Note to Chris Sivertson: You are not David Lynch. There is but one David Lynch in filmmaking, and you are not him. Never will be.
And nowhere is this more evident than in ghastly, painful mess of "I Know Who Killed Me," a thrill-less thriller full of oblique, clumsy symbolism and wretchedly poor scripting. If you need any further proof that Lindsay Lohan's career is in the loo, just look at this.
It opens with a girl at a strip club, then cuts to an identical girl, Aubrey (Lohan) who is sweet, quiet, studious and writes self-contemplative "literature."
But then Aubrey vanishes after a football game, and apparently got kidnapped by a serial killer. She's later found minus an arm and a leg. When her weird parents rush to her bedside, she claims not to be Aubrey. She says she's Dakota, a stripper working in a seedy club, and that she doesn't know anyone around her.
Of course, everyone thinks that this is some bizarre psychological problem. And, of course, it's not. As she struggles to convince everyone (except Aubrey's boyfriend) that she isn't Aubrey, Dakota tries to unravel three mysteries: who the serial killer is, where Aubrey has gone, and what the connection between the two is.
Well, it may be a mystery to Dakota, anyway. But any viewers who manage to stay awake during the first fifteen minutes will not only figure out the connection between the girls, but who the bad guy is. The whole twist ending is completely untwisted from the start, especially when your protagonist is saying absurd things like, "I know who killed me!"
But in the meantime, Siverton tries to evoke a Lynchian atmosphere with lots of symbolism, arty camerawork, and scattered plot threads that go nowhere.Read more ›
Was this review helpful to you?
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful
messy mixture of sadism and sillinessJuly 25 2009
Roland E. Zwick
- Published on Amazon.com
"I Know Who Killed Me" is a vile little horror outing that was designed as some sort of "comeback" vehicle for Lindsay Lohan back in early 2007. Needless to say, the movie did not succeed in that endeavor. Anything but.
Lohan plays Aubrey Fleming, an attractive, but relatively naive high school student who falls prey to a torture-crazed serial killer who manages to slice off a few of her limbs before she miraculously escapes his clutches. When she wakes up in the hospital, she believes herself to be a girl named Dakota Moss, some kind of fictional "alter ego" with a life straight out of a soft-porn novel - which provides us with ample opportunity to ogle the scantily-clad Lohan as she writhes around in slow-motion performing pole-dances at a sleazy strip joint. Is Aubrey, who is herself a writer of fiction, simply a victim of repression, a wild and free spirit so obsessed with being a "good little girl" that she`s allowed her true nature to remain buried in her subconscious all these years? And is the trauma she's undergone simply the vehicle through which that true nature can now come to the fore? Or is there another, less purely psychological explanation - let's say, symbiotic twins? - for this sudden shift in identity?
It doesn't really matter what the answers to those questions are, for this depressing foray into sadism, dismemberment and supernatural hocus pocus is poorly written, amateurishly acted and completely lacking in either thrills or common sense. Actually, the story itself might have had some validity had it not forced the audience to wallow in as much gratuitous unpleasantness as it does. But, as it is, whenever we begin to develop even the meagerest interest in what is happening, we're subjected to yet another round of stomach-churning bloodletting. Yuck.
39 of 48 people found the following review helpful
Mystery, mayhem, and pole dancingJuly 27 2007
- Published on Amazon.com
Brainy student Aubrey Fleming (Lindsay Lohan) disappears one night after a football game. She's found days later, barely alive and horribly mutilated. She doesn't recognize her parents or her name - she insists she's a stripper named Dakota. She goes home with Aubrey's parents to recuperate but is oddly uncooperative with the police investigation, claiming she never saw her kidnapper. She starts having strange dreams, violent flashes of an attack she doesn't remember.
This film has all the earmarks of a low-budget shockfest: pointless nudity, slashing violence, and dialogue that is so corny it's laughable. The script is so convoluted and wacky that when I wasn't covering my eyes from the gore, I was rolling them at the dumb things the characters did and said (the crew from Mystery Science Theatre 3000 would have had a field day with this flick).
I'm sure none of the actors will want to put this film on their resumes. Lohan doesn't put much effort into her acting but does wear an excessive amount of eye make-up and Julia Ormond (Legends of the Fall) is wasted as her long-suffering mother. The worst part of it is that the villain's motive is never explained (don't blink or you'll miss the perp altogether). "I Know..." has sickeningly graphic torture, the dullest pole-dance ever filmed, and a ludicrous plot. For strong stomachs only.
