just watch it!

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

I like films dreamlike, fluid appearances, floating that wanders outside of the confines of self and story. At the same time I like them to draw fresh water from the well of mysterious non- self that underpins really anything that is exuberantly receptive to the world (passionate sex, dreaming, youth all a part of it), wipes anxiety and restores perception to the far-flung horizons teeming with possibility that youth and early lovers know.Lynch is a natural master of this deep swimming. Ferrara tried briefly at around the same time. Further back it was Rivette, a lot of film noir works in a similar way for me.Here we have all these things; dreamlike in the way that Lynch is, about passion that dives in and perturbs reality, and a cinematic mind-bending swim in the waters. It's nominally a thriller, but written in waters, fluid about anxiety and self.It has the noir engine where someone sets out to investigate and finds himself embroiled in mysterious goings-on. In noir that's usually a PI, but it doesn't have to be. Here it's simply a son whose mother has been hospitalized and he arrives to the small town to care for her.He an architectural writer, she a photographer, both coming to explore an old building that is set to be demolished, but she has a husband. They unearth a story that took place in that building long ago, illicit lovers discovered one night. We have some obvious symbolism in the building as obliquely shared past and as wandering through his own mind that is buffeted by anxieties.And it has the notion of persisting memory where something that happened in the past is rising up again in the present. The noir drive is that the more he succumbs to passion, the more he is pulled as a narrator into a past story about it.So they fall for each other while he's unearthing a narrative of how that shattered lives one day. By investigating further, he comes to understand that he's tied to that story via his parents, his mother has been unwell ever since. There's also another son whose life is intimately woven to events of that night, an eerie figure like out of Lynch who by driving past the building one day causes someone to die.It's all eventually made to align during a hospital visit late at night. Another invalid mother is wheeled out, central in events of that story. A metaphysical wiring between bodies takes place, bodies entered it seems by our knowledge of the story. The fateful coupling that upset reality takes place once more inside the building; once more a vengeful spouse is waiting in the shadows with a gun. But they say that they love each other. He's eavesdropping and stays his hand.This is worthwhile stuff.Noir Meter: 2/4 | Neo-noir or post noir? Post

Based on some recommendations, I bought this film and made sure to get the director's cut because everyone says there is necessary info in it.But skip this one and go straight to Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson in Dead Again if you want an overall better movie.This plot was okay, but highly predictable in almost all respects EXCEPT I'll stipulate that there was at least one really gross moment (involves a tongue), one really freaky/scary moment (involves a wheelchair), and I didn't guess correctly who was the killer. Which elevates it above a lot of movies.I still liked Dead Again better. Pamela Gidley was okay, but I couldn't get past her being the robot in Cherry 2000, the hero was okay but I think he is that same guy with Julia Roberts in Sleeping With the Enemy (kind of the poor movie's Brad Pitt) and the usually reliable Bill Pullman was kinda wasted here.P.S. Okay, I'm going to go in-depth a bit here about why the hospital wheelchair scene was so freaky to me. This movie is about something very intense that happened in the past working itself out again in the present through mostly reincarnated people. However, some of the people in the present were alive when the original events happened and have a stake in seeing that the past remains covered up or perhaps still feel tremendous jealousy/rage etc. at the reincarnated characters although they don't know why.The Store manager in the past was reincarnated as Nick (the store manager was in fact Nick's biological father and his soul apparently still felt a tremendous pull towards his pregnant wife even though (or perhaps because) they had a problematic relationship of infidelity and intense jealous rage) and the Blonde Rich woman was reincarnated as Jane. Ah, but some of you may disagree because the blonde woman didn't die in the past, she only became completely brain dead in the higher functions although able to live with constant care and no need for a respirator due to no damage to her brain stem where the autonomic bodily funtions reside (breathing, regulation of heart rate, blood pressure etc.)And that is why I found the scene where the brain dead blonde woman is in close proximity with Jane so disturbing. If her soul left her when her consciousness died (although her body lived on) and was reincarnated as Jane, then you have a soul-less brain dead body violently reacting involuntarily due to being near the soul it once had. I found that just freaky as all get out and something I had never seen in a reincarnation type movie before or since.

