Lynch meets Luc Besson's "La Femme Nikita", in this rare below average film of Ruiz. Something like Konchalovsky work on Tango and Cash. Ruiz blamed it on the producers and the crew. The camerawork does show the brilliance of a typical Ruiz film. Add to it a painting that keeps changing!
20 Reviews
Confused Mind, Messy Screenplay
claudio_carvalho23 December 2015
In New York, Jessie Markham (Anne Parillaud) is raped by a man with mask and now she is recovering from the rape and an attempted suicide. However her mind is confused and she lives two realities. In one life, she is a newly wed with Brian (William Baldwin) spending honeymoon in Jamaica with the guest Paula (Lisanne Falk) snooping around the couple. In the other life, she is a hit woman that executes men and Laura (Lisanne Falk) is her client that wants Brian killed. Which life is real?
"Shattered Image" is a film about a raped woman that has become paranoid with a confused mind and she lives two women with opposite personalities. The promising storyline is wasted by a messy screenplay and the viewer ends the film without solving the mystery and knowing who Jessie is. My vote is five.
Title (Brazil): "A Imagem de um Pesadelo" ("The Image of a Nightmare")
"Shattered Image" is a film about a raped woman that has become paranoid with a confused mind and she lives two women with opposite personalities. The promising storyline is wasted by a messy screenplay and the viewer ends the film without solving the mystery and knowing who Jessie is. My vote is five.
Title (Brazil): "A Imagem de um Pesadelo" ("The Image of a Nightmare")
Enigmatic, but ultimately unconvincing
Afracious19 December 2000
This is an enigmatic film with an interesting premise. Jessie (Anne Parillaud) has just married, and arrives in Jamaica on her honeymoon with her husband Brian (William Baldwin). She is troubled by dreams of herself in another life as an assassin, with her next target being antiques dealer Conrad, also played by William Baldwin. Most of the characters in one side of the confused lady's life are in the other side as different characters. Which is the dream and which is the reality? That's for us to decide. The film constantly switches between both characters, and it is puzzling at times. It is interesting at first, but ultimately the film fails because the acting isn't convincing. It's worth a look though if you like mysterious and surreal films.
Plain And Simple: A Horrible Movie
ccthemovieman-12 August 2006
I really wanted this film to be a "keeper" since I have always been a fan of French actress Anne Parilaud. I usually love the movies she's in (Map Of The Human Heart, La Femme Nikita, Frankie Starlight, Innocent Blood, etc.) but this one did not do anything for me.
The story is just poorly done, too far-fetched and in-cohesive. It's also too boring and after awhile, I found I didn't care whether I finished it or not, although I did. I wasn't rewarded, either, because it was a dumb story. Both she and the other lead, played by William Baldwin, played two different characters and none of them were believable.
The story is just poorly done, too far-fetched and in-cohesive. It's also too boring and after awhile, I found I didn't care whether I finished it or not, although I did. I wasn't rewarded, either, because it was a dumb story. Both she and the other lead, played by William Baldwin, played two different characters and none of them were believable.
blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda
Rogue-325 November 2004
So here I am in Seattle, at my hotel room desk, with a martini in my hand, languidly lighting a cigarette and beginning to write my review of this film when suddenly I am awakened by a picture on the wall which changes form and then I am in Jamaica, on the beach, with my paramour who loves me but I don't trust this love, I don't know why, I just feel odd. . .and then I'm on the roof of my hotel in Seattle, wanting to jump because I can't think of the proper words to describe the utter futility of the film I've just seen and the birds swoop down and I awaken in the woods, drinking voodoo tea and there are drums, jungle type drums and my lover is veering toward me and the gun is in my hands and I. . .
