I Know Who Killed Me (2007) User Reviews

Very strange, but not terrible

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 5/10 · 1 August 2007]

My friend and I were looking for a movie to see in the theater yesterday, everything I saw she didn't ad everything she saw I didn't, but one movie we didn't see was I Know Who Killed Me. We never heard of it, we actually for a minute didn't wanna see it because Lindsay Lohan was in it, but eventually we were just like "What the heck?". We needed a couple hours to kill and had free movie tickets that we got as a gift. So after seeing I Know Who Killed Me, I just was thinking of how much of a strange movie this was, but at the same time I didn't think it was all that bad, there were some things left unexplained and the ending was pretty lame, but I think over all, this was a thriller with good potential and just needed a little pick-me-up.

Aubrey is a good girl who has strong potential to be a good writer and piano player, she has a good life, good home, loving parents, good friends, and a loving boyfriend. One night though, she is kidnapped and brutally tortured. Someone finds her on the road, but when Aubrey is picked up and taken to the hospital, she says she's not Aubrey, she's Dakota Moss, a stripper with a dirty life who has no idea what's going on, but she's not Aubrey. Is this a story that she's believing too much? Is this a possible side effect from being traumatized? Is this something from the drugs the killer was making her take? Or is she even right? Is it a possibility that she really isn't Aubrey? Everyone calls her crazy and just tries to make her believe that she is Aubrey, but Dakota searches for the truth and wants answers.

Like I said, I Know Who Killed Me turned out to be a little surprise of a film, I liked it personally, there were things that were confusing, but over all I think the plot kept me guessing and going. Lindsay I would say did a good job, but the strip scenes at times were a little too much, just because we all know her personal life, so I think it would make us a little uncomfortable. There are some flaws to the film, but I wouldn't say to stay away, just keep your mind open and you might find yourself liking it.

5/10

Wow-- this is bad.

[CHiCkLeTdC · 3/10 · 26 July 2007]

So I just went to go see an advance screening of this movie and I don't know why the studio would do such a thing-- the audience was constantly laughing and this is no comedy. Usually screenings I've seen have been of fantastic movies (Wedding Crashers, Hairspray) and I'm telling everyone I know to go see it. Also, I've never seen such a general consensus of "WOW, what were they thinking?" at the end of a movie. I cannot WAIT to read the reviews on this! It's going to be slaughtered by the press.

Despite Ms. Lohan's troubles, I do think she is talented and, if only for her sake, I was hoping this would be a good film. I like her, and I love movies and tend to see the good in them, but this does not do enough redeeming. It does have a promising premise, but it is done all wrong. The parts that need build-up have none and time is wasted on other pointless scenes. Very graphic film as well-- definitely not an R that any child should be seeing.

Seriously, this isn't even a case of "so bad it's good". It's just bad.

Save yourself the $10 movie fare on this one-- and go see "1408" for a real psychological thriller. This'll be on DVD before you know it anyway.

Could have been better...

[plaiddustbunny · 4/10 · 27 July 2007]

Really, it could have.

My personal opinion of Lohan aside, this movie - like others (Dead Silence for one) relied heavily on effects that at times, become quite distracting. Some of the shots in the film are beautiful, but the use of blue is really overdone, some of the special effects are lacking, and some of the weapons are just ridiculous (The big blue glass knife? Are you kidding me?). Whether you see symbolism in the use of colour depends on the viewers mindset - But even so, the use of blue is just overwhelming at times. This is probably the point - but it starts to distract from the plot.

The acting is alright. For the most part, Lohan does a good job. The parents aren't very convincing, and at times the dialog becomes stale, and somewhat corny.

However, the movie is easy enough to follow that people who don't like complex horror films can sit back, and enjoy the ride. If you do prefer a bit more mystery, you'll have this figured out about halfway through, and the end will seem to drag. The big plot twist at the end was original enough, however for me it seemed like a cop out. It works fine, it's just not quite as exciting as it could have been. Kind of left me thinking "Oh... that's all?"

There's a small bit of nudity, a sex scene, and lots of dirty dancing. So if your decision rests on one of those things, now you know.

