Someone should teach the people who made this movie that there is a difference between "presenting multiple twists" and "screwing the audience over". They even use hypnosis as a tool to cover up the plot holes; whenever they can't find their way into or out of a scene, they just say "she is regressing to her past now" or "she's snapping out of it now", and they think that explains everything. This movie is a dishonest cheat and in the last 20 minutes becomes a full-blown fiasco. (*1/2)
12 Reviews
A Betrayal of Trust
sol12189 June 2004
****SPOILERS**** Suspected of murdering her husband Peter, Jimmy Smits, and the live-in, handyman Charlie, Gailard Sartain, Caroline Walker, Mary-Louise Parker, is being interrogated at the police station when she is appointed a court psychiatrist Dr. Ellis, Nigel Hawthorne. Dr. Ellis tries to help her remember what happened in the three hours at the Walker Estate up to the time of the double-murders that night.
Going to Dr. Ellis' office the next day he puts her under hypnosis to help Caroline by regressing her back in time to the point where she married Peter and then back to the night of his and Charlie's murder.
We see that Caroline's marriage to Peter was anything but happy with Peter holding Caroline responsible for forcing him to marry her by tricking him into getting her pregnant. Peter was driven to marry Caroline to prevent any scandal that would hurt his high standing in the community that he built up over the years.
Peter was anything but a perfect husband to Caroline always yelling at her and even smacking her around at times even though he strove for perfection in everything that he did in his social life as well as his many business ventures to impress his rich and high powered friends and acquaintances.
Peter was also very rude and nasty to Charlie, the live-in handyman at his estate, by insulting and putting him down at every opportunity. Charlie being a good-natured and sweet as well as at times a very hapless person could do nothing but take Peter's abuse and at the same time try to learn how to live with it.
As Dr. Ellis slowly brought Caroline forward to that night when her husband Peter and Charlie were found murdered. Surprisingly we find out that she indeed was innocent of those crimes. Dr.Ellis' expert testimony at Caroline's murder trial is what convinced the jury to find her not guilty but the policeman who handled the case Det.Holloway, Jason Scott Lee, felt that she did murder Peter and Charlie. But now that Caroline was vindicated by a jury of her peers there was nothing that he could do.
Soon after the jury verdict the truth comes out about the murders and it turns out that Caroline's mind was purposely blocked by the real murderer and he wasn't the person that we in the audience as well as those in the movie were lead to believe he was.
Confusing movie with a number of ridicules flash-backs that had in most cases nothing to do with the story that we were seeing on the screen. The flash-backs popped up mostly at inopportune times in the movie and looked like most of them were left on the cutting-room floor because they didn't fit into the films plot. Also there was so many close-ups of Mary-Louise Parker's big brown eyes that it made me in watching the movie more hypnotized then she was by Dr. Ellis.
The overly contrived conclusion of the movie spoiled whatever there was left of the plot and tension in the film. The really off-the-wall ending left you totally stupefied, just like Det. Holloway was with his jaw dropping and eyes wide open and looking flabbergasted at the end of the film.
Going to Dr. Ellis' office the next day he puts her under hypnosis to help Caroline by regressing her back in time to the point where she married Peter and then back to the night of his and Charlie's murder.
We see that Caroline's marriage to Peter was anything but happy with Peter holding Caroline responsible for forcing him to marry her by tricking him into getting her pregnant. Peter was driven to marry Caroline to prevent any scandal that would hurt his high standing in the community that he built up over the years.
Peter was anything but a perfect husband to Caroline always yelling at her and even smacking her around at times even though he strove for perfection in everything that he did in his social life as well as his many business ventures to impress his rich and high powered friends and acquaintances.
Peter was also very rude and nasty to Charlie, the live-in handyman at his estate, by insulting and putting him down at every opportunity. Charlie being a good-natured and sweet as well as at times a very hapless person could do nothing but take Peter's abuse and at the same time try to learn how to live with it.
As Dr. Ellis slowly brought Caroline forward to that night when her husband Peter and Charlie were found murdered. Surprisingly we find out that she indeed was innocent of those crimes. Dr.Ellis' expert testimony at Caroline's murder trial is what convinced the jury to find her not guilty but the policeman who handled the case Det.Holloway, Jason Scott Lee, felt that she did murder Peter and Charlie. But now that Caroline was vindicated by a jury of her peers there was nothing that he could do.
Soon after the jury verdict the truth comes out about the murders and it turns out that Caroline's mind was purposely blocked by the real murderer and he wasn't the person that we in the audience as well as those in the movie were lead to believe he was.