Bad News
BB-1514 November 1999
Shattered Image has lofty goals. It wants to feel like a Hitchcock film. It also tries to toss in rape, spousal abuse, multiple personalities, mystery and murder. But it has big problems. After about 30 minutes we pretty much know who the rapist and the murderer is. We know who the accomplice is. The movie can't stay on one story long enough to let the plot develop. It hops between dream and reality repeatedly. After a while I felt that there was no real plot and that story kept moving around so the viewer wouldn't notice. There is some of the worst pseudo psychobabble between Jessie and her other personality that I have ever seen.
Anne Parillaud tries hard in the lead role. The rest of the cast including William Baldwin are just routine. The scenery in Jamaica is nice. The editing is crisp and the rest of the film is a mess.
There may be people in this world who might like Shattered Image. I just can't imagine any.
Anne Parillaud tries hard in the lead role. The rest of the cast including William Baldwin are just routine. The scenery in Jamaica is nice. The editing is crisp and the rest of the film is a mess.
There may be people in this world who might like Shattered Image. I just can't imagine any.
I wish I had never started this movie...
Harbinger127 March 2006
One of my all time favorite movies is La Femme Nikita with Anne Parillaud. Of course that film was directed by the master Luc Besson who also brought us the debut of Natalie Portman in Leon The Professional. Anne Parillaud is fantastic in La Femme Nikita which is action packed, and at times incredibly funny. This film (Shattered Image)is easily one of the worst messes I have ever seen. Bad acting, unintentional humor, confusing story, terrible fake accents ( I have been to Jamaica, and the people of Jamaica sound nothing like anyone in this movie). In other words skip it. If you haven't seen either of the two Besson movies I have mentioned, get one of those instead. You will not feel cheated.
For those who like Hitchcock
lastliberal15 November 2007
One of the the things you can do as a new director is to get a great Director of Photography. He can help you avoid mistakes and save your butt.
Raoul Ruiz is not a new director, he has over 90 films to his credit, but he is fairly new to the United States. This is supposed to be his "official" debut film.
So, he gets Robby Müller to do the cinematography. Great choice, as directors like Wim Wenders (13 times, including Paris Texas) and Jim Jarmunch (Ghost Dog, Way of the Samauri) like to use him on their pictures.
Unfortunately, the great cinematography and a sexy star, Anne Parillaud (La Femme Nikita, Innocent Blood), can't make up for lousy music and bad "B" movie dialog, even if the story is somewhat interesting. Yes, I hung in there to see what happens, and, no, I am still not sure.
It did have Graham Greene (Die Hard with a Vengeance, The Green Mile) and that made it more palatable through the bad parts.
Don't rent, but you may want to catch it on cable.
Raoul Ruiz is not a new director, he has over 90 films to his credit, but he is fairly new to the United States. This is supposed to be his "official" debut film.
So, he gets Robby Müller to do the cinematography. Great choice, as directors like Wim Wenders (13 times, including Paris Texas) and Jim Jarmunch (Ghost Dog, Way of the Samauri) like to use him on their pictures.
Unfortunately, the great cinematography and a sexy star, Anne Parillaud (La Femme Nikita, Innocent Blood), can't make up for lousy music and bad "B" movie dialog, even if the story is somewhat interesting. Yes, I hung in there to see what happens, and, no, I am still not sure.
It did have Graham Greene (Die Hard with a Vengeance, The Green Mile) and that made it more palatable through the bad parts.
Don't rent, but you may want to catch it on cable.
Haunting enigma; not for all tastes.
gridoon14 April 2004
This is the third Raoul Ruiz film I have watched recently (after "Three Lives and Only One Death" and "Genealogies of a Crime"), and it is easily the best of the three. Why? Because it's less talky and pseudo-philosophical, more colorful and cinematic. Imaginatively directed and sprinkled with all sorts of quirky visual surprises (some of which are directly linked to its title) and surreal ideas (a painting that gets different every time you look at it), it captures the netherworld between dream and reality better than any "Nightmare on Elm Street" movie. And if all the pieces of the puzzle don't fit together at the end (though a second viewing will help you clear up a few details), at least you can feel the director's joy in assembling them anyway. (***)
An utter waste of time, film, electrons....