Surprisingly, there are several gory scenes as well. I wouldn't recommend bringing small children to see this, though I doubt that will stop some people from bringing their kids along. It isn't scary, but the gore in some parts might be a bit much for younger audiences, or people who really can't deal with it. It's nothing like SAW or Hostel in the area of gore, but there were a couple scenes that made me flinch.

In the end, the film really didn't bring anything new to the table. The storyline is simple, and easy to follow, some of the shots are nice, and the acting on a whole is mediocre at worst. So if you have nothing better to do, it's an alright film to waste an hour or so with. But don't go expecting an award winner - you'll be left disappointed.

"BarbWire was better than this"

[chuckreis · 1/10 · 27 July 2007]

That's right, my girlfriend turned to me in the movie and said, "I think BarbWire was better than this." Her opinion and mine seemed to carry through to the whole audience in the advance screening we went to last night. The audience was laughing at the horrible acting, terrible script and crap camera work.

Specifics: Lohan works in a strip club where women are topless, yet she never takes the top off and even in sheer bra has pasties on (or were the pasties on top of the bra?). I could care less about seeing her naked, but if you are playing a stripper you might have to at least imply nudity with well placed hands.

Someone decided to inject humor into the movie into the most awkward places. The biggest problem was trying to figure out why people were laughing more during the "serious parts" than the "funny parts".

Characters come in, spout some wisdom and disappear behind a rock like the Dungeon Master. I have a feeling that they are supposed to be angels, maybe God himself?

The twists in the movie are tough to swallow. I will not even come close to ruining them, they are not even worth ruining. Someone thought they could write a M. Knight script, but failed.

Overall, this movie would be worth a rental from the dollar kiosk at the grocery store, as long as everything else is sold out. I am glad I got in for free. If you do decide to spend money to see this movie, send me the cash instead, I will then hit you in the groin, you will enjoy it more.

I'm so sorry I went

[Mark-129 · 1/10 · 29 July 2007]

Look, I have a strong stomach, but I have no use for Torture Porn in my entertainment. A few weeks ago, I saw a preview of this film that gave no indication of it's true nature. This, plus the intriguing poster led me to believe this was going to be a brooding drama in the Hitchcock tradition. Instead, I found myself watching the ugliest, most disgusting film I have ever attended of my own free will. I should have guessed when the cashier gave me a funny look while getting my ticket.

The first thing I realized was the script was by an amateur. The scenes and dialog jumping around with no thought or subtlety. Like other reviewers, I knew who the torturing villain was within the first few minutes. But, I still had to sit through several scenes of dismemberment and pain, which made me sick. Sick that I had spent money to watch this disaster.

I can't imagine why Lindsay Lohan would agree to be in this production. There are other venues to stretch her acting talents. Neal McDonough and Julia Ormond's rent must have been due.

The story, such as it is has at it's core an interesting premise. A top director might have made a respectable film out of it with a total rewrite, without the gore and more atmosphere.

This movie is an absolute, total disaster. No one involved has anything to be proud of.

Oh God

[thou_mayest · 1/10 · 29 July 2007]

I went into this movie with a friend thinking it would be a cheesy, fun horror movie - just a good way to pass the time on a rainy day.

Oh god, was I wrong.

It's as if the director spent the film's entire budget acquiring Lindsay Lohan and disregarded everything else. EVERYTHING within this film is bad - the scary parts aren't scary (or even remotely suspenseful), the dialogue is awful, the acting is questionable at best, and, I am very sorry to say that Lindsay Lohan's stripping/ sex scenes were not sexy at all. On top of everything else, the killer was obvious and the plot didn't even make a whole lot of sense. Even the quality of film used is inferior to the type normally used (yes, you can tell).

Some films are so bad they're good. This film was just SO BAD.

Don't wait for the DVD. Just don't watch it.

