best explanation i have for what happened - The I Inside (2004) Discussion

[–] hayling100 18 years ago

nice explanation--@what made him wake up was finally accepting his own death@ but too subtle for this lousy site--so, i suggest u write a book or smth

reply

[–] coffeegirl18 18 years ago

I think that he was dead during those 2 minutes and his mind was racing as to how he could change his life, etc. A sort of 'if I get out of here this is what I'll do' type idea. Brain function continues even after you're dead (for a little while) which is probably why he saw the numbers on the clock. So he did die (the flatlining part) for the 2 minutes then they rescusitated him. I've seen it quite a few times and this is what I personally deduce. I'm not a doctor I just learnt a few things from my biology class.

Jazz

reply

[–] fvaipan 18 years ago

I notice that it's a coincidence between the two minutes of coma 20.00-20.02 and the two years from his illusions, 2000-2002. His mind take those data and start on this canvas like base, a way to remove his guilt back and forth.

reply

[–] lera_rulez 17 years ago

Wow! never noticed the coincidence haha.

reply

[–] babamulon 16 years ago

My thoughts exactly. This is what happened.

reply

[–] mashmore1979 18 years ago

My theory is that he is in Hell and he has to relieve the events that caused him to goto Hell over and over. His inner demons tempt him with a vision of that maybe he can change events, but as we see at the end nothing changes, and he is told by his brother (also in hell) that he is dead. The next shot of course is him doing everything all over again. This is pure Hell in my view, to endlessly get a glimmer of hope to redeem your sins but all for naught.

reply

[–] hizherz 8 years ago

My theory is that he is in Hell and he has to relieve the events that caused him to goto Hell over and over. His inner demons tempt him with a vision of that maybe he can change events, but as we see at the end nothing changes, and he is told by his brother (also in hell) that he is dead. The next shot of course is him doing everything all over again. This is pure Hell in my view, to endlessly get a glimmer of hope to redeem your sins but all for naught.

_______________________________________________________________________________

I kinda agree. He was in a limbo because he couldn't accept his death.

reply

[–] nadinefarfan 18 years ago

While i was watching the movie, this is exactly what i was thinking, that everyone around him are actors, in some big plot to get his inheritence (mabe setup by his wife or brother). Well i thought everyone except the orderly and Claire were out to mess with his mind and make him crazy enough to lose his inheritence by reason of insanity.

However, the movie took a dramatic turn for me, when they started showing him going back intime to save his brother, and the scene close to the end, when his brother puts the bottle of wine next to the others showed that his brother was dead, and then the puzzles fell into place, epecially when his brother told him that they are all dead. I was really enjoying the first part of the movie when it seem that the movie would have taken you in the direction of your theory. I would really have to watch this movie again with ur theory in mind

reply

[–] Benny777 18 years ago

okay guys - HERE IT IS:

just watched the movie plus the alternative ending (which is just a different cut) - and the alternative ending made it clear - he really died. everything that happened was made up in his mind the last 2 minutes of his life. there was no anna -> she was a cop at the place of the accident (thats where he got the face from), travis...well u see him at the accident as well ("im gonna take u on a little trip"), travitt walks in the hallway of the hospital and the doctor in the year 2002 was someone he used to know (the picture in the wallet - also on peters table in the last scene - u see it in the accident scene laying on the road). the year 2002 -> 20:02 (the time simon died)...so the movie is about his "i inside" trying to deal with the things he did to his brother, trying to change it but finally figuring out that its not going to work out..

listen to peter in the last scene - "we all died" - they all did (clair, peter and simon) as u see in the scene of the accident where they put a blanket over a mans body (which should be peter body since simon is still alive at that moment) - so thats the prove that peter never survived the accident...

if u dont get me watch the alternative ending and everything will be clear to u - thats no story like mullholland drive - its very clear once u get it...

alltogether - one of the most UNDERRATED movies i have seen on imdb!!!

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rkrainak 17 years ago

and the reference to the dad (Stephen Rea) being the doctor, is all-too similar to the Bob Hoskins blind character in "Stay" which turned out to be the kid's father that he "killed" in the car wreck.

reply

[–] scufytzu 18 years ago

waaaaaaait waaaaaaaaaait! i think i have a liiiiiittle problem with this explanation. the film starts off with him waking up, right? if he died for 2 minutes and made all that thing up to compensate for his guilt and blabla, how exactly does he know what happens when he wakes up in the end? wait. just got it. he never actually wakes up, and it's all a constantly repeating nightmare for him (he wasn't succesfully resuscitated at all)
RIGHT?

