ArdentViewer I scanned a few of the other IMDb user reviews before writing my own, and I have the opposite opinion regarding the pace of the film. In the beginning I was somewhat bored and distracted by the cheesy elements of the film - cliché "dramatic" music, etc. I can't quite put my finger on why, but visually the film seemed dated or like a TV movie to me. Maybe it was the coloration or camera angles. Aside from this, I also found myself wondering at least a few times, "what is the point of all this" during the first half of the movie. The plot seemed to be very slow-moving. The time shifts interested me but I wasn't really pulled in by the characters. The acting by some of the non-principal characters was also painful - namely, the nurse. The second half of the movie more than redeemed itself in my opinion. The action started moving faster and more of the plot was revealed - who Clair truly was, the reason for the animosity between Simon and Anna, etc. I was on the edge of my seat for much of this portion of the movie, as more and more twists and turns were presented and questions were answered. Unlike some other users, I don't have a problem with the ending. It kept me guessing until the last moment and even now, a day later, I'm still not quite sure what the real "truth" is. Was Simon dead the whole time and had been reliving his mistakes over and over, trying to change them? Was it all a dream, fueled by his guilty subconscious? Or is there a different explanation?I personally love thrillers replete with plot twists that take you in different directions and make you question all of your prior assumptions. The ambiguity in this film allows you to form your own opinions, and fosters thoughts and discussion long after the closing credits. I think the not knowing is part of the fun. To me, the mark of a good film is whether it passes the "rewatch" test. I will be happy to watch this movie again (possibly more than once) to try to piece together the puzzle and to recognize all the clues and hints that had been sprinkled along the way.

Tss5078 Imagine waking up in the hospital after an accident, not knowing what happened, and then realizing that it's two years later than you thought it was. That is the dilemma faced by Simon Cable in The I Inside. This ambitious thriller has you piecing together the puzzle along side it's star Ryan Phillippe. The I Inside jumps around, far too much, between past, present, and future to tell it's story, a story that you really won't care about. It's a very uninteresting tale, that is told to you a piece at a time and to be honest, that's why you watch the film. It's confusing and not very good, but once you've invested the time, you want to know what happens. Ryan Phillippe was Brilliant as Simon Cable, proving that it really isn't all about the looks, he can act too, but again it's wasted talent in a very uninteresting tale. Phillippe is paired with Sarah Polley, who I absolutely love, the fact that she was in this film, is what put it on my radar, but she easily gives the worst performance of her career. Yes, the story wasn't very well written, but if everyone had put the energy into their roles that Phillippe did, the film would have at least had some credibility. The films Director is Roland Richter, was directing his first film in the United States. I don't know about movies in Germany, but here in the United States, if you're going to release a jumpy, confusing film, you'd had better make the story worth while. Richter fails to do that and the result is a slow, confusing film, that has you asking, "is that it? Really?" The I Inside is unique and will make you think, but the story being told, really isn't worth the time it takes to piece it all together.

PhantomAgony I absolutely hated The I Inside for numerous reasons, one being how poorly executed it was as well as confusing but the main reason why I thought this movie was utter garbage and worth a mere 2 stars was the fact that once the ending reveals the truth behind the madness of the film it is quite clear that the majority of the plot and movie was contrived and pointless.The ending of the film brings the realization that Simon Cable (Phillipe) died along with his brother and his brother's fiancé, Claire in a car accident in 2000 and because he can simply not accept what happened and feels responsible for the other deaths, he keeps going back in time in his mind to try and change what happened and save them. The problem? If a character wants to change the events that lead to a deadly accident in 2000, common sense says that the character should awake in the year 2000 right before the accident and well, try to change what happened. Such a concept was too simple for The I Inside so they concocted a completely pointless plot where the character of Simon wakes up in the year 2002 after supposedly being poisoned by his wife, Anna and has no memory of the last 2 years. Simon is told that his brother died in a car accident in 2000 but he survived. The movie amps up the mystery and intrigue when Simon, while wandering around the hospital somehow finds himself entering the year 2000. He will be walking down the hallway in 2002 and then turn a corner and enter for example the lounge and instead of it being 2002, he's back in 2000 in the same hospital. The movie continually shifts from the year 2002 to the year 2000 and back again in the hospital while simultaneously having Simon return to his home in the year 2000 to try and change events that led to the car accident that in his mind, only killed his brother. The movie also adds the idea that whatever happens to people in the year 2000, will happen to them in 2002 which adds more mystery to the plot. For example, in the year 2000, in the hospital, Simon ends up hallucinating and stabbing someone to death, someone who he saw alive in the hospital in the year 2002, only for that person to then die spontaneously and start bleeding out everywhere in the year 2002. So... why is the movie so bad? Simple - because NONE of that meant anything to the actual plot once all is revealed at the end. The entire 'time traveling' between the years 2002 and 2000, having things happen to people in 2000 and then have it show up in 2002 was, in the end, pointless and had NOTHING to do with the actual plot of Simon not accepting his death from the car accident in 2000 and wanting to go back in time to try and change the outcome. There is no reason at all why he couldn't have just woken up in 2000. The entire 2002 subplot is 100 percent bullshit and it's that subplot that was the only thing that made the film somewhat mysterious. As for the answer of why the year 2002, the movie tries to justify that entire plot by making Simon's time of death in 2000, at 20:02 as if that is why he keeps waking up 2 years after the accident and then has to shift between the years 2002 and 2000 but it's weak at best. Clearly, the writers came up with the time traveling concept first and then tagged on that his death was at 20:02 to try and make it not seem contrived and ridiculous that he was randomly waking up 2 years after the accident to try and change events that occurred right before the accident. Failure.As for my explanation for what happened in the film, there is no doubt that Simon was killed in 2000 and everything in 2002 is an illusion. What solidified it for me was the fact that his father was his doctor in 2002 and the puzzle he was putting together in the lobby turned out to be of a photo of him, his brother and his father that we see at the end at the brother's house.2 stars - the actual movie is confusing, poorly directed and poorly edited and once you find out that the entire 2002 time traveling to the year 2000 was completely unnecessary, and just a stunt to try and make the film interesting, it's hard to not see it as complete rubbish.

Raul Faust I just began watching the movie and realized that Simon was Sebastian in Cruel Intentions. The beginning of the movie, 'till half an hour, moved quickly. It intrigued the spectator and we innocently thought there was gonna be an answer at the end. Sadly there wasn't. "The I Inside" could had been much better. All the "comes" and "goes" kinda of confused me and at one time I was unable to distinguish the characters. At least the message of the movie was great: "You can't change the past" - simple as that. It seems to me that Ryan Phillippe works better playing the bad guy as he did in C.I. Watchable, but I wouldn't watch again nor recommend to my friends.