Horrible

[sonshyneshirley · 1/10 · 20 June 2008]

The only good thing about this movie is that LL is a good actress. Unfortunately she had to act out this movie. The cut scenes made no sense, the killer really had no motive, and her visions were worse than Miss Cleo's. The flashbacks to the dances were bad, the initial kidnapping was not played out well at all,considering she was in a very crowded place one minute and all of a sudden gone. The murder of the father was merely implied, and the entire movie lacked all major detail. Also, how does the lady cop get everything right all the time?? Its like a bad episode of CSI. I really enjoyed LL's acting, I am a huge fan of Neal McDonough as well. I just wonder if this movie looked better on paper than it was portrayed on film.

Hilariously Bad

[mephij2003 · 1/10 · 27 July 2007]

My friend won tickets to a pre release showing of this movie in Boston. I went into the theater with absolutely no idea what it would be about and with no preconceived notions. I left the theater feeling confused and thankful that I hadn't actually paid to see it.

This film takes every thriller movie cliché in the book and slathers it on ad nauseam. I'm not opposed to a good cliché thriller movie, but at some point it becomes comical. The plot was extremely contrived and had enough holes to fill the Royal Albert Hall. Perhaps the scenes explaining the plot ended up on the cutting room floor in favor of some of the more grotesque and gratuitous gore scenes (of which there were plenty). The film's twist, one so ludicrous even the most die-hard Lohan films will giggle, is pulled directly from left field after a seemingly magical epiphany by the film's main character. The filmmakers thrown in a plethora of minor characters with undeveloped and unresolved story lines in an attempt to "throw off" the audience. Nevertheless, not ten minutes into the film, I, along with the others I was with, had successfully predicted the antagonist.

The final thirty minutes of the film was a non-stop laugh riot. The packed theater of varying demographics was rolling in the aisles as cliché after hackneyed cliché flew off the screen in rapid succession to hilarious results. I joked to the person beside me that I hadn't laughed as hard since the first time I saw "Borat".

Stylistically, the movie is a film school student's wet dream rife of "artsy" shots and recurring motifs. Unfortunately, for the audience, this does little to redeem from the film's most blaring flaw: it's entire premise.

It's difficult to fairly critique the film's actors given what they had to work with. I can say that Lohan's performance seemed rather bland and stale throughout, as though in the back of her mind she knew the movie was trite and looked at it more as a paycheck than a serious mark on her resume.

Aside from the occasional, "I almost died laughing when....", I heard scarcely a good comment in the lobby after the film. As a horror-comedy this film might have actually been good, but as a thriller it missed the mark entirely.

Has improved with age

[influxtwo · 7/10 · 14 November 2021]

This movie came at the height of Lindsay's legal troubles so it was disregarded as an awful film at the time of release I remember, but I honestly consider this to be one of Lindsay Lohan's best films when it comes to darker and more serious work as an actress minus her comedy and family-friendly roles. For me this film has improved with age. It was not released at a time that it would have been found relevant.

What was partly misunderstood about this film was it was marketed as a serious horror film that was intended to be frightening but instead it is more of a David Lynch and Twin Peaks kind of thing with an ambiguous ending and a mystery / crime storyline more than a horror one.

This film captivates me each time I give it a watch. I would have liked Lindsay to explore more edgy roles in her past career during this time. The ending is quite eerie because it could almost go either way.

I think this film is not as bad as Lindsay's Legal troubles would tell you it is. For someone like myself not looking to hate it, or hate on the actress/actors, I find it an enjoyable crime mystery. One of Lindsay's better roles for a more mature minded audience.

I know some would find it ridiculous anyone could genuinely enjoy this movie. But it is just such a wacky premise and the themes are deliberate. It's competently acted, and the ending that didn't sit well at first, has improved with age.

I think it's unfortunate that audiences didn't appreciate this film, but seeing as it has improved with age, and has kind of a timeless dreamlike quality to it. I would go as far to say this could be considered a cult classic some day. Maybe in 30 years someone else might appreciate this film only at face value.

Was this film a joke?

