of the medicine I think; the only concrete sort of thing. However, it may have been the people in the ER, or it could have been soem sort of self conscious thing having to do with guilt.
But you know what I noticed? In the scene in the MRI room when the man is trying to kill him, you see a tattoo on his arm, and I thought that was interesting....It was also interesting how at the end Anna was a paramedic at the accident....

I probably have more insight on it, but I can't place my thoughts anymore at the moment.

reply

[–] mwbubelah 20 years ago

You really need to go back and read some of the others in this thread and in other parts of this message board because we have come to the conclusion that there IS no "time travelling"! It is all his "spirit's" attempt to reconcile that he is actually dead.

Check back with questions...

reply

[–] MixFx 20 years ago

Great discussion by all here. I was baffled by this film at first, but the these discussions made the film more interesting. Nice to see some shrewd observations and detail presented here.

I would only comment by asking if anyone here has seen the film "Identity" with John Cusack and Rea Liotta? This film was also written by Michael Cooney. If you're like me, you see the same elements, same ideas, philosophy, but a different film. Perhaps Cooney wants to write about transcendental experiences at or near death? That is to say, maybe he wants to write about how people, at or near death, would like to change who they were in their lifetime? It seems like both films are just about experiencing this... I just think it was clearer and easier to read in "Identity". Any thoughts on this?

reply

[–] mwbubelah 20 years ago

I love "Identity" and have seen it several times. The acting is great, and it has a compelling story with plenty of twists and turns.

However, that movie did not really deal with "at or near death" changes. In fact, the protagonist had multiple personalities BEFORE he was in the makeshift court scene that makes up the superstructure of the film. Nevertheless, it WAS fascinating to discover the many sides of that character's personality, or better put, I suppose, his different personas as a schizophrenic.

It's a great film: interesting premise, good acting, nice camerawork. What more does one need?

reply

[–] fat_duncan 20 years ago

I watched this movie last night when I was rather tired so I missed some things... what I did get is this. There was no second car crash - any reference to 2002 refers to the time of death. What I don't appreciate is all the time travel silliness; I understand that there was no 'real' time travel, but the fact that it all just happens in his head is no excuse for doing 'time travel' poorly. I spent a fair amount of the movie being frustrated that the 'time travel' didn't make any sense and realizing at the end that it was 'all in his head'. Clever for Dallas 'cause it was the first time it had been. Not clever for this movie.

What I took away from the movie was that Simon was on the verge of dying and the movie is just his distorted memories/hallucinations. Nothing in the movie is technically 'real' except for the car crash; we're not even certain how his brother died (when the brothers are talking, there's this exchange: Simon:'you fell through the skylight' Brother:'Is that what happened?'). Essentially, Simon keeps on rehashing what he could of done differently just before he dies to deal with his guilt, and Simon has to let go of the guilt in order to die (perhaps that's who the Mysterious Doctor Assasin is - the doctor in the ER who's trying to set Simon free..?).

This movie bears striking similarities to Mulholland Drive - it seems that its primary goal was to confuse and the characters/plot are just a means to this end. I'll admit that this movie is better than I thought it was orignally, but barely. It leaves too many questions unanswered and doesn't come to a satisfactory conclusion. There's no character growth, there's no advancement in plot, everything just resets to the way it was (in Simon's mind). I don't mind movies that have ambiguous endings, but I can't stand movies that, in the end, essentially say 'ha ha, I just wasted two hours of your life'.

reply

[–] mwbubelah 20 years ago

Although I'd agree with you that the basic premise is fairly simple, the "art" of the movie was to fit pieces together. We are supposed to be as confused as Simon, to go through his realization WHILE he does. From that perspective, I think it was fairly well done.

Since the same day is repeated, there can be no character development, as such, and the time travel being connected to a restless spirit is a pretty original idea, I thought.

As a result, I can hardly say that it was a "waste" of two hours, but I can agree that it may not be everyone's cup of tea.

BTW, the "ambiguous ending" is a little less ambiguous if you watch it a second time. But there IS some controversy as to what it all means...

reply

[–] fat_duncan 20 years ago

I agree that the art of the movie is the fitting together of the pieces - that's why I loved movies such as Memento, Following, Usual Suspects, and even 13 Conversations About One Thing. It's a tricky thing to roll the movie along and give enough information to make it interesting but not so much that you ruin the 'surprise'.

