I'd never heard of this, recorded it from tv a few weeks ago and watched it last night. I was blown away.

It tinkers with the way lives diverge after decisions, as does Sliding Doors and Lionel Shriver's latest, which I think is called The Post-Birthday World, and which I haven't yet read but will when it comes out in pb. However, this film does so in a very fresh, different way, which is internally consistent and manages to suspend disbelief very effectively. It's a punchy and poignant exploration of how simple acts can completely changes lives.

An entirely unknown (to me) cast who did a great job. I think a film can work better without the well-known faces we're so used to, because instead of being distracted by remembering another character they have played, or celeb gossip about them, you simply react to the fiction of the film itself, with the actor simply a conduit for the character they represent.

If I tell you any more about the plot it will spoil it, but if you like clever, intelligent, well-written and well-acted psychological drama/thrillers you will probably love this. I did.

Deb

I agree - I saw this a year or so back - a truly brilliant film. Very clever and very interesting to watch.

I had a weekend where I saw the Butterfly Effect followed by Crash. Both are stunning films and I would recomment them wholeheartedly as intelligent, engrossing filsm to watch.

Steve

Aren't there two films called Crash? I think I've seen the older one, which seems to be less well thought of. Seems daft to call two completely unrelated films by the same name.

Is it the recent one you saw?

Deb

This title seems vaguely familiar, and I watch a lt of films on TV so may have seen it. I had a positive impression if it's the film I'm thinking of - is it French? - but could you give a few details concerning the plot and characters and why you like it?

Sheila

Not French, no. Not highbrow - just very well made and clever and watchable.

If I tell you much about the plot it will spoil it, but I'll say a little more if you like...

Main character is shown initially as a 7 yr old boy whose father is in a mental institution. His mother is warm and copes well with bringing him up alone. As a child he has a group of friends, and events surrounding this group become more and more sinister, centering around the father of his best friend, and her brother, who becomes increasingly violent.

As a uni student he becomes interested in the past events, goes to visit a couple of his childhood friends, and wishes things had turned out differently. Really, it would spoil it if I told you more.

Deb

I remember it now - it started with the young man under a desk writing in his diary that he would probably be dead if anyone found him. The diary played a big part in the plot, I remember as the young man discovered that by reading certain parts he could revise his life - take himself back to a point where things went wrong and try all over again.

I thought it was a great concept - as you say, a bit like a multiple 'Sliding Doors' or 'Groundhog Day' (nowhere near as good as those, though)

I liked the special effects each time the revisions began - a sort of very rapid visual rewind to a swooshing soundtrack. It all got a bit silly towards the end, I thought, but mostly it was fun to watch.

I think if you write a review you do at lesat have to describe the premise or main idea of the plot and say something specific about the characters and acting, at to least identify the actors and director.

Maybe you just meant to post a discussion starter rather than a review?

You're just given it all away, really, Cornelia, which was what I was trying not to do.

I wasn't aware there were rules for posting in the review forum. I've seen other seed posts here which are not along the lines you suggest.

Deb

<Added>

I did describe the basic premise, btw, but in such a way that I didn't give away the whole story. And I did comment on the acting, writing etc.

I don't think I have given anything away because you find out quite early one how it works. The real interest, as I remember it is in the variations and the multiple points of view, and I haven't said anything about that. The details you've added would have enabled me to remember whether or not it was the film I'd seen, and doesn't give give away the plot or the ending.

Sheila

There aren't multiple POVs.

We'll have to agree to differ on this one, Sheila.

Deb

Sorry, I seem to have forgotten some of it. I was thinking about the cellar scenes with the father when we get a completely different view of his actions/personality in a later (changed) version. I'm a bit vague about it, I'm afraid as it's a while since I saw it on TV. I didn't mean to give the impression that I didn't like the film - I did.

Sheila

No change of POV, but a change in what happens.

I thought it was a very clever film which worked on many levels. Glad you liked it too (and yes, I had got the impression you thought it mediocre).

Deb

Yes, you are right, although I can't remember what it was that changed the father from a brutalising sadist to a caring parent and I seem to remember we saw something happening off-stage that we hadn't seen before which helped explain things - not so much as changed POV but a changed perspective. Maybe it was one of the things that fuelled my reservations, but it did remind me of the 'Final Destination' series which I liked very and when I investigated I found out it was written by the writers of 'Destination 2'.

About not mentioning the names of director, characters and actors or the setting: I do quite a bit of reviewing, and was only trying to be helpful, so I am sorry if you were offended.

Sheila

I don't think the father became a caring parent. He did stop doing one bad thing, but was still generally a sh*t, as demonstrated by events. However, there were other ways to protect his children. I wouldn't say that anything happened off-stage.

If you're curious I could email you and tell you how it happened. I just feel it gives too much away to say it here, for anyone who hasn't watched it.

It didn't remind me at all of Final Destination, because that was more of a horror thing and this was more thoughtful IMO. This was all tied up with cause and effect (a very real issue), whereas FD was about 'your time has come and death'll get you once he'd decided to' IIRC.

Sorry if I seemed touchy about your suggestions. I suppose it was just that I was posting a very informal review to alert others to the fact that this film is, IMO, well worth seeing, and I thought you were meaning to criticise me. However, if I got that wrong I'm sorry.

I did say why I thought so. I didn't mention the director or actors because I didn't notice who directed it and I didn't know any of the actors. I could have looked it up, but anyone reading this can do so if they're that interested. If I was writing a formal review for money and/or for publication I would certainly do that, but I wasn't aware we were that formal in this part of WW. Are we supposed to be?

Deb

I'm sorry, my memory of it is really vague. It was something to do with a boy (or girl)crying on the cellar steps, apparently about one thing... but I don't want to say more.

Thank you very much for offering to email, but I'll look up the synopsis of the plot on the Internet. In fact, I may give it another viewing. I subscribe to one of those DVD-by-post sites with a monthly charge.

The question you've raised about reviews and their formats is interesting. In my opinion when someone posts a 'review' as distinct from an opinion or recommendation it should have the same status as other pieces of writing, such as poems or short stories. After all it can take a few hours, including the background research, to write a review, not to mention seeing oher films or books. David Bruce disagrees, so I've been posting my film reviews to the Journalism group. That's what they are - articles for publication and I expect comments on style as well as content. When I remember I post them to the review group and I always enjoy reading the postings there.

So I think you are right, and 'reviews' covers a wide remit. It would be interesting to know what other people think.

Sheila

Like so many terms, 'review' can mean different things to different people. I know a lot of the reviews posted here are quite well thought out, but I got the impression the idea of this forum was for people to share opinions rather than practise journalism. Even the most professional of reviews is nothing more, surely, than opinions put together with background facts in a readable, well-organised way.

If I was writing reviews for the local newspaper or any publication I would of course expect to write it professionally, but this is a forum, not a publication. I do not intend to put in several hours of work simply to share my view, FWIW. If others wish to put in that work then I'm sure most of us will appreciate it.

When you say you post them to the Journalism group for comment on your style etc, that suggests to me that you wish to write reviews professionally or that you already do. So I agree with you that the group is the best place to receive feedback on your reviews, if that's what you're after.

In this forum surely people will (mostly, at least) comment on the film you've described rather than on your review?

If I posted my 'review' of this film in the journalism group as it is here, then I would expect people to criticise its professionalism, since professional it isn't. But it wasn't intended to be.

Perhaps I am wrong about all this - I have been on WW for 6 months, and pretty active here, but I have only started looking at the review forums in the last week or so. So yes, it would be interesting to hear how others view these review forums.

Deb