[catsura · 1/10 · 1 December 2009]

This film was treacherous. I'm not sure if it was supposed to be taken seriously or not. I'm not sure if there was supposed to be some sort of imagery or artfulness in the film with a lot of blue, because it turned out really obvious and lame. Her car is blue, the rose is blue, the torture tools are blue, BLUE BLUE BLUE. Lohan's acting is not wonderful in this film, not to mention the plot is horrendous. Most people probably take an interest either because of seeing Lohan dance on a pole or to see Lohan with missing limbs. If that's what you're looking for this is the movie. Other than that, the plot is laughable and the film is just a total bust in general. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, it's awful and a waste of time. 0/10.

i can't understand why people hate this movie

[mel22345 · 9/10 · 13 January 2022]

To me it is great, and a lot more original than some other movies. The actors deliver a very good performance, especially Aubrey's parents and the FBI. The use of the color blue as an artistic theme was impressive and added a special feel to the movie that is somewhere between.horror and fantastic. The only down to it is that there were some plot holes and I think the ending was a bit abrupt, to me it would have been possible to stretch a little after the final scene.

It's much better than people are saying

[watcher101 · 7/10 · 17 November 2019]

This movie has unfairly gotten a lot of hate, and I honestly can't see why. Well, ok, that's not exactly true. A big part of it is that it came out during a time where Lohan's career was at an all time low and the public pretty much hated her. That hatred was projected onto this movie, and so people began to hate it by default. I even know people who claimed they "hated" it when they hadn't even seen it. You can't make that claim without watching it first.

The movie has a pretty interesting premise. It's a murder mystery involving twin stigmata. From what I've heard, however, most people were expecting some kind of twist at the end where it's revealed that the twins are actually the same person. When the movie didn't go that route, people were upset. That seems to be another reason why people primarily hated the movie. Personally, I think it was smart not to do that. Twin stigmata in movies is not something we've seen that often, but movies with a plot twist like that have been something we've seen a thousand times. The fact that so many people thought that's what would happen proves that. So people were upset that they didn't have some grand twist. Instead, the movie gave you exactly what it promised and was exactly what it was made out to be. Simple, but still good.

Overall, I say to give the movie a chance. Ignore the hate you've heard about it and go in expecting it to be what it is, a simple murder mystery involving twin stigmata. Is it a masterpiece? No, of course not, but it's still a pretty good movie that will keep you entertained for an hour 45, and that's perfectly ok.

there are no words

[doo3477 · 1/10 · 4 March 2011]

I like so many other unsuspecting fools thought even with the bad reviews and cheesy look of the film (not to mention the fact that it's main star was Lindsay lohan) that this movie just might be a good thriller in the vein of Hitchcock Jesus I can't believe how wrong I was, the only person more wrong then me was the guy I watched it with. his thinking was even if it's a bad movie at least I get to see Lindsay pole dancing/naked. Ha!

this movie requires us to make up a new word for terrible just so we can properly describe this film basically it's like they couldn't write a real script so they filled in the blanks with torture porn imagery and Lindsay trying to be sexy. sad

the acting is awful, the story is hokey, the music is cliché, the dialogue terrible....I could go on but really is there any need?

I Know Who Killed this Movie

[Jalea · 1/10 · 13 July 2009]

The writer and director.

I cannot make up my mind which was worse, the writing or the directing. The torture/mutilation scenes were over the top and needlessly macabre, leaving nothing to the imagination. Remember Silence of the Lambs (1991)? That movie had macabre aspects but it was tastefully done (no pun intended). This movie was tactless and tasteless. What in the world did they think they were doing when they made this movie?! They wasted Lindsey Lohan's talents; I think she tried her best to due justice to the role. Even Julia Ormond's presence could not save this horrid movie. The director did not know what to do with the fine actors that he had in the movie. Of the five movies he has down so far, this is the absolute worst movie that Silvertson has ever directed. It totally tanked at the box office, it did not break even with a $12M budget and a $7.2M gross.

If you are looking for something to watch and you are bored to distraction -- watch something else. And whatever you do, do not waste your money renting this movie.

Viewers beware!

"Kill" Me Now!