I disagree with your statement that suggests character development requires more than a day of movie-time (see Phone Booth or Treed Murray for two examples). I DO appreciate that we see a day that has potentially been repeated and therefore is stuck in a loop; however, we only see one iteration of this day and I found that in the end Simon was the same character he was at the beginning. While this may be powerful in and of itself, I could not relate to Simon as I could to characters in other movies who are doomed to repeat themselves, such as those in Requiem for a Dream.

Perhaps that's my real complaint - I wasn't invested in the characters as I found them unbelievable.

As the character(s) aren't carrying the interest of the movie, the plot must be the main instrument, and I feel that it fails in this respect. Although it does become more coherent as the movie progresses, there are problems with its resolution:

Simon's brother talks about choice - as far as I can tall, Simon's 'choice' is to either let go of his guilt (and presumably rest in peace) or continue to repeat his drama of delusions. This suggests that the we create our own hell and that only by our own grace can we escape it (which seems a little beyond the scope of the movie). Anyhoo, Simon apparently elects to try to right things (again) and returns to "2002", presumably to repeat the movie over again. And so it goes; wine bottles cover the table and the surrounding floor. If this is what is meant to be conveyed by the ending (which is uncertain), and I don't really care that Simon is doomed forever, then the movie has failed to do its job. If this isn't the intended conclusion, then what is left is a David Lynchesque mess that confuses confusion for cleverness. The plot falls apart and again, the movie fails to deliver.

I didn't like Mulholand Drive either, in case you were wondering : )

Please, if I'm missing something, let me know.

reply

[–] mwbubelah 20 years ago

fat-duncan:

Actually, your undestandingof what is happening in the film is pretty similar to my own (other than the "need more than one day to have character development part, which wasn't what I was getting at). I suppose that we just had different expectations for--and different demands of--the film.

I guess I didn't feel it necessary to be emotionally committed to the Simon character and instead watched the film perhaps with more of a technical eye. You make a point, however, that normally we should CARE about what happens to the main character. Yet, although I don't feel that it is particularly Lynchesque (Lynchian?), the unravelling of the mystery surrounding the "confusion" felt by Simon is what kept my interest. (I wrote a review for the film, so you might want to read it becausse maybe THIS explanation is not so clear; there I explained WHY I felt the movie was so intriguing.)

I too like "The Usual Suspects" and "Momento," the latter sharing certain aspects with "The I Inside," most notably, the "how did he get that way" phenomenon, so it seems that we should have a similar opinion on the film in question. Nevertheless, I just feel that "The I Inside" succeeded, whereas you think it failed. Well, this is one of those matters of taste, I guess...

reply

[–] fat_duncan 20 years ago

mwbubelah,
I have to agree with your assesment that it seems to come down to a matter of taste : )
I recently watched Jacob's Ladder and believe it is a better movie although there are definitely some similarities (in case you haven't seen it, I won't go into much detail). If you haven't seen it you should check it out : )
Agree to disagree it is!

reply

[–] Caeradwyn 19 years ago

mwbubelah and fat duncan... I wish I could award you some kind of price, but as I cannot do that, I will leave it at saying: Thank you both!
It's great to see that some people on this board (i mean IMDb boards in general) can disagree without calling each other idiots and unintelligent and all that. It gives me renewed hope that not all people on these boards are childish *beep* that has nothing better to do with their time than trying to make other people seem like complete morrons... You set a great example :)

BRAVO!

reply

[–] mwbubelah 19 years ago

gschade:
I know that it has been MONTHS since you wrote a "thank-you" comment to "fat duncan" and me, but I would like to thank you for your acknowledgement that some of us posters have intelligent things to say and can disagree without trashing each other!

I happened to decide to check back on this thread because I recently turned some students onto this film. I am spreading the word! Let's all do that!