Vulnerant omnes, ultima necat.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scufytzu 18 years ago

well this is, in my opinion a brilliant film. clearly the best of it's subgenre, in my opinion. and i don't consider it mudyy or anything. i like a movie that hits you in the head 3 days later at 5am "THAT'S WHAT IT MEANT!!" not all those crappy 2-bit romantic comedies that make you all fuzzy inside and empty in the skull.. GREAT MOVIE!

Vulnerant omnes, ultima necat.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ndrew-1 17 years ago

So the whole story was inside his mind, 2 minutes before his death. How come that he had enough time to think of all those things?
That's not possible. Or you can assume that his mind was working in fast forward mode... that's insane.

I my opinion, this plot is weak. It doesn't convince me at all, and the ending came as a disappointment. Again, the scriptwritters didn't know how to solve it, so they did such a silly twist.

reply

[–] light_angel24 17 years ago

Actually, the mind can weave quite complex stories within only a couple of minutes. I often have entire dreams (sometimes up to three discrete dreams) in the 9 minutes of sleep between my alarm going off when I hit "snooze" (although, admittedly, I do have a sleep disorder that means I have more REM sleep than normal and therefore more dreams - but it does prove it's possible).

reply

[–] corduroycowgirl7 17 years ago

oh my goodness i have just had to come and check out the message boards straight after watching the film as i TOTALLY did not get the end and i don't think i would ever have picked up all the references to where he has seen everyone before i only noticed Anna and Travis as the paramedic and the police woman-way too subtle for me i'm afraid!! So at the end he's still not completely dead then at the end he's just convinced himself he's still alive but he's unconscious-is that it? And if he never has actually woken up how would he know for a fact that he was clinically dead for 2 minutes??? Also interesting fact in response to the person who said how could he dream all that in 2 minutes- I'm sure i read somewhere that dreams that take hours in our mind usually only take place during a short period when we are asleep perhaps only about 10 minutes or so-So it's possible that we may be convinced we have been having a particular dream for hours but it's only been taking place fora very short time period.Weird huh? I can't remember where I read that so feel free to correct me!!!

If only he hadnt' had so much love in his heart. If only he hadn't worn slip on shoes!!!!!!!

reply

[–] d_lien 16 years ago

Yeah, that's it, benny777, thanks for putting it all together!

reply

[–] Bob-45 12 years ago

The best example from great literature is "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" by Ambrose Bierce. I agree with you about this movie being underrated. I gave it a "9".

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Eve_of_Destruction 12 years ago

I have to re watch this, I am still confused.

**
Cici: "Oh, I'm sorry my bad, I thought you were someone else".
Ghost Face: "That's OK, I am"

reply

[–] Psychological_Gold 11 years ago

Why does he hallucinate (imagine/make things up) in 2000 and 2002? What's the point of Anna blackmailing him (and them being married), when in reality she's just a nurse/paramedic with the ambulance on the night he died? It seems like a pretty elaborate delusion, and pointless on top of that.

reply

[–] dancenog 11 years ago

if im right, then people are correct in saying that he just about survived the accident.For the brief moments he was still alive the people he was around (paramedic/doctor etc)were what his brain was trying to process. None of the events past the crash happened. He was dying and his brain was trying to piece together events, people, and explanations. hence the changing events, back n forth- just his brain waves trying to compute. The event doesn't take place between 2000 and 2002. That's his minds starting point and end point of the event due to the time he died being 20:00 and 20:02 being when his brain functions ceased. Rather than the events being seen by him as he experienced them, it is his Minds Eye (I inside, inside eye) which created possible events to join the dots from start point 20:00 to 20:02

reply

[–] WilkesAnnie 11 years ago

@The truthseeker13 ...Because he still wouldn't accept what happened. His brother said you need to accept this so we can all move on. I think that in the end when he woke up, just like he did in the beginning was a repeat of everything and it would keep happening over and over again until he accepts what he did and was unable to change it. Like groundhogs day! Lol

reply

[–] runsunny 18 years ago

After reading your posts, especially the one about his brother putting the upteenth bottle of wine on the table, I realize he was dead and was reliving the past. Dr. Newman in 2002 was his father, I think, from the picture depicting the two boys and a man fishing. He had tons of guilt over having an affair with his brother's fiancee. It was a great concept and started out as a good film, but as one of the reviewers said, fell over its own feet. It was just too jumbled up and muddied. It could've been done in a much better way and actually would've been a great little film. I enjoyed it more than I thought, though.

reply

[–] wjhb 18 years ago

"...Dr. Newman in 2002 was his father,..."

