i finally saw this film after many years of fighting it. the subject is a friend of a friend and i had heard it was absolute rubbish (the film as well as his sad alleged amnesia). one could spend hours -- truly well-spent time -- discussing the themes of identity, responsibility and reality and a film of this nature should indeed explore those themes, in order to be a satisfying work of art. however, UWM is so amateur. and it seems to overtly avoid going into depth so as to not expose what is actually at the heart of it: a bored, self-amused man wanted to change his life (and personality) and did so in a very, very dramatic way (oh but oops, without any reporters on the police blotters picking it up...)

Please read the first user's review, "Strains credibility." My first question started with this: How is it that Bruce knows about police...why not at least explain his process of understanding that the police would be the most likely place to seek help? In addition to "Strains credibility's" observant review I would like to add that Rupert Murray interviews a philosopher in order to address some of the deeper questions about person-hood, but never is the issue of the development of a person's morality addressed--not to mention Bruce's. Yet Bruce himself says that he feels an obligation "morally" to visit and reacquaint himself with his "lads" back in England. Where did this sense of moral character come from? ...if Bruce has suffered such a memory loss that he cannot recall anything from the people who raised him to any of the defining moments of his life? Also what of that morality when he finds himself in one of the most divided cities of haves and have-nots in the western hemisphere? Would Bruce not take any notice of, even for a moment identify with homelessness as he was wandering the streets aimlessly trying to find himself and a home? Would he not eventually contrast the homelessness that he witnessed (with his new acutely aware sensibility) to his princely lifestyle? I suppose in today's morally bankrupt existence Murray figured no one would notice such an oversight; or rather it did not occur to Murray himself to ponder the issue of where morality comes from to begin with--not to mention Bruce's heightened sense of it.Way, way, way too many holes in this oversimplified, flagrantly over-romanticized attempt at a documentary.By the end of the film I felt that my sense of compassion (and Bruce's condition if it were real) were Murray's vehicles of exploitation in order to show off some his "cool scavenged footage" and editing skills which were completely irrelevant to the film. Murray insults the viewer's intelligence as a completely privileged subjective prankster who goes unquestioned by the subjects in the film.

So obvious its a fake! A bunch of sloanes got together and tried to make an oh so profound statement to counteract the boredom of buying endless pairs of beige chinos at Gap. Has all the depth of a daz advert, the acting throughout is dire and cringeworthy, couldn't watch it without wanting to stitch my face to the carpet. This proved a much more entertaining way to spend the night, I would recommend quite strong cotton, a steel needle, ice and white rum for the pain. Johnny Vaughn appeared in it twice, once on the back of a bus - why wasn't he under it? The main guy in it was an irritating prick , do we really need to see them on a screen, too many of them in the world, must mean they're breeding, buying toys at fops r us, a chelsea massacre - thats a film Id like to see.

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.