I find a certain charm in your confusion.--from Making Love (1982)

reply

[–] rutecki 18 years ago

I realize that nothing supposedly from the year 2002 actually occurred. Everything there was explained at the end as delusions from the scene of the car crash in 2000. But where did everything from the hospital in 2000 come from if he was never concious in the hospital? His doctor, nurses and roomate from that stay were never satisfactorily explained.

reply

[–] kerry-vine 18 years ago

All the characters were people he saw on his trip to the hospital and in the hospital, he was actually conious in the hospital. At the end you see Anna is the paramedic and so is the oderly, they were at the scene of the accident. When he arrives at the hospital Mr Travit walks past him with his drip attached, in the ER the nurse is present and Dr Trumen. Simon sees all these peoples faces before he dies, that is why they are the characters in his head, they are the last people he saw and the ony people he remembers.

reply

[–] genuinething 20 years ago

You have it wrong. Simon did not die ... except momentarily. He is alive at the end of movie, and still being blackmailed by Anna.
Watch the movie with those facts in mind and the whole story makes perfect sense. Watch it again ... there is more there than meets the mind in this fine movie.

reply

[–] mwbubelah 20 years ago

Sorry, genuinething, Simon is clearly dead, and apparently has been dead for some time now. The discussion with the brother makes that quite clear. You need to wath it again, I think.

reply

[–] genuinething 20 years ago

Simon did die for a moment. But he was revived. He is still alive at the end of the movie. Did you not hear the doctor say "Simon, you died"? But then he was revived. Actually they try shocking his heart back into action a few times before it succeeds.
What makes you think Peter is dead? He is still alive while being transported to the hospital. Don't you recall he moves and looks at Simon? That look distracted Simon who then crashed into Clare who did die. We do not see a picture of Peter lying dead on the road but we do see Clare's hand. I assume Peter is referring to the despair felt by both brothers now that the woman they both loved is dead. "We all died, Simon." The two brothers died in spirit with broken hearts, but only Clare really died!
If Simon and Peter are both dead, then why is Peter telling Simon, they all died? That would not make sense. Do you think that scene is portraying life after death? Rather comfy, eh?

Of course, I reserve the right to be completely and utterly wrong!

Lol

Now ponder these thoughts ... why does the blood appear on Anna's forehead? Is she really just a projection of his guilty conscience? She is nowhere to be seen in the final scene with his brother. Is she really imaginary? What is the role of Travis, the heart transplant patient who remembers "wacko" from several years ago, and then hemorrages. In his effort to help, Simon gets his hands bloody. Is he again feeling guilty for trying to take his brother's place as Clare's primary love? Trying to "transplant" Clare's love from Peter to himself? Come to think of it, a lot of the characters seem to represent aspects of Simon's guilty conscience: the doctor with the lollipop (a treat despite his adultery?); Anna (just a tormenting product of Simon's guilty conscience?); the imaginary man behind the door (someone is after him for his crime)...

If Peter and Simon are alive at the end of the movie, then Anna was likely just a projection of Simon's guilty conscience, and Clare, whom they both loved deeply, is dead.

I shall slink back into the shadows now, and let those much wiser ferret out the truth.

gt

reply

[–] fat_duncan 20 years ago

Genuinething,
Simon is caught in a loop - he 'chose' to try to right the wrongs he did in 'reality', as he chose to do at the beginning of the movie, but all the events occur in Simon's 'mind'. The end of the movie is the beginning, and all the stuff in between is going to be reiterated many times over. 'Anna' is almost entirely fictional.

Now, how's about this... in the Bible the apostle Simon becomes St. Peter - is Peter (Simon's brother) a part of Simon's 'conscience'... Simon in fact pushed Clair through the skylight and was rushing to get her to hospital when he got into an accident (with someone else... perhaps th edrivers of the truck at the lookout point?). Peter never existed except in Simon's 'mind'. Sound silly? Disprove it.
I don't think you can, as the movie leaves too much unresolved...

reply

[–] fartman1 20 years ago

I think its his punishment for killing his bro like his hell.He must relive it for ever thou he seems to try and correct it he cant all ends up the same.

reply

[–] Phroggy 19 years ago

...A bit like Sysyphus, huh ?

reply

[–] MMitchell1313 19 years ago

Fat duncan...the fact that there was a picture of the two boys and their father (both in the attic and on the puzzle) seems to be proof enough for me, also..Why did he push Claire through the skylight? It seems the only fight they had was in regards to his brother, and if he didn't exist there wouldn't be much of a reason to fight. Hope that helped disprove it.