[alexart-1 · 1/10 · 6 September 2008]

Where do I start with this movie? Everything single aspect of it is pitiful. The plot, the script, the direction, the acting. The movie will make you wonder: where has talent in Hollywood gone? In an absolutely moronic plot, Lindsay Lohan plays a girl who gets kidnapped, found years later, and wakes up missing an appendage (and a brain apparently) and thinks she is somebody else. The cliché plot makes no sense and does nothing for the movie. I can already tell you now: those who expect to see skin from Lohan in the stripping scenes will be disappointed.

Who actually wrote this thing anyway? Who actually ever hired him or her? The WGA made a mistake with this one. The lines were absolutely terrible. No actress could have done well with this script and this not what Lindsay Lohan needs in her time of crisis.

All I know is, I want 1 hour and 47 minutes of my life back and would rather be killed than watch it again!

A Solid 7

[philneil · 7/10 · 30 January 2016]

IMDb Users in their infinite wisdom have given this title a poor rating. Why? Well seeing that it is actually a very decent movie, one would assume it is solely down to the lead, namely Ms. Lohan. Sit down, watch the movie and cast aside anything you may know about LL's personal life. The story is intriguing, the direction is superb; very atmospheric, and the performances within are sound. IKWKM is well worth a watch for these reasons alone. The story-line moves along at a steady pace and can seem rather confusing but perseverance will pay off. Like a lot of films of this genre the ending falls short from being truly satisfying and loses touch with reality. A little exposition would not have gone amiss. That said, there is adequate closure so the viewer should not feel cheated.

I Know Who Killed Me

[AbramsRL · 1/10 · 13 July 2008]

This movie helps explains some of Lohan's real life problems. Only people who did not give a rat's ass for Lohan would have let her appear in this atrocious quasi-porno flick. To aggravate matters, it is poorly written and directed by an idiot.

Her handlers must have figured that they could make more money out of destroying her image and turning her in a low life porno Wh--. I do not dislike prono -- without it who would support the Internet? -- but no one who cared about Lohan personally would have allowed her to appear in this trash. It must be terrible for Lohan to realize what hideous people were controlling her career.

Just Horrible, what a disappointment

[REG927 · 1/10 · 14 January 2008]

I was really excited to see this movie, thinking it would have gotten a lot more press if Lindsay hadn't had started acting all stupid so I thought i would give her the benefit of the doubt and check this out.

I'M SORRY I DID. IT WAS HORRIBLE!

It was totally predictable and poorly acted, even Lindsay sucked, at best. Half of the movie you're not sure if it's a dream or real, and leaves a lot of questions. I hate movies like that. I want to know whats going on, I don't want to sit there going "huh??" every 10 minutes. There were a couple cool gore scenes but nothing to write home about. And the ending, ugh, it was the worst part! I've always thought of Lindsay as a pretty good actress but this just failed in my book. A decent idea, but it just wasn't put together well at all.. I want the two hours of my life back!!!

So Bad it's Bad

[evangw · 1/10 · 20 July 2012]

I was hoping this would be one of those "so bad it's good" movies, but it tries so hard to be artsy that it's not even a movie you can really yell at--you just feel bad for it. I can't imagine being involved in this production. The use of repeated imagery never makes any sense (big focus on the color blue, sometimes focus on the color red). Also the number of plot holes is stunning, and the character development is atrocious. LiLo's acting is OK, but pretty much everyone else's is just terrible. It's only 100 minutes long, but it'll feel like hours. If you've ever wanted to experience time dilation, this is the film.

Also, strangely, the cast in the credits is listed alphabetically by last name. I guess LiLo didn't want top billing--I can't imagine why! Instead, some random woman with 2 lines of dialogue got top billing in this nightmare.

Not even Ms Lohan's performance did the trick on this pappy-show!!

[smiley-32 · 1/10 · 19 March 2008]

I saw this movie a few weeks ago. I gotta hand it to you.. it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Although Lindsay Lohan has fully grown into a young good looking woman. This flick was supposed to put Ms Lohan's sexual antics to the top of the box office.

Unfortunately, the script was so bad and the plot was trying to be something out of an Alfred Hitchock movie. If Alfred Hitchcock was to write the script for this movie. There would be no sex scenes or anything in there.

