The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Assuming the whole thing wasn't a hoax, imaging the luck of being a budding film maker and having your friend suffer from one of the rarest and most bizarre medical conditions, which not only appeals to the public but which is perfect film material. I think Rupert Murray blew his chance, though. All the artistic camera angles and moods he tried to portray were totally unnecessary. Like a good chef knows not to embellish on quality ingredients, so a good film-maker knows not to embellish on a story that can't fail to be interesting. This film managed to achieve uninterestingness, though. For the first half, I could forgive the attempts to capture the mood of somebody coming to terms with retrograde amnesia, with the jaunty camera angles and ambient music, after all it's his first film, and he can be allowed a little pretentious leeway. However, as the film progressed and all we've learnt is what a wonderful life he had (and will have anew) and are subjected to close ups of his beautiful ex-girlfriends smiling and laughing seductively for the camera and close-ups of Douglas smiling gormlessly as he takes in things for the 'first' time, it starts to grate. Ultimately there was incredibly little of substance in a documentary that could have been twice as long and had 10 times the substance throughout. The fact that he comes from such a privileged background and is not short of money, love and support, shouldn't have detracted from how interesting his condition was; but it did, as the film-maker seemed more interested in celebrating the former and much less in investigating the latter. There seemed to be a suspicious and alarming acceptance of his condition from his family and friends. They seemed more interested in looking demure or cool for the camera than asking questions, that most viewers were probably screaming at the television, such as 'Have you checked your bank withdrawals from the few weeks leading up to the amnesia?'I think Rupert Murray was trying to make two films here and ended up effectively making none. Either make a film about your friend's memory loss, or make a film about beautiful people, with lots of close ups, longeurs and artistry, but don't make them both together.

I'll admit that it's Blockbuster's fault that the only thing indicating this movie was a documentary was an approximately 6-point footnote at the bottom of a smeary label. Still, this movie definitely doesn't pass as a "suspense thriller" or anything like unto it. The sound was horribly done, with annoying screeches, bizarre music, and extreme (and extremely useless) volume changes. The cinematography was "child-like" at best and "I'd rather sit at a stoplight and watch actual lights blink, actual trash blow around, and actual people I don't care about talking to one another" at worst. The scenario was interesting, but the interviews were badly cut and awkward, the film quality was well below par, and the general feel of the film was on par with being at a family restaurant on 12 people's birthdays. Minus the horrible sound and camera-work, this film was only marginally totally boring. Only every other documentary I've ever watched is more interesting.

There is a lot of debate about how real this story is. I'd first like point out that no movie or TV show is reality. Everything is shot and edited to convey the story that someone wants to tell you. Are Michael Moore's movies real? They are documentaries but they are telling a story that he wants you to hear. Is The Real World reality? It's a bunch of people trying to go about their lives with cameras in their faces that is then severely edited to tell a story that someone thinks will be entertaining.With that said, Unknown White Male kept me engrossed for 90 minutes and made me think the entire time...which is more then 99% of the garbage that is out there today. The movie plays out like a study in philosophy. The "new" Doug seems like a great guy and his friends and family can't help but like him even though they wish he was the "old" Doug. The more you find out, the more you realize that he had a great life before he lost his memory and that is one of the interesting questions this movie brings up. Is it possible to lead two completely different existences that are equally as good and fulfilling? Is life better when you have no expectations and more importantly: nobody in the world has expectations of you? Within the world of the movie the thought will always be there whether Doug is faking this all to escape his old life. And the question will be there whether or the whole story was created for the sake of making the movie. Sure there are holes in the story, but I say it's still a great story.

Thoroughly compelling documentation of the re-emergence of a person. Images and sequences well-photographed and chosen to convey emotional impact; the viewer "feels" this story acutely. A rare medical mystery with no scientific explanation, but perhaps more clear from a spiritual perspective; a blessing in disguise, whereby a person gets to live two lives for the price of one, with potential character improvement. The new Doug appears to have deeper emotional sincerity than the former. What begins as a terrifying disability may in time yield many some enviable advantages. I hope the soundtrack will be made available (a beautifully eerie series of pieces.) P.S., The pretty brunette with the scarf (Nadine ?) has, for lack of a better description, a "scintillating countenance."