reply

[–] rob-vanstone 20 years ago

Genuinething

You make alot of sense, as do most of the posts on this thread. I think your theory works every bit as well as the others and it is a nice take on the "twist" to look at it in a literal way instead of trying to spot metaphores. The extra characters (the would-be assassin, Anna etc...) could just be products of a guilty concience as suggested.
I can also believe that he is alive with severe memory problems as a result of the crash constantly reliving the event and with little else on his mind. While his brother is recovered Simon constantly is coming back to see him (with the wine) and has not come to terms with what happened (the death of claire) and doesn't even remember doing this several times in the past.

Who can decide if the literal answer is any more or less correct than metaphore? The director/writer etc... or no-one.

reply

[–] living-doll 19 years ago

Out of all the theories I think genuinething's theory is the most sound! Here are my thoughts/comments on his post...

1. Only Claire died in the accident. Simon is wracked with guilt over it due to having an affair with her and Peter finding out etc, then the car crash where claire is coming back for SIMON, not peter...all this stuff to feel guilty about. The final scene is both the first scene (before all the delusions etc unravel) and the last scene (the night before he goes into delusions). The scene at the end where they meet for a drink bookmarks the end of simon's believed 'plan' to change things for the better. He is alive but was reliving the traumas and having delusions (from depression/PTSD and sleep deprivation perhaps) about the events. Remember when simon woke up in hospital insisting peter couldnt be dead, as he had seen him the night before - they had met up and had a glass of wine?

2. Anna - must be in the imagination as she made references to claire (also dead) saying 'i know she has been to visit you...claire was here etc'. Anna is someone that represents his guilt. Claire must have been dead all along as she was the only one that suddenly vanished after he spoke to her. The other ppl (hospital staff, simon etc) were 'real' to simon in his flashbacks and were indeed the staff that had treated him after the accident. The blood on claire's forehead was just another delusion - his mind tricking him, trying to tell him that anna is real and he is trapped by her blackmail.

3. The scene at the end where they meet for a drink bookmarks the end of simon's plan to change things for the better. He is alive but was reliving the traumas and having delusions (from depression/PTSD and sleep deprivation perhaps) about the events. Remember when simon woke up in hospital insisting peter couldnt be dead, as he had seen him the night before - they had met up and had a glass of wine? Well THAT night DID happen and he IS alive, but the delusions from waking up that first time in hospital start right at this point (then ending in the present day of meeting peter at his house)

4. I think Travis was a real character that was in the bed next to simon when he was being treated. Simon then deluded the rest of the stuff about travis haemoraging and he feels responsible for this (ie- the guilt he feels for killing his brother and dating claire). Perhaps simon's belief that both travis and peter are dead symbolises the loss of two people in his life (claire - knowing he cant be with her, and peter), and the guilt at these losses being wholly his fault.

Maybe i should stop rambling now..lol x

Sometimes your shallowness is so thorough, it's almost like depth (Daria)

reply

[–] ash_filipina 11 years ago

I think he really died, so did Ana and the brother. It was his mind that was trying to change his death like make it seem he only died for 2 minutes so he could live through it again hoping to change things but however he tried to change facts and jumble characters, it was a loop and never changed the fact that they all died. His only choice is to accept the tragedy, forgive himself so his spirit can have peace.Like his brother told him, they all died.

reply

[–] ash_filipina 11 years ago

I think he really died, so did Claire and the brother. It was his mind that was trying to change his death like make it seem he only died for 2 minutes so he could live through it again hoping to change things but however he tried to change facts and jumble characters, it was a loop and never changed the fact that they all died. His only choice is to accept the tragedy, forgive himself so his spirit can have peace.Like his brother told him, they all died.

reply

[–] nessa51979 20 years ago

Yea, I got that he really died and was trying to relive it and change it. I just have a couple questions. When he first witnessed the death he saw himself bring his brother to a cliff and try to fake his death right? But then he got sidetracked and drove away which is when he had the accident. So does that mean that originally he was going to make his brother's death look like a car accident? Also, when did he and Claire meet? Didn't it say he hadn't seen his brother in years and he was visiting him that night? Does that mean that he met her that day and fell in love with her that day?

reply

[–] Dismas444 20 years ago

Hi guys. You've all got some pretty good, sound theories on here, but there's one thing that bothers me, mainly The last two shots or so of the film. Let me explain.

