Don't read this unless you've already seen the film or don't care, because I will be discussing parts at the end of the film.
A few days after a group of friends each begin having nightmares, they are alerted to the death of a friend they hadn't really seen in twenty years. At the funeral, they are given a map to a time capsule. The capsule contains a shocking part of their past: a dead girl. The rest of the day involves unraveling their combined pasts that had gone long forgotten and trying to survive when their guilt comes back to haunt them.
What was the selling point for this film? I think for me it was the interesting plot synopsis (one of the few to not include zombies or cannibals or inbred family members) and Traci Lords (who played Gina Conte). Lords, as I'm sure you know, is known for her underage pornographic work... I also happen to really enjoy her musical career, which runs in the techno-industrial vein.
What works for this film: I thought the film was very well done. The scenery was great, the characters were enjoyable and the plot and dialog seemed to flow nicely. Some parts were going a bit slower than I'd like, but the general pacing was good and we were given hints and clues along the way to solve the puzzle (although whether or not the puzzle can be solved remains to be seen).
What doesn't work: Although I liked the characters, I found them not easily distinguishable. Keeping names and faces straight took a little work, and due to the fact their backgrounds were secret we couldn't know much about them: which really begs the question of what they actually recall about their pasts and how they grew up to be a respectable part of society. The big problem with this film, which actually really upset me, was how abrupt the ending was. I was enjoying the movie, I thought a good ending would make this one something worth recommending, and then it just dies leaving me with the feeling that I had just wasted the last 90 minutes of my life. If there was a point to the film, the ending ruined it. This is why I must rate it low, and have to hold myself back from rating it lower.
How to understand this film: I will try to defend the horrible ending, although it won't be easy. We are told by the priest that "guilt leads to compassion", and we know that when the group was younger they were being taught guilt. At the very end we see a flashback of the dead girl getting ready to enter the box. This leaves me with the impression that the hospital crew planted her there rather than the kids coming up with the idea, as they recall it. What happens in the present day is the conclusion of the experiment from 20 years ago -- this was a way of teaching everyone guilt (20 years later). In order to go from guilt (thinking they killed the girl) to compassion, they must go through what the girl did to truly feel for her. Hence, the guilt is relieved through their own deaths.
If that's the correct interpretation, or something similar, it still seems lacking -- did we really need the girl to come back as a ghost? The supernatural element seems like it wasn't really crucial if the point was to have them feel guilty rather than hunted. Either way, the ending is just too sudden. It's good to leave a viewer with questions so they view it again, but this one just left me hollow and quite upset. If you can get money back, I'd want it back on this one. So, as you can probably tell, I'm not recommending this film despite the potential it clearly has. When it gets released on DVD, I have compassion for those who rent it (but I won't let myself be feel guilty by suggesting it).
A few days after a group of friends each begin having nightmares, they are alerted to the death of a friend they hadn't really seen in twenty years. At the funeral, they are given a map to a time capsule. The capsule contains a shocking part of their past: a dead girl. The rest of the day involves unraveling their combined pasts that had gone long forgotten and trying to survive when their guilt comes back to haunt them.
What was the selling point for this film? I think for me it was the interesting plot synopsis (one of the few to not include zombies or cannibals or inbred family members) and Traci Lords (who played Gina Conte). Lords, as I'm sure you know, is known for her underage pornographic work... I also happen to really enjoy her musical career, which runs in the techno-industrial vein.
What works for this film: I thought the film was very well done. The scenery was great, the characters were enjoyable and the plot and dialog seemed to flow nicely. Some parts were going a bit slower than I'd like, but the general pacing was good and we were given hints and clues along the way to solve the puzzle (although whether or not the puzzle can be solved remains to be seen).
What doesn't work: Although I liked the characters, I found them not easily distinguishable. Keeping names and faces straight took a little work, and due to the fact their backgrounds were secret we couldn't know much about them: which really begs the question of what they actually recall about their pasts and how they grew up to be a respectable part of society. The big problem with this film, which actually really upset me, was how abrupt the ending was. I was enjoying the movie, I thought a good ending would make this one something worth recommending, and then it just dies leaving me with the feeling that I had just wasted the last 90 minutes of my life. If there was a point to the film, the ending ruined it. This is why I must rate it low, and have to hold myself back from rating it lower.
How to understand this film: I will try to defend the horrible ending, although it won't be easy. We are told by the priest that "guilt leads to compassion", and we know that when the group was younger they were being taught guilt. At the very end we see a flashback of the dead girl getting ready to enter the box. This leaves me with the impression that the hospital crew planted her there rather than the kids coming up with the idea, as they recall it. What happens in the present day is the conclusion of the experiment from 20 years ago -- this was a way of teaching everyone guilt (20 years later). In order to go from guilt (thinking they killed the girl) to compassion, they must go through what the girl did to truly feel for her. Hence, the guilt is relieved through their own deaths.
If that's the correct interpretation, or something similar, it still seems lacking -- did we really need the girl to come back as a ghost? The supernatural element seems like it wasn't really crucial if the point was to have them feel guilty rather than hunted. Either way, the ending is just too sudden. It's good to leave a viewer with questions so they view it again, but this one just left me hollow and quite upset. If you can get money back, I'd want it back on this one. So, as you can probably tell, I'm not recommending this film despite the potential it clearly has. When it gets released on DVD, I have compassion for those who rent it (but I won't let myself be feel guilty by suggesting it).