As far as I can see, pretty much everyone has gotten the "plot twist" of this film wrong, from IMDb commenters to all of the "pro" reviewers. Although my comments/"review" are effectively a spoiler, I think people just might enjoy the film more if you knew this information beforehand. Or just come back here and check to see if you got it right afterward. If you even see this, since I am so far down. Anyway, I'll give you a hint first, and then get into the spoiler. (and "review")Hint: Keep a VERY close eye on the TRUE relationship between the two main characters: Nick and Jane. What are you missing? (if you are)And now for the rest of the story. But first, let me say that, although the film is beautifully shot, and very nourish, and the acting is pretty good, considering, the film eventually fails I think because most people will not "get it", and end up irritated and frustrated.So here's the spoiler: Nick and Jane were blood-related. Stop now and watch the movie if you want to "figure it out for yourself". Otherwise, continue on and follow closely.The man and woman who were having sex "years ago" and were shot (by a (pregnant) WOMAN, NOT! a man! -- work with me here, people -- at least pay attention), they were related to the current time people as follows. The man who was shot was Nick's father. (notice the resemblance in the police report photos, like Nick does) Who was (obviously?) married to Nick's dieing mother. Nick's father was having an affair with a BLONDE woman who we end up finding out was a Ralston (IF you are really paying attention), possibly the wife of the man who owned the building, or maybe just a rich daughter -- whatever. So, the WOMAN who shot them was Nick's mother, who was pregnant (big belly) with Nick at the time. She went whacko, as was mentioned, and so Nick had to be adopted out, because he lost his mother and his father.And now for Jane. At the end of the movie, she "freaks out" when she sees the (BLONDE!) woman in the wheelchair. See where I'm going with this? That woman was her mother. Remember, she was adopted, too, and didn't know her parents, either. So, the woman was shot in the head (they kind of made a point of showing the scar), and didn't die. Only Nick's father died. This is also the reason Nick's mother freaked out when Jane went into her hospital room. She either knew who she was, or, was near-dieing confused and thought she was the blonde woman she shot. Again, what-ev-er.(also, remember Nick's mother freaking out when she found out she was back in the town? -- it sure would have been nice if all of this was more evident, which is why the film really fails)Now, what I'm thinking is this, and it needs some stretching and "guessing" and both deductive and inductive logic. (this is why I always make a point of stating that film, TV, whatever, should always be watched "intelligently" -- even if it's only watched for entertainment -- you will (and do, regardless) get things out of it that you won't even recognize or understand or know about, until MAYBE later -- although much of it is subconscious -- regardless, it's ALL good -- people who don't watch film and TV and such tend to be almost as bad as people who don't read books -- somewhat (or a lot) shallow; lacking in wisdom; common sense escapes them; not as able to deal with and solve life's problems; and a host of other unfortunate traits -- it is AS BAD as someone who is uneducated or under-educated -- but I digress)Anyway, I think Nick's father impregnated the blonde Ralston woman, who was Jane's mother, which make Nick and Jane step brother and sister. THAT is the real (final and major) "plot twist" of the film. Did they figure it out, and know, and have sex anyway? I don't know.As for why Jane's husband was acting the way he was, maybe he knew who Jane really was, and some other stuff, or maybe he was just a jealous husband and land developer on a tight schedule who was having marital problems with his wife. What do you think? I think I got a HELL of a lot closer than anyone else. Anyway, the film is better if you know what I've written about here. No irritation and frustration at the end. I hate when that happens. (sorry this is so long)

Spoilers herein.Figgis has real talent. He's unpredictable, but here he really sings. This is great, intelligent. Many compare it to `Dead Again' which debuted in the same year and which had star appeal. That film was an actor's romp, this is a filmmaker's song. This has many features that I find really attractive in a film:-- films that construct and fold realities, this despite the blizzard of recent such films. The folding isn't particularly clever plotwise, but it does not intend to be, instead relying on the mechanics listed below.-- films where buildings are characters and photographed as such. The cool thing here is the deliberate projection of the architect's fantasy as a building, which it would be when his passions are centered on buildings.-- films that are firstly cinematic and then dramatic. `Dead Again' was conceived and executed as a drama with the projection from the actors and story -- as noted, this starts with a complex of images (and sound! don't forget the sound) with everything in service to that.-- films that reinvent mystery cinematically. This wasn't the most engaging mysterywise, but I don't think a good film solution has been found yet.Plus, the characters here are so, so physically attractive. The whole thing revolves around Alicia Witt (the redheaded girl/whorehouse pianist). If you understand her, you got it. This is stuff worth watching with your eyes.You must, must see it with the missing scene restored -- or if viewing via DVD, go to the extra scene manually when Nick gets a ride back from the party with the sheriff. Do your part to prevent forest fires.