That's totally correct. Like Benny777 also said, THAT someone "he used to know" was his father, since both Peter and Simon had his picture. Also Simon specifically recalls in one of the scenes that both of his parents died.

So, his mind just decided to put the face of his father on the 2002's doctor; perhaps waiting for this familiar presence to help him solve the puzzle... just sweet!

reply

[–] thewheelman 18 years ago

Dr. Newman kept calling him "kid" too. I thought that odd, 'til you realize it's his father.

http://monumental.proboards19.com/index.cgi

reply

[–] takemenow909 17 years ago

agree with Benny777 MOST UNDERATED MOVIE I SAW IN IMDB FFS.
10/10 movie.

reply

[–] d_lien 16 years ago

good thinking!

reply

[–] toejoe 15 years ago

If you understood Jacob's Ladder you won't find it difficult to understand this one too. It's just au contraire of what happens in JL.

Both describe the last minutes of your life as you relive it again.

The message of JL is: for you to be able to die peacefully (enter paradise/heaven) you have to let go and accept life at it was. TII shows us what happens if can't let go, if you can't forgive yourself. I think TII is the personal hell in which you're neither dead nor alive.

Those bottles of wine were actually symbolising blood (maybe some references to christian beliefs)

reply

[–] juliano47 17 years ago

Have you guys seen the movie "Stay"??? Pretty much the same kind of story.
In the end, you can see that all caracters in his dream/hallucination were the ones present to his last living minutes...

reply

[–] bec_ormston 17 years ago

I personally choose to go with it being his own private hell of constantly reliving everything and trying in vain to change it. OOh wait I feel a philosophical moment coming upon me ... maybe to believe in heaven and hell is to believe that hell is where you live your worst memories over and over again as if they were real and you insane, and to experience heaven is a transgression we will all make from hell after accepting that we could not change all the horrible things we did and forgiving ourselves and becoming at peace. Maybe the true judgement day is the day we forgive ourselves and move onward to 'heaven'....ok I'm done now!

It was either his own personal hell or that he did die for 2 mins and was relieving his moments over again in that time...hmm confusing...I wish these psychological thrillers would answer all the questions they pose a bit more!!!!!

The chicken is still in Picadilly Square

reply

[–] ferparana 17 years ago

Or maybe it wasnt his personal hell, but just his soul(afterdeath) trying to realize what really happened and what could he have done different. Although no matter what he tried over and over to do it right in his "dreams", the bad things he did would always happen again(like his brother falling..)and he actually had to "let it go" like his brother said to him in the end(dozen bottle of wines showing he was going through it over and over again)and in last scene waking up from the coma, showing he was never gonna "let it go".

reply

[–] bec_ormston 17 years ago

Yup, that's pretty much what I mean :D Personal hell as in when we die we all relieve our worst memories over and over until, like you say, 'let them go' and when we do that is when we progress to heaven - which I would like to believe we go to because we have judged ourselves and not some all knowing scales. If we believe we are worthy of going to heaven we make peace with our painful memories with a clear, unaffected (ie no mental illness etc) head and if we believe we are not worth and deserve pain then we repeat our worst memories until we are ready...we are the only ones who can give ourselves forgiveness for our 'sins'....I'm agnostic so I have no special belief in the after life and all that but I like my theory here - it's comforting to think that as long as I can forgive myself then an 'God' that may exist will look after me :D

The chicken is still in Picadilly Square

reply

[–] FuzzySparkle 15 years ago

So, what actually happened and what didn't? Did he really marry Anna? No, right? Because Simon, Peter, and Clair all died in the car accident? So, the second time he was in the hospital, where he was found unconscious in front of his apartment, what was that from? (I think maybe it showed us this, but I can't think of it right now...)

reply