AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Iseerphia All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

Scotty Burke It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

gavin6942 An amnesiac (Ryan Philippe) discovers himself leaping through time between 2000 and 2002 as his past returns to him.This film has a decent cast. Philippe is, of course, the star and this film caught him not long after his celebrity peak. Sarah Polley is excellent, as always, and we also have Stephen Rea. So this is just a great little genre picture in terms of casting.We then get a bit of mystery, a bit of science fiction. It is one part "Butterfly Effect" and two parts "The Jacket". Unfortunately for "I Inside", we would have to say that "Butterfly Effect" is slightly better and "Jacket" is significantly better than both.

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.

shiftyeyeddog I've never liked the idea of test screenings. The changes they make just end up neutering a movie and making it "safe" for the general masses. But if ever a movie needed feedback to prompt a rewrite and alternate ending, this is it. The first half of this movie is spectacular. It's atmospheric, tense, and confusing (in a good way). It kept you guessing the whole way. Much like Memento, it's an intelligent film that makes you watch closely and think. The story could have gone a number of directions....but the last half, it all falls apart. They start changing the "rules", the suspense gives way to straight storytelling, and the ending goes a completely different direction than it could have, and SHOULD have. It's not just that I didn't like the ending or that it didn't match my predictions. The problem is the truth is still unclear and viewers are left confused. Too much is left unexplained. As it is, the film is wasted potential. A good story and a good movie, but one that could have been so much better with a different ending.

jpschapira 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 Cooney…Is 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 together…And 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 one…It's the truth.