I first found out about Sliding Doors when I heard it mentioned on the director's commentary from Run Lola Run, which of course is my fifth favorite movie of all time. I looked up the plot summary online and was intrigued. I wondered why I hadn't heard of this film earlier. Then I watched it, and within the first few scenes I realized why I had never heard of it. Simply put, it's not very good. But you know me; once I start something, I always try to finish it.Also, my girlfriend and I were fighting at the time that I watched this and she was mad at me in the other room, so I didn't want to move from my spot on the couch. I guess I could have put something else on, but maybe I felt I deserved to be tortured for a little while for upsetting my sweetheart, although I still maintain that she was probably just as much to blame as I was for whatever we were fighting about, which I can no longer remember. In any case, I watched it all the way to the end, including the credits because sometimes there's a skit afterward.The film is about a year in the life of an Englishwoman, played by an American actress, who gets fired from her job and takes the train home. Or does she? We see two possibilities of what could happen in her life depending on whether she catches the train on time or misses it by just an instant. It shows us two different outcomes of a seemingly trivial daily occurrence, something we never get the chance to see firsthand in real life, although we can imagine all we want.This premise of exploring alternate paths of fate seems fairly unique, but it's not totally original. We've seen it done before in 1987's Blind Chance, and infinitely better in the aforementioned Run Lola Run. But here the filmmakers could have had so much more fun with it. The plot is weak, despite the interesting premise. It feels like a typical, boring, forgettable romantic comedy and we almost forget about the whole double vision aspect. It feels like the writers wrote one draft and called it good enough and didn't try to make it any better. But it could have been so much better.This feels like the type of low budget, quickly-made British film that you'd find packaged along with five others you never heard of—all of them just as forgettable and of equally below-average quality—on a "UK Cinema" DVD for $4.99. Because that's the only way to market them on home video because none of them would sell individually. And even if you do end up buying the lot, you'll never end up getting around to watching more than two or three of them, and those only when you're in the mood for a "so bad it's good" laugh on a rainy Friday night, and always with the assistance of alcohol.In Sliding Doors the dialogue feels cheap and corny. Everyone speaks in phony, hackneyed expressions. All the characters talk more or less the same, with Gwyneth Paltrow delivering lines that seem more suited for John Hannah's character, but the writers probably stopped caring. The one saving grace is the acting. It's not the best acting I've seen, but it's not bad, especially considering the film's other shortcomings and bland pacing. That's another thing: the pacing. The film always moves at a consistently medium pace, which just feels so boring and not quite right.But back to the thing I was saying about the acting. The rest of the film is so bad that the acting actually seems really good in comparison, despite the fact that it is probably just average. It makes the film watchable and kept me from giving it a lower score. John Hannah—in one of the few roles in which I've seen him portray a leading man—almost makes us believe that he's just a quirky character who actually talks that way, rather than just a victim of bad writing.And the perpetually annoying Jeanne Tripplehorn appears here in the role she was born to play. I didn't like her in The Firm and I didn't like her in Waterworld. And I didn't like her in Sliding Doors, but for the first time I feel she was cast appropriately. In the aforementioned films I felt like the filmmakers made a casting mistake or maybe their first choice had to drop out. But in Sliding Doors we weren't supposed to like her. I don't think. It's hard to tell, but I think she's supposed to be an annoying pest of a mistress as well as a villainous type, comparable to Cruella De Vil and infinitely dumpable by her browbeaten boyfriend. And she knocks it out of the park! Man, she was obnoxious in this movie!And who would date her, you ask? Must be some loser of a boyfriend, right? Yes, he is, played quite well here by John Lynch, whose character is a bit of loser who cheats on Paltrow with Tripplehorn. He would be the bad guy if we didn't feel so sorry for him. He's a victim too. And yet we still believe that this pathetic fellow could potentially be with both of these women because, well let's face it, Paltrow isn't much of a catch either. Lynch's character is one we've seen many times before, but rarely quite so well as here, despite the poor dialogue and story structure. Lynch does a great job at making the character believable—like a real person you might know in real life—and I feel the filmmakers lucked out with him.I'm rapidly approaching my word limit, so I gotta go, but I will say that after getting out all my thoughts on Sliding Doors, I've decided that maybe I liked it a bit better than I originally thought. Maybe.

This movie is right up there with The Princess Bride, except it has a time dimensional twist. I just watched it for the 5th time, in a few years. It never disappoints. The first time I saw it I couldn't believe what I'd just seen! I just sat back and said, "Wow!" , and I've literally been thinking about the movie ever since, in one way or another. it's the kind of movie you expect to hear Rod Serlings voice at the end.It is a very clever story, with 2 paths of Helen's life being depicted throughout the movie, same characters, similar events, but different life decisions and subsequent fallout. Both paths are very interesting, and the movie does a great job of seamlessly letting you know which path you are watching at any point in time. Although a simple story, the developing plot had me hooked the entire movie. I loved it, beginning to end. I don't think it is really a comedy, I would call it more a drama. It is a very serious look at life, paths taken and not taken, and destiny. Paltrow is her charming, adorable self, her character very engaging, and a masterful actress.

Unlike most romcoms Sliding Doors has a touch more intelligence, wit and depth. It uses as its pivotal moment how one woman's life splits at the missing or catching of a train and the different consequences of each event. We've all said "what would have happened if..." and this film opens with that premise.The film is average, although there are great performances. I love John Hannah and he's always convincing and steady whatever he plays. Gwyneth Paltrow playing the two parallel life Helens is good, not brilliant, and a little bit flat, but it was perhaps perfect for this role where she goes through quite a bit. John Lynch and Jeanne Tripplehorn (both rather wooden) and a great Zara Turner adding a few laughs as the feisty supportive best friend are the supporting cast. Whilst quite a dark film, there's a fair bit of comedy. Set in a rather sterile looking London (I've never seen the Tube look so perfect), it's an intriguing concept and is executed well, the split easily and not-improbably identified via Helen's change of hair length and colour, and so you follow the two Helen's to the conclusion implying that - like all love stories - true love (probably) triumphs no matter how bumpy the road. Like time travel films (this is a similar though a different phenomenon) there are possible loopholes that you can talk yourself around to ponder. Sliding Doors is interesting and different, and whilst it's not Shakespeare in Love (my fav Paltrow film) or anything high brow it's good entertainment and greatly thought provoking.

The central plot device notwithstanding, "Sliding Doors" is a formulaic romantic comedy, with Paltrow a seemingly reluctant constant in the middle of the formula. (Peter Howitt, writer and director, does deserve credit for not trying to explain how the two wormholes through the romantic cosmos diverge--rather just presenting the intertwined versions of Helen's life). Jeanne Tripplehorn and John Lynch are each a lot of fun to watch. Lynch maintains a wonderfully dazed and confused demeanor in the face of womankind on the warpath, and Tripplehorn trods said warpath with great brio. Their lines aren't original, but they get into the spirit. The climax of the movie (no spoilers here) seems way contrived, and it disturbs whatever flow has been developed: writer-running-out-of-ideas material. Douglas McFerran, as Gerry's de rigueur funny mate, does a workmanlike job in magnifying Gerry's angst.