I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

A group of friends and I bought this film as a joke, namely because it has the title 'possible worlds' a title that hints at being concerned with David Lewis' modal realism. However, we endeavoured to watch it objectively and without philosophical prejudice. The result: one of the most painful 90 minutes of our lives.A film cannot be termed 'deep' or 'thought provoking' merely in virtue of having excruciatingly long pauses in it, or a main character who stares into space constantly. Whoever wrote this clearly has no knowledge of philosophy beyond the opening lines of Wittgenstein, Descartes, and dare I say Lewis (although I doubt the writer had even heard of Lewis as this is such a car crash of an attempt to deal with possible worlds). This film is not deep, nor does it address big, or weighty, philosophical ideas. It fails to be entertaining, and it is not particularly well filmed. The acting is stilted, and the dialogue, where it exists, is dreadful.Overall review 1/10. Do not watch this film if you have any background in philosophy, you will be offended. All I can say is I'm glad the late great David Lewis probably never saw this.

Possible Worlds is a low budget independent film by French director Robert Lepage, it is a surreal murder mystery which appears to have been made primarily to explore several different philosophical notions. It begins with two detectives arriving at the scene of a crime, the victim George Barber (Tom McCamus) has been murdered and his brain removed from his body. We then meet George Barber, alive and well. Since he was a boy, it turns out, George has had the ability to switch between different Possible Worlds at will. The love of his life is played by Tilda Swinton and we follow George in several different worlds meet the different versions of her and try to woo them all. In one world she is a shy scientist, in another she is a confident business woman. What makes these very different women the same person? Well, thats partially what the film is about. Simultaniously we follow the detectives as they hunt down George's missing brain and meet a mad scientist who experiments with extracted animal brains (Gabriel Gascon).The 'Possible Worlds' from which this film takes its name is a concept of contemporary philosophy, it is a method of discussing the nature of possibility and necessity. Instead of saying "I might have gone to the shops", one says "there is a possible world in which I went to the shops". This allows for greater clarity of discussion about the nature of possibility. One of the more eccentric lines of thought in philosophy is idea that Possible Worlds actually exist (technically they only possibly exist, but every possibility is an actuality for that possibility... yes, this is the simplified way of discussing it!). The concept is very similar to the quantum mechanics notion of multiple/parallel dimensions, as explored in a great deal of science fiction, and is the central premise of this film.The film can be best described as a cross between Darren Arranofsky's Pi and the cult sci-fi Primer. In places it is distinctly Lynchian, such as this dream sequence (which is the only part of the film available on youtube, there isn't even a trailer) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7odlad7TOc Although the film isn't particularly complex (and it isn't as deliberately convoluted as Primer which, although enjoyable, tries too hard to make its dialogue impenetrable) following George through the various worlds and tying the different plot strands together does require the audience to concentrate.For a student of modern philosophy or a person fairly well read in the subject, this film will be highly enjoyable. While it contains slightly heavy handed brain-in-a-vat allusions, the film primarily focuses on discussions of identity and possibility. Many different ideas are brought in regarding the nature of consciousness, evolutionary development of the mind, and physical embodiment and the film makes no attempt to give simple or easy answers to these. However, for somebody not read in such areas, the film is likely to be frustratingly dull and pointless. The film does not try to overly explain or reduce these notions: such an attempt would be pointless anyway, it is dealing with some of the most difficult material ever written, 5 minutes of exposition isn't going to benefit anyone. But all of the films dialogue is very clear and simple and it never throws in unnecessary technical terms (like Primer) or tries to fool its audience. In spite of this, I do fear its subject matter will alienate many viewers.This dichotomy is perhaps best seen in the film's ending (which I wont reveal here). The film has a sad, melancholic ending, in which the story's plots come together and the characters journeys receive closure. This is good, and it does mean even somebody unfamiliar with the concepts it is exploring can still enjoy the film. But at the same time, it could appear to be wrapping up profound questions with an overly simplistic conclusion. The ending of the film is good, but I think to truly appreciate the film is to realise that (as with many great films) its conclusion is in fact the least important aspect of it.Possible Worlds is an excellent film with a very niche audience; it is to philosophy as Primer is to science. It contains enough surreal imagery and dark, dry humour for any audience member to enjoy, and I should of course point out that reading philosophy is by no means necessary for somebody to understand or engage with philosophical concepts, any more than one needs to be an art scholar to enjoy good art. But its target audience, as the name suggests, is those who are directly familiar with the material that this film is exploring, and if you are a fan of David Lewis, Wittgenstein, Kant or Descartes then this film really is essential viewing.

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

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