jfriedl26 January 1999
I and a friend saw this at a premier in San Jose, and spent most of the time wondering why we were there, and wondering if it could possibly get worse. The acting wasn't particularly heinous, but the story was so over... over... over-everything, nothing could save it. At first it was quite confusing and disjointed -- I figured the director was skillfully weaving a complex thriller. But as time dragged on, I realized that there was nothing but the superficial disjointness that was comically apparent. It was a truly Bad movie because it left us with nothing more than a profound regret for the time wasted. We had passes to the show -- the only thing worse than our experience would have been to have to pay for it.
Multiple Personality Disorder?
pacieterra-12 October 2006
Even with great set design and cinematography, this muddle of a mystery will leave many questions and confusion, long after it's over. Good, dual character arcs for both William Baldwin and Annie Parrilaud; however, neither seem to connect with the final denouement.I kept hoping I would understand the final outcome, but still remain unsure of what it all meant.It has a Hitchcock/De Palma/Shayamalan director's twist, but it doesn't seem to tie up all the loose ends.It is recommended, however, for anyone interested in post-traumatic stress syndrome, abnormal psychology, or readers of 19th century author,William James.
A truly terrible film
wjfickling20 June 2004
Why I spent nearly two hours watching this terrible film, I don't know. I guess it's just because I kept telling myself, "it's got to get better, it's got to get better." Well, it didn't; even the nude love scenes are boring.
Where to begin? Let's start with the acting. I liked Anne Parillaud in "La Femme Nikita." I suppose her face was just as inexpressive there, but at least it was an action film and her body was expressive, spending a lot of time doing gymnastics and hand to hand combat. In this film she sleepwalks through her role, or roles (we can never be sure). Perhaps she took an excessive dose of Botox, because her facial muscles seem paralyzed. William Baldwin is slightly more expressive; at least he is able to manage a smirk, but that is his only facial expression.
I must acknowledge that the idea behind the film is a clever one, and perhaps in the hands of Hitchcock or Chabrol, a good thriller might have been made. Instead, in the hands of the monumentally untalented Mr. Ruiz, we get a somnolent film that proceeds at a snail's pace and borders on incomprehensibility. Many have said that the film is a ripoff of, or parody of, or tribute to Hitchcock. There is some truth to this, but I think the film whose central idea it really steals is "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," which debuted in 1919! At least the Caligari-like twist at the end gave the film a sense of wry humor, and for this I'll rate it one point higher than I otherwise would. 4/10
Where to begin? Let's start with the acting. I liked Anne Parillaud in "La Femme Nikita." I suppose her face was just as inexpressive there, but at least it was an action film and her body was expressive, spending a lot of time doing gymnastics and hand to hand combat. In this film she sleepwalks through her role, or roles (we can never be sure). Perhaps she took an excessive dose of Botox, because her facial muscles seem paralyzed. William Baldwin is slightly more expressive; at least he is able to manage a smirk, but that is his only facial expression.
I must acknowledge that the idea behind the film is a clever one, and perhaps in the hands of Hitchcock or Chabrol, a good thriller might have been made. Instead, in the hands of the monumentally untalented Mr. Ruiz, we get a somnolent film that proceeds at a snail's pace and borders on incomprehensibility. Many have said that the film is a ripoff of, or parody of, or tribute to Hitchcock. There is some truth to this, but I think the film whose central idea it really steals is "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," which debuted in 1919! At least the Caligari-like twist at the end gave the film a sense of wry humor, and for this I'll rate it one point higher than I otherwise would. 4/10
Osmosis of shattered images
chaos-rampant22 July 2011
I think a crucial point in developing an individual taste for cinema is to be able to unwaveringly focus on the things that we feel personally matter. To coast without distraction through the small handicaps that hamper and limit a film in pursuit of the spark of creative vision (assuming one such that matters to us exists). This is to be able to enjoy Argento for who he is rather than in spite of his storytelling deficiencies.