I think it's possible that Simon's time-travel WAS indeed real. But in the end when he's driving Peter to the hospital, Peter distracts him, thereby making the death HIS own fault, rather than leaving Simon to live with the burden of his death. Because Simon changed his mind about whether to go to the hospital or the cliffside, Peter perhaps picked up on this, in his only part-living state, and offered the distraction as a gift, a way to salve Simon's conscience. It's a strange form of forgiveness I know, but a possible one.

Whether or not this is the case, at the very end Simon dies, he isn't revived on the second defrib. I think, instead of none of the past happening, everythign he remembered happened; he just came to the realisation that perhaps he DESERVED to die. He was so overcome by the hopelessness and disgust at his own bad deeds that he chose to not revive himself.

***SPOILER ALERT - DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN BUTTERFLY EFFECT***

The above point would keep in with a similar theme that we see in the end of the Butterfly Effect; Ashton's character choses to terminate himself in the womb, rather than continue to mess around with time and the people he loves. He sacrifices himself to improve the lives of those around him.

reply

[–] nessa51979 20 years ago

so you think that he really woke up a couple years later and all that stuff happened? he was going back and forth and alive? he was alive and had killed his brother? In that case the girlfriend (Sarah Polley) was still alive? See I don't know about that cuz don't you notice how her character keeps disappearing like she's a ghost? Speaking of which if they were all really dead and he kept trying to go back in time, was he dreaming when his girlfriend would visit him and say she wasn't sorry? Was he dreaming or was she really there with him in heaven or wherever? Also, I'm wondering how they really died. He went to the cliff right? He must have hit her after he left the cliff. So he was going to make the death look like an accident but then decided to take him to the hospital?

reply

[–] alabaonajin 20 years ago

you know this is exactly what the movie writer and director wanted us to do...think think think...and come up with our ideas of it..i saw it and at the end i was still as confused as i was when i started and thats why i think its a great psychological movie, that expands on the idea that not everything in this life can be explained...
see this is just another theory and i thinik the writer has done a great job..

reply

[–] lost_in_the_city 20 years ago

I love psychological thrillers too, and the writer of this one also wrote identity which I loved. But what makes Identity such a good pyychological thriller is that at the end, without too too much thinking, everything makes sense and your happy with it.

I think this movie failed because when your done, you just dont know what happened. And if you want to just not know what happened then i recomend this movie, but I personaly would at least be able to pull out some sort of means to maybe a metaphore or theme or anything. Unfortunatly, after this movie there are so many unanswered questions that you cant for sure say anything is right or wrong, and well thats annoying and does kind of seem like a waste of two hours.

---I AM a huge moron though and probably just dont get it, I mean it does seem silly that all these people would invest so much into a movie that doesnt make sense. Plus the script writer is highly regarded.

I'm sure a lot of people will enjoy this film however, which is awsome ofcoarse, and I think both the director and script writer are working at extremly creative and high calliber levels, so awsome job to them both.

reply

[–] bigsexy8track 20 years ago

What's with all of these comparisons to "Identity" and "Mulholland Drive"? Hasn't anyone out there seen "Lost Highway"? This movie is exactly "Lost Highway" (or tries to be), only "Lost Highway" delivers where this movie does not. I'm not saying that I did not enjoy this movie; "Lost Highway" is just a flawless execution of what this writer/director was trying to do. If you haven't seen it yet, do so immediately! Try picking apart THAT film.......

reply

[–] living-doll 19 years ago

Re - the butterfly effect....I dont recall that bit at the end of the film? Ashton's character went back in time one final time to the day he met claire at a garden party, and he told claire to go away as he didnt like her or something...thereby they never became friends so the following bad events wouldnt have happened....(thinks)...i do remember images at the end of the womb and the sperm not getting to the egg etc...but i think that was a conceptual thing to add effect as the titles came up. Not that kushter actually COULD go back and not be born, or go back to the garden party...but still, it needs to be clarified! Lol.

