Good start, but then it gets ruined

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

The first must-see film of the year.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

This film is complicated, but this review will approach it simply.THE FILM. If you love pure cinema that doesn't necessarily need even a story, this is one for the books. Gorgeous scenery, lovingly filmed. The photography was measured to include natural structure of beauty and form, including the shoreline, the rock formations, the beach house, and even the police station. I found myself enamored of the set design, even when the story was quite interesting! THE STORY. Twilight Zone weirdness permeates, and Rod Serling would not be out of place narrating. Dimensional, or alternative universe, jumping is the pretext for deeper probing. First, what has the serial killing to do with it? This should be an easy guess for fantasy film cinephiles. Second, what has the rat brain to do with it? This is, to be fair, an apt metaphor. OK, but what about Wittgenstein? THE PHILOSOPHY. Actress Tilda Swinton seems to enjoy the deep end of the pool, with unending credits of philosophy in her filmography, including Francis Bacon, Vanilla Sky, and.. Wittgenstein. And actor Tom McCamus has a philosopher inserted into his last name. So we know the philosophy herein is deliberate. What is this philosophy? Relative existence.Do we exist or do we not? Can we prove it? Do possibilities exist or are they "never-been" wisps? Are we someone's or something's lab experiment? Is there God? The answers to such questions are somewhat less obvious than you might think. Yet, if we are only experiments, or dreams, someone or something has created that experiment or dream. Therefore, a creator. Therefore, an existence. As for possibilities, both in reality and in this film, these are out of our control anyway, except for decisions we make at any given time.Some might find the ending of this film to be "too easy." I find it embracing and satisfying. Blame writers Mighton and LePage if you disagree. I especially liked when George talks about fossils, evidence of the past. Are they evidence, or merely part of the construct? Shells within shells.MUSIC. I cannot leave you without telling you how beautiful is the soundtrack, especially Peter Gabriel's haunting "The Nest." Well after the film was over, I was transfixed so much of the music that I merely kept staring ahead, awaiting more.RATING. For utilization of budget, crafting of story, the passionate Tilda Swinton, and all else, I give this 10/10.

Possible Worlds is a low budget independent film by French director Robert Lepage, it is a surreal murder mystery which appears to have been made primarily to explore several different philosophical notions. It begins with two detectives arriving at the scene of a crime, the victim George Barber (Tom McCamus) has been murdered and his brain removed from his body. We then meet George Barber, alive and well. Since he was a boy, it turns out, George has had the ability to switch between different Possible Worlds at will. The love of his life is played by Tilda Swinton and we follow George in several different worlds meet the different versions of her and try to woo them all. In one world she is a shy scientist, in another she is a confident business woman. What makes these very different women the same person? Well, thats partially what the film is about. Simultaniously we follow the detectives as they hunt down George's missing brain and meet a mad scientist who experiments with extracted animal brains (Gabriel Gascon).The 'Possible Worlds' from which this film takes its name is a concept of contemporary philosophy, it is a method of discussing the nature of possibility and necessity. Instead of saying "I might have gone to the shops", one says "there is a possible world in which I went to the shops". This allows for greater clarity of discussion about the nature of possibility. One of the more eccentric lines of thought in philosophy is idea that Possible Worlds actually exist (technically they only possibly exist, but every possibility is an actuality for that possibility... yes, this is the simplified way of discussing it!). The concept is very similar to the quantum mechanics notion of multiple/parallel dimensions, as explored in a great deal of science fiction, and is the central premise of this film.The film can be best described as a cross between Darren Arranofsky's Pi and the cult sci-fi Primer. In places it is distinctly Lynchian, such as this dream sequence (which is the only part of the film available on youtube, there isn't even a trailer) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7odlad7TOc Although the film isn't particularly complex (and it isn't as deliberately convoluted as Primer which, although enjoyable, tries too hard to make its dialogue impenetrable) following George through the various worlds and tying the different plot strands together does require the audience to concentrate.For a student of modern philosophy or a person fairly well read in the subject, this film will be highly enjoyable. While it contains slightly heavy handed brain-in-a-vat allusions, the film primarily focuses on discussions of identity and possibility. Many different ideas are brought in regarding the nature of consciousness, evolutionary development of the mind, and physical embodiment and the film makes no attempt to give simple or easy answers to these. However, for somebody not read in such areas, the film is likely to be frustratingly dull and pointless. The film does not try to overly explain or reduce these notions: such an attempt would be pointless anyway, it is dealing with some of the most difficult material ever written, 5 minutes of exposition isn't going to benefit anyone. But all of the films dialogue is very clear and simple and it never throws in unnecessary technical terms (like Primer) or tries to fool its audience. In spite of this, I do fear its subject matter will alienate many viewers.This dichotomy is perhaps best seen in the film's ending (which I wont reveal here). The film has a sad, melancholic ending, in which the story's plots come together and the characters journeys receive closure. This is good, and it does mean even somebody unfamiliar with the concepts it is exploring can still enjoy the film. But at the same time, it could appear to be wrapping up profound questions with an overly simplistic conclusion. The ending of the film is good, but I think to truly appreciate the film is to realise that (as with many great films) its conclusion is in fact the least important aspect of it.Possible Worlds is an excellent film with a very niche audience; it is to philosophy as Primer is to science. It contains enough surreal imagery and dark, dry humour for any audience member to enjoy, and I should of course point out that reading philosophy is by no means necessary for somebody to understand or engage with philosophical concepts, any more than one needs to be an art scholar to enjoy good art. But its target audience, as the name suggests, is those who are directly familiar with the material that this film is exploring, and if you are a fan of David Lewis, Wittgenstein, Kant or Descartes then this film really is essential viewing.

This film while being a low budget indy work stinks of quality. Some of the camera shots feel like paintings presented within the story. Light and colour are very well used. The story well... check it out. It may force you to watch it twice but it's worth it. I run a small film watching group for eight or nine friends, we watch a film selected by different member each week with no vetos, this gives us an eclectic mix of movies. Of course it is becoming a point of pride to please and impress the group with your choice. Possible worlds has been one of the best finds from the group and I am very grateful to have been shown it. Thanks Ben

but a poor execution. Too bad, the main premise is one with real possibilities, however the acting is very bland, the whole movie dry, and I can easily see most people turning it off before the conclusion (which is the best part!)