One such thing we have here. A package that looks from a distance as straight-to-video fodder as vehicle for an almost recognizable name, acting that is ho-hum, stilted dialogue. The reward for a casual watcher catching this on latenight TV might be simply to cope a smile at William Baldwin playing actor.
I come to this for the filmmaker though with his potent notions about convergent realities and fictions passing as real, as part of my quest on Raoul Ruiz. Coming from two films he did back in France, both crushingly dry and tedious, for his American debut he reverts back to the heady magic he weaved in his 80's stuff. Soaking in colors, strange portents, frames that become real; a reality hung askew from which we are transported back and forth into the folds of the imaginative mind.
The scaffold: two women (played by Anna Parillaud) as figments of the one damaged mind, each in her separate reality dreaming up the other. Transitions between the two worlds, mostly through sex or objects as mirrors (an acquarium, a painting, even -rather painfully obvious- the frame of what we're watching shattering into shards).
So there is one subconscious where all the hurt is arranged into a wish-fulfillment fantasy (the woman plays a contract killer paid to kill men, eventually discovers the target she falls in love with to be innocent), and the conscious mind in the other plane trying to cope with the anxieties of a situation real or imagined (as seeping back from the dream and flowing into it). It is all about this cinematic flow of a nightmare that renews itself - a half-way intelligent device, perhaps squandered under the auspice of something for latenight cable.
Then there is the ending, no doubt imposed upon Ruiz by producers demanding some solid ground for their audience. It all makes sense eventually, what was real and what not. Again we may disregard this.
One such thing we have here. A package that looks from a distance as straight-to-video fodder as vehicle for an almost recognizable name, acting that is ho-hum, stilted dialogue. The reward for a casual watcher catching this on latenight TV might be simply to cope a smile at William Baldwin playing actor.
I come to this for the filmmaker though with his potent notions about convergent realities and fictions passing as real, as part of my quest on Raoul Ruiz. Coming from two films he did back in France, both crushingly dry and tedious, for his American debut he reverts back to the heady magic he weaved in his 80's stuff. Soaking in colors, strange portents, frames that become real; a reality hung askew from which we are transported back and forth into the folds of the imaginative mind.
The scaffold: two women (played by Anna Parillaud) as figments of the one damaged mind, each in her separate reality dreaming up the other. Transitions between the two worlds, mostly through sex or objects as mirrors (an acquarium, a painting, even -rather painfully obvious- the frame of what we're watching shattering into shards).
So there is one subconscious where all the hurt is arranged into a wish-fulfillment fantasy (the woman plays a contract killer paid to kill men, eventually discovers the target she falls in love with to be innocent), and the conscious mind in the other plane trying to cope with the anxieties of a situation real or imagined (as seeping back from the dream and flowing into it). It is all about this cinematic flow of a nightmare that renews itself - a half-way intelligent device, perhaps squandered under the auspice of something for latenight cable.
Then there is the ending, no doubt imposed upon Ruiz by producers demanding some solid ground for their audience. It all makes sense eventually, what was real and what not. Again we may disregard this.
I wanted my video rental fee back...
tj-5422 August 1999
...15 minutes into this snoozer, I wanted to get my $ back. Baldwin is just too cute, and he is unbelievable as an actor, much less his attempted character. His co-star needs to eat more, get her hair done, and take more acting lessons. I was lost in flashbacks, dreams, the slow pace, and the boring dialog. I'd give this dreamdozer 1 star.
Who did what? And who is who?
MagicStarfire30 March 2006
This is one of those films where the main character doesn't know whether she's coming or going, asleep or awake, or which one of her is real and which one is only a dream.