Sometimes your shallowness is so thorough, it's almost like depth (Daria)

reply

[–] niels-ijsselstein 19 years ago

The Butterfly Effect actually has two endings. I dont know what the version is for the theatrical release but there is the "Womb"-ending and the "Garden Party"-ending. Both versions got a DVD release I think. Great movie BTW!

reply

[–] phoenix1955again 18 years ago

good grief, that was not the ending of "The Butterfly Effect" that I saw in the theatre or knew about!! Is that on a Director's Cut on a DVD somewhere??

reply

[–] livescollide 20 years ago

Anyone ever read that old story by Nathaniel Hawthorne I think it was? The one where the guy is about to be hanged? At the last minute the rope breaks and he gets away. The story tells how he gets back to his wife and family. At the end though, the rope tightens around the guy's neck and he dies.

Basically, it's a story about those last fleeting thoughts that go through our heads when faced with our demise. It's a sort of redemption fantasy that allows the person having it to revisit his life and rectify the wrongs.

I think that's what this movie was. The whole thing was a fantasy in which he gives himself an outlet to utilize to allow himself to right the wrongs he performed in life.

Kind of like "Mullholland Drive." That movie by David Fincher. The whole thing makes no sense until you realize that it's a masturbatory fantasy which Naomi Watts uses to allow herself to save the woman she loved, the woman for whom she's hired a hitman. Lots of gratifying lesbianism!

But those are just my thoughts.

Essentially Simon incorporated the performers around him in his last seconds into a plot that winds around itself in order to put right what he's done and abolish the guilt he feels.

reply

[–] emineric 20 years ago

tenderbranson, if you enjoyed mulholland drive, i recommend se7en and fight club by david lynch.

reply

[–] coffeegirl18 19 years ago

Was that a bash or a suggestion? Interesting. Was Fight Club good I've never seen it and I know it has a cult following.

Jazz

reply

[–] stefzur 19 years ago

The director of those two movies was David Fincher.

reply

[–] coffeegirl18 18 years ago

Oh ok thanks. I thought they meant they wrote them as in an author of a book that was turned into a movie.

~*~*~Jazz~*~*~

reply

[–] candacemoore8 19 years ago

It's "An Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge" by the wonderful Ambrose Bierce.

reply

[–] danielcatbh 19 years ago

I think that Simon was really dead.

Like a lot of people said before, the ER Guy trying to "kill" Simon, was in fact a doctor trying to save him after the car accident(adrenaline shoot,etc)

As for Anna, I belive she was Simon's guilty over the events(everything happened because of him and his actions). Think about it.

In the Beggining of the movie Dr. Newman says something like this "everything bad that happened to you, you gotta let it go", wich simon doesnt. He only starts to "letting go" of the bad things that happened to him, when he confronts Anna for the first time(hence the head injury). Then, when he Simons confronts her the second time, saying that this time things would be different, she starts to bleed.

In the end,after the whole Simon/Peter conersation, we learned that Simon still didnt let go of the bad events, but he is getting somewhere(number of bottles,number of this he tried...).

reply

[–] phoenix1955again 18 years ago

Ahh, yes, excellent story!!

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wdragon007 16 years ago

I believe the story you are referring to is "An Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge", if you wanted to re-read it or watch the short film that was made quite some time ago (it's on NetFlix). It ran one time on "The Twilight Zone" which is how I saw it the first time.

reply

[–] copagirl42 20 years ago

Hi everybody,

I don't know if any of you are french or if the american dvd has the same features as the french one, but for all people who think that Simon is not dead and that he's really a time traveller, I can say YOU'RE WRONG.

there's a game on the dvd called "test your memory". It's a questionnary about the movie with questions like "what's my name? what's the name of the hospital?". One of the questions is "What's the name of my wife". Answer A : Claire. Answer B : Anna. Answer C : I don't have a wife. Correct answer is the C. Other question : "At what time did I die ?". Answer A : 20:00. Answer B: 20:01. Answer C : 20:02. Correct answer is the C. So that's settled.

But there's one little tiny thing that bothers me, still with that questionnary. next question is "What's the name of my doctor?" Answer A : Dr Newman. Answer B: Dr Truman. Answer C : Dr Bergman. Correct answer is the A. So if the 2002 is just an inside-his-mind delusion, why is the doctor's name Newman since he's just a representation of his father's image ?

