I absolutely hated The I Inside for numerous reasons, one being how poorly executed it was as well as confusing but the main reason why I thought this movie was utter garbage and worth a mere 2 stars was the fact that once the ending reveals the truth behind the madness of the film it is quite clear that the majority of the plot and movie was contrived and pointless.The ending of the film brings the realization that Simon Cable (Phillipe) died along with his brother and his brother's fiancé, Claire in a car accident in 2000 and because he can simply not accept what happened and feels responsible for the other deaths, he keeps going back in time in his mind to try and change what happened and save them. The problem? If a character wants to change the events that lead to a deadly accident in 2000, common sense says that the character should awake in the year 2000 right before the accident and well, try to change what happened. Such a concept was too simple for The I Inside so they concocted a completely pointless plot where the character of Simon wakes up in the year 2002 after supposedly being poisoned by his wife, Anna and has no memory of the last 2 years. Simon is told that his brother died in a car accident in 2000 but he survived. The movie amps up the mystery and intrigue when Simon, while wandering around the hospital somehow finds himself entering the year 2000. He will be walking down the hallway in 2002 and then turn a corner and enter for example the lounge and instead of it being 2002, he's back in 2000 in the same hospital. The movie continually shifts from the year 2002 to the year 2000 and back again in the hospital while simultaneously having Simon return to his home in the year 2000 to try and change events that led to the car accident that in his mind, only killed his brother. The movie also adds the idea that whatever happens to people in the year 2000, will happen to them in 2002 which adds more mystery to the plot. For example, in the year 2000, in the hospital, Simon ends up hallucinating and stabbing someone to death, someone who he saw alive in the hospital in the year 2002, only for that person to then die spontaneously and start bleeding out everywhere in the year 2002. So... why is the movie so bad? Simple - because NONE of that meant anything to the actual plot once all is revealed at the end. The entire 'time traveling' between the years 2002 and 2000, having things happen to people in 2000 and then have it show up in 2002 was, in the end, pointless and had NOTHING to do with the actual plot of Simon not accepting his death from the car accident in 2000 and wanting to go back in time to try and change the outcome. There is no reason at all why he couldn't have just woken up in 2000. The entire 2002 subplot is 100 percent bullshit and it's that subplot that was the only thing that made the film somewhat mysterious. As for the answer of why the year 2002, the movie tries to justify that entire plot by making Simon's time of death in 2000, at 20:02 as if that is why he keeps waking up 2 years after the accident and then has to shift between the years 2002 and 2000 but it's weak at best. Clearly, the writers came up with the time traveling concept first and then tagged on that his death was at 20:02 to try and make it not seem contrived and ridiculous that he was randomly waking up 2 years after the accident to try and change events that occurred right before the accident. Failure.As for my explanation for what happened in the film, there is no doubt that Simon was killed in 2000 and everything in 2002 is an illusion. What solidified it for me was the fact that his father was his doctor in 2002 and the puzzle he was putting together in the lobby turned out to be of a photo of him, his brother and his father that we see at the end at the brother's house.2 stars - the actual movie is confusing, poorly directed and poorly edited and once you find out that the entire 2002 time traveling to the year 2000 was completely unnecessary, and just a stunt to try and make the film interesting, it's hard to not see it as complete rubbish.

I just began watching the movie and realized that Simon was Sebastian in Cruel Intentions. The beginning of the movie, 'till half an hour, moved quickly. It intrigued the spectator and we innocently thought there was gonna be an answer at the end. Sadly there wasn't. "The I Inside" could had been much better. All the "comes" and "goes" kinda of confused me and at one time I was unable to distinguish the characters. At least the message of the movie was great: "You can't change the past" - simple as that. It seems to me that Ryan Phillippe works better playing the bad guy as he did in C.I. Watchable, but I wouldn't watch again nor recommend to my friends.

This movie showed some potential with time travel and mysterious memory loss, however the plot never really unfolds and the hospital suspense scenes feel totally forced and bland.None of the characters really develop past the basic storyline which is poor at best, although the acting is OK. Visual effects and the strange time traveling are all it has to offer.. "the I inside" tries hard to be intelligent and mysterious but is ultimately uninteresting but of course you don't find that out until the end of the movie...where you are left scratching your head and disappointed.AVOID!!!

This movie does not get the credit it deserves, in my opinion. Cooney wrote something beautiful in this script. He brought upon questions and ideas subject to us, and approached it in a manner that keeps us guessing – keeps us curious. Cooney is not a philosopher, he is a film writer: he is simply doing what he does best in life, and in my opinion with great merit. We have seen this theme before, and even after this film (The Butterfly Effect), but that does not give any reason why Cooney should not take his stab at it. Pure originality is few and far between these days, maybe even non-existent. As for the directing: nothing bad to say. There is some great camera work, cinematography and use of effects. There were some beautifully placed dark and gloomy scenes, and a wonderful recreation of the act of dying and being brought back to life (exactly the way my grandfather described it to me when it happened to him... not to say that each resuscitation isn't unique and individual, but we do hear of a common trend: see the white light; see your body below you).My only real problem with the film is that I think Piper Perabo was slightly overacting. Not that the acting did not fit in some way, but it seemed a tad dry and much, but this is a subjective outlook. Others may find her fitting.******** SPOILER ******** DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU HAVE WATCHED THE FILMConsider what the orderly said (and I'm paraphrasing): how and why people die is the question. It may be the only question.I am writing this comment not to be audacious or to act superior, but I feel I have read a few other unintelligent comments that brought me to be motivated to say my piece. What some people do not realize, or have yet to realize, is that the story is about a man who is at the edge of death. Some people in this world die, but have a chance to be resuscitated – some people come back to us, some don't. Consider those who do survive. Why is it they live and other before them did not? The same tools and similar (maybe even the same) circumstances are at their temptation. Maybe those who died gave up, and those who lived still had something important to live for. This is Simon Cable. Now, of course, there are holes in this hypothesis: is this important calling of God (Peter seems to think otherwise at the end: we decide), there are those who come back to us without amnesia (but at the end, does Simon not go back to where he once was, unaware and unknowing once again), and does this make him insane (the old cliché that the insane are truly those best in touch with the world). The last idea I don't personally believe, but this movie is about the questions. It doesn't end in obscurity or lose its' intelligence, it simply explores an idea and leaves us wondering: how and why do people die? And is this phenomenon even more than we, as believers of our own trend, realize.Though the rating of a movie to simply overall 1 to 10 can be difficult, and I am still on the fence of how much I like it (having just seen it, and would like to come back to it a few weeks from now). I gave it an 8, though I think a 7.5 would be more accurate to my opinion at this moment.