Confusing movie with a number of ridicules flash-backs that had in most cases nothing to do with the story that we were seeing on the screen. The flash-backs popped up mostly at inopportune times in the movie and looked like most of them were left on the cutting-room floor because they didn't fit into the films plot. Also there was so many close-ups of Mary-Louise Parker's big brown eyes that it made me in watching the movie more hypnotized then she was by Dr. Ellis.
The overly contrived conclusion of the movie spoiled whatever there was left of the plot and tension in the film. The really off-the-wall ending left you totally stupefied, just like Det. Holloway was with his jaw dropping and eyes wide open and looking flabbergasted at the end of the film.
Don't bother.
Alextris30 June 1999
Warning: Spoilers
The question in this movie is not "Whodunit", but rather "Whydidtheydunit". In the opening scene (in the dark and rain...how mysterious) the police descend on the ritzy abode of Jimmy Smits and Mary-Louise Parker to discover the former lying in the foyer with some shrub clippers protruding from his belly (the couples handyman is also dead, but who cares?). Parker is upstairs, covered in blood, clutching a knife and staring into space.
It seems pretty darn obvious that she did it, but she doesn't remember a thing, so the cops bring in a world-renowned psychiatric expert (Nigel Hawthorne) who luckily lives nearby to clear up the whole mess. He doesn't.
We then suffer through a ninety-minute quest to define the nature of memory and the mind which is both confusing (it is supposed to be) and boring (an unintended consequence).
It's hard to believe that Jimmy Smits left "NYPD Blue" to pursue these kind of career opportunities.
It seems pretty darn obvious that she did it, but she doesn't remember a thing, so the cops bring in a world-renowned psychiatric expert (Nigel Hawthorne) who luckily lives nearby to clear up the whole mess. He doesn't.
We then suffer through a ninety-minute quest to define the nature of memory and the mind which is both confusing (it is supposed to be) and boring (an unintended consequence).
It's hard to believe that Jimmy Smits left "NYPD Blue" to pursue these kind of career opportunities.
Not Fantastic But Pretty Watchable, Really.
Vince_In_Milan11 June 2002
Confused murder suspect cannot remember if she murdered her rich husband.
Against the better judgment of hard-bitten "throw the book at her and save tax-payers' money" type police department, smooth psychologist/hypnotist (Nigel Hawthorne) helps her to relive the night of the murder by means of regression into her past.
However, as she relives life with her husband she begins to notice that lots of details don't quite match her memories. What really happened?
This is NOT a fantastic film, I wouldn't pay money to see it in a cinema, for example. The depiction of hypnosis is bizarre enough to initially seem quite funny.
Once you get over that rather shaky plot device though, the various layers of reality brought up by the hypnosis are quite interesting in a "what is reality?" way. It reminded me the teensiest little bit of "Memento" and even though it was late at night I ignored the film's more pretentious angles and sat through the entire thing. Mainly to see why the memory discrepancies occurred and so on.
The lighting and photography are also quite nice.
Against the better judgment of hard-bitten "throw the book at her and save tax-payers' money" type police department, smooth psychologist/hypnotist (Nigel Hawthorne) helps her to relive the night of the murder by means of regression into her past.
However, as she relives life with her husband she begins to notice that lots of details don't quite match her memories. What really happened?
This is NOT a fantastic film, I wouldn't pay money to see it in a cinema, for example. The depiction of hypnosis is bizarre enough to initially seem quite funny.
Once you get over that rather shaky plot device though, the various layers of reality brought up by the hypnosis are quite interesting in a "what is reality?" way. It reminded me the teensiest little bit of "Memento" and even though it was late at night I ignored the film's more pretentious angles and sat through the entire thing. Mainly to see why the memory discrepancies occurred and so on.
The lighting and photography are also quite nice.
Our Nigel is as confused as this film is....
michael_asbridge23 August 2005
A good cast... A good idea but turns out it is flawed as hypnosis is not allowed as evidence in courts. So many good actors and they are all acting so badly! So why did they all get attracted to this mess... And yes it has its good points such as lighting etc... But ultimately I wondered two things.... How could so much talent lead to such a bizarre mess? What is that accent that Nigel Hawthorne is putting on? He is/was a great actor and so what is that accent all about? It is impossible to identify? What was he trying to do? Maybe it is his subtle indication as if to say to us: 'I've got involved with a turkey so here's a crap accent to go with it!'