If anybody has an opinion on that...

Bye

reply

[–] bingolong 20 years ago

No specail features which I think would have been helpful and I wouldn't haver to read all these posts.....hehehehehehehe

Also maybe Newman means New Man...but I don't know.....

But if you really listen to the dialouge sprinkled throughout this movie ( doctor and Dad and Peter says something to the effect that "there's only one inescapable rule to the game of life kid,life sooner or later everyone has to stop playing)It all akes good sense but of course if you are not looking for this it can fly right over your head.

Stuff like "we have a puzzle that needs to be put together"
But the last scene says it all;
Peter:"you can't move on from all of this until you let it go"
It's your choice were you go Simon"
Instead of just dieing he wakes up back '2002" trying to fix it again the last line of the movieis Dr. Newman says "you died Mr. Cable"

reply

[–] irish-ronin 19 years ago

Thanks for the theories about the movie. I have to agree with you that I interpreted the I Inside as Cable's decision on how he wanted to live in the after life. Does he want to continue to relive the events of the past - purgatory? Or does he want to let go & embrace the love that his brother, Peter (God) has for him. Basically, stating that no matter what mistakes we have made in the past if we accept them & ask for forgiveness we can go to heaven.

I really loved this movie, as it made me search for more explanations and to really think about it. A day later, I am typing this on IMDB and putting together more pieces of the movie. If I hadn't been moved to do this, I would have been left with any other typically brain dead movie that you can succumb to in a coma. Instead, we're left to debate & dicuss & fit the movie into our own lives.

reply

[–] srljb 19 years ago

This is why I love movies like this. They can keep us questioning and arguing over what happened and can be very thought provoking and that's clear cos this thread as been continually updated since last year.

Anyhoo, I've not read every single post, but I have a few comments to make anyway:

I think that Simon has always been dead and the flashbacks between 2000/2002 are his attempts to try and reaffect the past, but, no matter what he tries differently, the outcome would always be the same.

In the first flashback with Claire and Simon in the house, the brother sees Simon & Claire in throws of passion. Claire leaves and the accident occurs with Peter falling through the sunroof.

2nd Flashback - Nothing happens. Simon tries to change fate. Peter sees them together and assumes the worst. Claire leaves and the accident occurs again with Peter and the sunroof. It's a bit of a sign that no matter what lengths Simon goes to, fate will somehow always return the same conclusion and this cannot be changed. If he tries to mess about with fate it will only cause a slight hiccup with fate and the ultimate timeline.

That may explain the sequence in 2000 when Simon stabs the patient to death, but in 2002 he is fine.... Until he's given his soup and takes one almighty lapse.

Also, in 2000, he pushes Anna who bangs her head. Back in 2002 out of nowhere, her head starts to bleed. Is this a sign that what he did in 2000 is possibly affecting 2002???? Who knows...........

In the end, I do think that the 3 of them died in the car crash. Peter says something to Simon in the house about them ALL being dead and it's now up to him to decide to accept it. I assume that his dead father was indeed the doctor, but all the other characters i.e the nurse, Anna, Travis were all people who assisted in the hospital during the 2000 crash who Simon has associated with in his mind and carried them into his afterlife/fate changing excercise.

The tape recording Anna made could well be Peter saying that Simon had tried to kill him. Let's face it, in Peters eyes that would be the case. His brother pushed him ( by accident) and he fell through the sunroof and then ultimately crashed the car.

It's almost like Simon has taken Anna into the afterlife as the angel of death, constantly hovering, making him feel uneasy, questioning himself. In 2002 all furniture, scenery, lighting was very light, but as soon as Anna appears, the rain starts to fall and she is dressed in dark black leather as a portent of the angel of death.......

Anyway, I've defintely had one too many glasses of wine.

This could all be bollocks and I don't really care cos everyone of us are allowed our own opinions and I respect every other members ideas and thoughts. It just gives us all more to contemplate and think about.

reply

[–] madmudder_04 19 years ago

Ever get a good look at him with his shirt off? Huh, have ya?! Didn't think so.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]