I am surprised about the movie winning the Razzies. It sucked so bad I had to switch halfway through.. I manage to see the rest of the film on my own PC just to find out what happened at the end. But still.. it was crap. I just felt that this movie was a complete waste of time.

If people want to see a really good sex thriller, try watching those late night movies on cable. You'll feel a lot more better watching that, than watching Ms Lohan's crappy performance.

Anyway, it's a thumbs down for me..! 0 out of 10!

So bad it's not even funny

[t-srh-esq · 1/10 · 12 December 2007]

I guess everyone who worked on this film gets a A for effort, including Lohan, but that effort often crosses the line into "trying way, way too hard" and the whole thing comes out overwrought and awkward. I respect that attempts were made to bring visual interest and a sort of intellectualism to the generic torture-porn plot, but these attempts failed spectacularly.

I read the reviews and I knew that it would be bad, but I was thinking that it might be bad in a funny way, sort of campy. Unfortunately, that was a bad assumption. I could only get through the first hour of the movie before deciding that my time would be better spent doing... just about anything else. Every attempt at symbolism is clunky, the dialogue is hackneyed, the pacing is jolting, and the plot is at once overly-complicated and lacking in essential details.

The problem here, I think, is that everyone involved in this film seems to have really believed in it, they believed that they were creating a worthwhile product. The result of that attitude paired with a horrible script is pretentious film-making at its worst.

I've got to say, though, that the most disturbing aspect of the film was not the super-gory torture scenes, but instead the idea behind having a sexed-up teenager writhing around in ambiguous moaning pain/pleasure while being tortured by an anonymous man. The seemingly unintended sub-textual implication that a young woman in pain is a sexy, alluring object was the only frightening thing about this horrible, horrible waste of money.

So bad. So, so bad.

[littlebittypretty1 · 22 January 2008]

This movie was bad. Just bad. It wasn't scary or interesting or even unintentionally funny in the slightest. The acting was so wooden and unbelievable it was like a high school production. The lines were some of the corniest I have ever heard this side of "Stay Alive". The plot made absolutely no sense. I really didn't care who Dakota or the serial killer were or where the Aubrey had gone. This is Screen writing 101: You need to care about the characters! I guess the writer of this movie missed that class.

So much of it was just disgusting, too. Some scenes were so graphic I actually had to turn my head away. For example, where Dakota sews on a bloody and gangrenous finger with a needle and thread, or where the "killer" or whatever puts Aubrey's hands between dry ice and when he pulls them apart her rotting hand is pulled in half. Other repulsive scenes were the ones where Lindsay Lohan was pole dancing at a strip club. It's like the writer couldn't decide which avenue he wanted to take the movie down, gory violent thriller, or a drama/suspense movie, and in the end compromised with a boring, lifeless story with lots of blood and gore.

And what was with all the blue items everywhere? Did the director think he was being "artsy"? The blue computer, the blue curtains, the blue roses, even the knife the killer used was blue! It was not like "The Sixth Sense" with the color red, where it was subtle and if you weren't looking for it you wouldn't notice. Every item was blue, and the whole film looked tinted blue like the director was using a blue filter. That was one of the only things consistent throughout this movie. It was as if the director needed to make certain you couldn't forget which movie you were watching, just in case you nod off for a few minutes or something.

Another irritating thing were the police officers. Honestly, I don't know if the writer/director of this film figured that no one would have the slightest idea of how real cops work, or if they just didn't want to put in the research to find out for themselves, but every scene with the cops was so unbelievable, and the actors portrayed them too like they'd never seen one before. Maybe it was the lines that were poorly written, but they had no emotion! Turn on Law & Order or CSI once and a while and see how cops really talk and what terms they really use. And then they just suddenly inexplicably disappeared for the rest of the movie, like so many other plot holes. Did they solve the case? Did they lose interest? Or was the writer just too lazy or disinterested to fix that particular plot hole? There are so many nonsensical parts to this movie it's just embarrassing.