Is the real Jessie the one who is a cold female assassin? Or is the real Jessie the nervous bride on her honeymoon? Or is she either one of these women? Or perhaps she's both? Is Brian just her boyfriend? Or is he her husband? Or maybe he's the man who either raped her or perhaps that was only an attempted rape? Is her rapist now stalking her? Does Brian want to kill her, or does he really, really love her? Almost all of these questions sort of get answered by the end of the film.
Jessie is played by Anne Parilland, an actress so terribly thin she'd be lucky if she weighed 85 lbs. soaking wet. Which raises another question - is this actress anorexic? Brian is portrayed by Billy Baldwin, who thank God has his hair very dark in this film, and is looking good. He used to have it blond which I couldn't stand.
Is the real Jessie the one who is a cold female assassin? Or is the real Jessie the nervous bride on her honeymoon? Or is she either one of these women? Or perhaps she's both? Is Brian just her boyfriend? Or is he her husband? Or maybe he's the man who either raped her or perhaps that was only an attempted rape? Is her rapist now stalking her? Does Brian want to kill her, or does he really, really love her? Almost all of these questions sort of get answered by the end of the film.
Jessie is played by Anne Parilland, an actress so terribly thin she'd be lucky if she weighed 85 lbs. soaking wet. Which raises another question - is this actress anorexic? Brian is portrayed by Billy Baldwin, who thank God has his hair very dark in this film, and is looking good. He used to have it blond which I couldn't stand.
Erotic Thriller with Anne PARILLAUD and William BALDWIN
ZeddaZogenau17 February 2024
Anne Parillaud, William Baldwin and the "Phantoms of Death"
After being nominated for the Golden Raspberry Award twice in a row (for SLIVER (1993) with Sharon Stone and for FAIR GAME (1994) with Cindy Crawford / both films are among my favorite aberrations), William Baldwin's film career went a bit downhill. Under the direction of the Chilean director Raul Ruiz and for the mini-major LIONSGATE, Baldwin was once again cast as a sexy and at the same time mysterious lover, in a film that was in vain based on such great role models as Hitchcock (VERTIGO) and Lynch (LOST HIGHWAY ) oriented.
Jessie Markham (Anne Parillaud, Cesar for "Nikita" (1990)) has been through a horrific rape, but is now honeymooning in Jamaica with her husband Brian (William Baldwin). At the same time, however, she has dreams in which she is a contract killer in Seattle, shooting strange men. These two levels slowly blur together as the killer also gets to know a Brian. Jessie is becoming increasingly unable to distinguish between what is a dream and what is reality. Which Jessie is a dream and which is reality? Is Jessie on her honeymoon a reality or is she the unscrupulous murderer?
Unfortunately, this film is neither credible nor formally successful. The imagery is more reminiscent of television films from the time. The sex scenes also have no charm. At least Anne Parillaud is allowed to hold her breasts and William Baldwin is allowed to hold his shapely buttocks into the camera. But that's not enough for a convincing erotic thriller. With this commissioned work, Raul Ruiz (1941-2011) probably collected the last funds for the budget for his successful Marcel Proust film "Time Rediscovered" (1999). At least I hope it was!
Other roles in this failed film include Lisanne Falk, Graham Greene (Oscar nominee for DANCES WITH WOLVES) and the French actress Bulle Ogier (Canal+ also co-produced).
After being nominated for the Golden Raspberry Award twice in a row (for SLIVER (1993) with Sharon Stone and for FAIR GAME (1994) with Cindy Crawford / both films are among my favorite aberrations), William Baldwin's film career went a bit downhill. Under the direction of the Chilean director Raul Ruiz and for the mini-major LIONSGATE, Baldwin was once again cast as a sexy and at the same time mysterious lover, in a film that was in vain based on such great role models as Hitchcock (VERTIGO) and Lynch (LOST HIGHWAY ) oriented.