Dumb plot, great legs and minidresses
louisspain28 November 2006
The plot of this movie is as dumb as a bag of hair. Jimmy Smit plays a character that could have been upset by the ridiculousness of the story. He is evil and a wife beater. It's a character as far from his NYPD and LA Law roles as you could possibly get.
If you've thought he had the looks and the acting chops to play the really bad boy role, her's your present.
But!!!!!!!! Mary Louis Parker wears black miniskirts and little black minidresses throughout the movie.
She has always had some of the greatest legs in the history of the movies. This makes the movie well worth it for this leg admirer.
I'd buy the DVD for this reason only if it was available.
If you've thought he had the looks and the acting chops to play the really bad boy role, her's your present.
But!!!!!!!! Mary Louis Parker wears black miniskirts and little black minidresses throughout the movie.
She has always had some of the greatest legs in the history of the movies. This makes the movie well worth it for this leg admirer.
I'd buy the DVD for this reason only if it was available.
A strain on the brain
tamander-26 August 1999
If this film is an accurate display of J. Smits acting skills, I think he made a big mistake leaving television. Hasn't he watched any films "starring" David Caruso, especially "Cold Around the Heart"? Along the lines of acting ability, what about Mary-Louise, she has done much, much better. Yes, it is a terrible script, ineptly edited, and totally lacking in continuity, but skilled actors can and have overcome similar obstacles. A very big disappointment.
Infectious
hgn20013 March 2017
A number of reviews of this film mention "late night" and I think it's quite suitable for that kind of viewing. That's how and where I found it. I happened to be sick as a dog with a bad cough/cold, spending the overnight in a hotel not far from work due to a snow/ice storm that prevented me from driving home. Waking up in the middle of the night to calm my cough, I turned on the TV somewhere just after this film had recently started on a cable channel.
The story was off-balanced, weaving in and out of alternate realities, memories, hypnosis, and an overarching crime drama. It seemed a total mess, yet like a train wreck, it made me want to keep watching. Unfortunately, the ravages of my cold had me drifting off back to sleep before I could see where it was all leading.
That led me to wanting to find a re-broadcast or find it on home video. The best I could do in the early age of DVDs was to locate a VHS tape of it to finally see it all the way through. It made a lot more sense when I watched the whole thing, though it's still not what you'd call a great movie.
Still, something about it raises it above other 'bad' movies, so I've rated it a perhaps generous 7 out of 10 for its fascination factor.
The story was off-balanced, weaving in and out of alternate realities, memories, hypnosis, and an overarching crime drama. It seemed a total mess, yet like a train wreck, it made me want to keep watching. Unfortunately, the ravages of my cold had me drifting off back to sleep before I could see where it was all leading.
That led me to wanting to find a re-broadcast or find it on home video. The best I could do in the early age of DVDs was to locate a VHS tape of it to finally see it all the way through. It made a lot more sense when I watched the whole thing, though it's still not what you'd call a great movie.
Still, something about it raises it above other 'bad' movies, so I've rated it a perhaps generous 7 out of 10 for its fascination factor.
Very Good Mind Games!
rbrb5 January 2001
This is the kind of film one initially selects to make up the numbers from video rental.....only to discover an under-rated entertaining and enjoyable movie!! The opening sequence of the police arriving at a dark and rainy house wherein the "wife" has committed murder.......or is it??....and the remainder of the film seeks to unravel what really happened....OK...the film is a bit "campy"...but has good editing and dialogue.....professional acting.....often humorous......and the very last scene with the facial expression is one of the best of its' kind......definitely worth watching.....deserving at least a 7 or an 8!
Much better this time around
Everum7 December 1998
If you remember the writer of this piece, it's the same guy who wrote and directed the agonizing garbage 'Jack Frost'. Much better this time around with this. I enjoyed it and was worth the time to see to it's finish. The plot's a bit confusing and there were evident holes but Mary-Louise's protrayal of her character bails'em out. Decent enough to earn my 7 rating.
Surprisingly good.
bawitdaba876 December 1999
I caught this one on cable and I was very surprised. Steady direction and some good performances accent a twisty and very engaging story. This one will keep you up all night thinking about what was real and what wasn't. Check out Jason Scott Lee in the Lou Diamond Phillips role!
A Must See!!!!
moviegal-1119 November 2000
A thoroughly realistic interpretation of how Hypnosis can be really done. The plots (which I am not going to spoil by detailing here) are well worth watching the whole movie for. I saw this movie on cable one night by accident and bought it on VHS shortly afterwards as I was impressed by it. Any hypnosis fanatics out there MUST SEE this movie. Without a doubt it is the best around.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