Towards the end of the movie the "plot" starts unraveling and the ending itself makes absolutely no sense, and you really don't care to make sense of it, you just want it over! I guess there's an alternate ending that might shed some more light on this, but I haven't seen it and all I have to go off of was the movie I saw in theaters. I wasn't able to figure out if Dakota was just made up or if she was real, and by the end all I cared about was leaving the theater.

I don't know who should kill me for liking this

[Franco_Zed · 7/10 · 28 July 2007]

but I thought it was a very interesting story.

SHORT REVIEW: Gruesome, gratuitously sexual, interesting story, well acted.

MY BIASES: I rarely watch horror movies. I never, ever watch gruesome horror movies like "Saw" and its ilk. I was really in the mood for a horror movie and LL in a more adult role. UPSHOT: I might be marking a little easy. Maybe. Or maybe not.

I felt that the story, characters, and actors were all plenty good enough to entertain me for 2 hours. I suspect that the critics and other people who are dumping on this movie are somewhat reactionary against the fact that it definitely has some gratuitous violence and gratuitous sexuality.

I will not spoil any more than the trailers do. Briefly, the story begins with an artistic girl named Aubrey Fleming. A girl at her school goes missing and her dead body turns up with some amputation. Everyone fears a serial killer, particularly when Aubrey disappears. I girl is brought in to the hospital who looks exactly like Aubrey. Everyone thinks she's Aubrey, but when she wakes up, she claims to be a stripper named Dakota Moss. Here we have a problem. This girl is either Aubrey or Dakota. If she's Aubrey, then why is her delusion that she is Dakota so convincing? If she's Aubrey, then is there really a Dakota? If the girl in the hospital is Dakota, then where the hell is Aubrey, and why do these 2 women look identical? It's a fun set-up and I felt that the end result was satisfying and revealed effectively.

There were at least 3 scenes that were so gruesome and horrifying that I couldn't watch. I did the old "cover most of the screen with your hand" trick.

In playing a character who has a drug problem and has an identity issue, I couldn't help wondering if LL was trying to exorcise some demons with this movie. Or possibly she was rebelling against her career which has composed of playing many good girls in movies with more general appeal. I have to admit that some of her fans will see this movie just to see her and will really wish they hadn't seen it. If you're expecting "Mean Girls" or "Herbie Fully Loaded", you will need some therapy to recover from this one.

I should mention that while there is no Lindsay Lohan nudity per se, there are some extremely raunchy scenes involving close shots of various body parts of Dakota's while she is wearing next to nothing and writhing around a stripper dance pole. Just in the interests of full disclosure.

In a side-note about cinematography, this movie is very blue, in the literal, colour sense. It's fun to watch just how hog-wild they went with all the blue. I started watching for blue objects and there were many: bright blue lights, clothing, ribbons, glass, eyes, gloves, etc. Not to mention that every shot seems to have a blue tint.

So consider yourself fairly warned and enjoy the twists and turns of this movie, if you choose to give it a shot.

I should have killed myself for actually watching the whole thing.

[Staymetal8390 · 1/10 · 27 August 2007]

I KNOW WHO KILLED ME.....IS THE WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN! I have never watched a movie, and had no idea what was going on until I saw this. No plot, horrible acting (especially from druggie Lohan), pointless sex, and graphic scenes.

I can't think of one good thing to say about it because it was so pointless. I don't know what the point of the movie was at all, just a chance for Lohan to get money, which she probably didn't get much because no one saw this (I didn't even pay to see this, good thing too).

All I can say about this crap, is stay away, save your time, and money. Go see or rent something better.

This again, is the worst movie ever.

Great moment

[forumjg · 10/10 · 17 April 2021]

I discovered this movie in 2021 on Prime after reading a review in a french horror magazine.

It was entertaining, sexy, disturbing, sometimes too slow, but for me it was fun.

I enjoyed the colors, the mood, the plans and ideas of the filmmaker.

Despite i didn't care a lot about Lindsay before, i must admit she played with a lot of intensity and is really beautiful in this movie.

I don't really get the hate this movie has received in 2007 !

I would give it a good 7/10 but because of the others rating i push it to 10/10.

The DVD could be placed on a shelf near Hannibal, Red Dragon or some italian Giallo !