Jessie Markham (Anne Parillaud, Cesar for "Nikita" (1990)) has been through a horrific rape, but is now honeymooning in Jamaica with her husband Brian (William Baldwin). At the same time, however, she has dreams in which she is a contract killer in Seattle, shooting strange men. These two levels slowly blur together as the killer also gets to know a Brian. Jessie is becoming increasingly unable to distinguish between what is a dream and what is reality. Which Jessie is a dream and which is reality? Is Jessie on her honeymoon a reality or is she the unscrupulous murderer?
Unfortunately, this film is neither credible nor formally successful. The imagery is more reminiscent of television films from the time. The sex scenes also have no charm. At least Anne Parillaud is allowed to hold her breasts and William Baldwin is allowed to hold his shapely buttocks into the camera. But that's not enough for a convincing erotic thriller. With this commissioned work, Raul Ruiz (1941-2011) probably collected the last funds for the budget for his successful Marcel Proust film "Time Rediscovered" (1999). At least I hope it was!
Other roles in this failed film include Lisanne Falk, Graham Greene (Oscar nominee for DANCES WITH WOLVES) and the French actress Bulle Ogier (Canal+ also co-produced).
A highly intriguing, albeit flawed, psychodrama...
corky-2720 July 1999
This intriguing psychodrama bites off more than it can chew but presents a terrific alternative to the spate of "erotic" psychothrillers that the B-movie market usually has to offer. Parillaud plays twin doppelgangers that exist in parallel realities and could actually be the figment of each others' imaginations. Sounds promising? It is, and while I was waiting to be utterly confused at any moment, the plot lines held together pretty well. Director Raul Ruiz has had some practice at this, as anyone who has seen the utterly absorbing "Three lives and only one death" can attest. This movie is not of the same caliber in that the pacing of the denouement seems a bit off and involvement with the characters winds up seeming a bit distant. Others might argue that this was Ruiz' intent; in any case, the acting is proficient in a necessarily cold, unaffected way. (Baldwins seem to be better suited to this style of acting and I'm not really being snide in that I happen to think Alec is a terrific actor and Stephen an underrated one). If I gave more away it would be a disservice- rent this movie and figure it all out for yourself. Corkymeter says four stars out of five.
It's a big joke - enjoy it.
ARI-2611 September 1999
the film is hilarious. i laughed from start to finish. It isn't unintentionally hilarious either as some people have suggested because it takes away the credit where it is due. Having scene Ruiz's films before, his first "American" film seems to be at first glance lifted from late night cinemax in the erotic thriller category. The script is amazingly awful. The acting is terrible. Especially Billy Baldwin. But I'd say that's the whole point and I'm not being willfully perverse in saying this. Raul Ruiz is a brilliant director and he knows exactly what he's doing. The joke isn't that obvious because it is mostly in the insane mise-en-scene wonderfully photographed by Robbie Muller (Wings of Desire, Dead Man). It's easily one of the best "thrillers" to come out in this category in some time. Just don't take it too seriously.
Apparent effort to bring the neurotic antiheroes and heroines of 40s noir into an equivalently chic 90s environment runs on empty--often with unintentionally comic results.
Bob A-26 February 1999
Did see Shattered Image tonight with Billy Baldwin and Anne Parillaud. Terrible. Audience tittered and laughed openly the first half hour, then even that entertainment value waned as the jerking back and forth between supposed reality and supposed nightmare simply became fatiguing. Some glaring imperfections, such as unconvincing Jamaican accents and an outdoor scene where it's raining only on the lead characters' car. Badly researched too. Many loose details are left banging about randomly in this film, without fulfilling the implied promise that their presence will be explained by the end. It's a lot like the later works of director Joseph Losey--Dark Ceremony; The Go-Between--films that tease the audience by not telling us everything but ultimately don't have that much to say.
About once every two or three years I rent a video that is so bad that I can't bring myself to finish it.
ZoneIII26 July 1999
This is one of those movies. Despite the agony, I hung in there for 40 minutes, but I could take no more. I guess everyone has their limits. This movie was incredibly bad! What were the people who made this movie thinking?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