25 of 30 people found the following review helpful
What??Dec 2 2007
- Published on Amazon.com
I know who killed my Sunday night...About two thirds into the movie my boyfriend and I are trying to figure out if this was some kind of joke. EVERYTHING about the film towards the end (the 'twist', the cheesy horror music, the acting - and yes that does get worse, etc) is so thrown together and amazingly awful that any merit the first hour could have given the movie is shot. It was like the director ran out of money and just threw together something so he could technically have a movie. I don't even want to try to understand the point of this film or if there was any artistic value in it. I basically think the point was for Lohan to parade around on stage doing a number much resembling Britney Spear's Gimme More video and people would pay to watch it because she was in it. Obviously I am disappointed because it did begin with much promise. I am just amazed somebody thought this was okay to release to the public.
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful
Requiescat In Pace, Lindsay Lohan's acting careerNov. 28 2007
- Published on Amazon.com
It is difficult and probably pointless to watch "I Know Who Killed Me" and not think about all of Lindsay Lohan's personal problems this past year. When the DVD was loading and the obligatory boilerplate warning about the commentary track came up my mind immediately started a riff about Lohan doing such a track, wailing and moaning about how everybody is out to get her and wondering why nobody likes her. The movie cost $12 million to make and grossed $7 million, but even though pretty much nobody went to the theater to see it last summer I am sure the studio will make back its money on those of us who rent it just to see the final nail in Lohan's acting career (maybe not forever, but at least for the foreseeable future). I have the nasty suspicion that more people who hate Lohan will buy a copy of "I Know Who Killed Me" than will her fans.
Lohan plays Aubrey Fleming, a budding pianist and high school student who disappears after a football game. Several young women have been abducted from the area lately and the police suspect a sadistic serial killer who has been maiming his victims, which worries Aubrey's parents (Julia Ormond, Neal McDonough), and her boyfriend, Jerrod (Brian Geraghty). The opening act of the movie fast forwards what would be your basic torture porn horror film to get to the point where Aubrey is found, but when she wakes up in the hospital and is confronted with the extent of her mutilation, she insists she her name is Dakota Moss (a poorly chosen name since it invites comparisons to both Dakota Fanning and Kate Moss that do nothing for Lohan). I find this to be a rather interesting premise, to have a victim so traumatized by what has happen to them that they take refuge in another persona. But this 2007 film wants to play with the idea that there is another explanation for what is going on here; in fact, it offers a couple of different hypotheses.
Lohan's performance is pretty bad, which I think has to do with the fact that she is badly miscast here. This film is also hurt by the scenes of Dakota as an exotic dancer because there is no nudity and the eroticism displayed by Lohan at the club is less than you would expect form a made for TV movie. This ain't Demi Moore embracing her role in "Striptease," that is for sure. By the time Dakota shows up for a pole dance with nipples painted on her bustier, I was wondering if maybe the point is not that this is bad girl Dakota dancing but good girl Aubrey's simplistic idea of what dancing at a strip club is like. The film's sex scene is quite bizarre for several reasons (e.g., the comic counterpoint with the mom cleaning the kitchen sink), but the paradoxical nature of sex in this film comes up again as her character keeps her bra on for most of it (something that is quickly becoming a cliche in movies). I find this ironic, because I would double down on a bet that the next time Lohan appears on film she is going to have to do actual nudity because her next offer will be an exploitation film that fames this one look like classic cinema (i.e., yeah, it can get worse, Lindsay, a whole lot worse).
The torture porn scenes are disquieting, but ultimately wrong for this movie, which needed to be done more in the Hitchock tradition than that of Eli Roth or whoever Chris Sivertson is trying to emulate. Even then, I am not sure if that would work for a film that really is an exploitation film at heart, by which I mean that it is a twisted tale of the sort that exists only in grindhouse cinema. If the story were the story here, instead of the lead actress, then maybe this movie would work better, but the movie is saddled with Lohan and the tragic farce her life has become, which overshadows such mundane concerns as whether anybody in the local police department ever bothered to check fingerprints. But the story by novice screenwriter Jeff Hammond does try to do something different, and even if it ultimately fails in that regard it should at least be considered on its own merits. The problem becomes that it takes us a long while to become convinced that this movie is about what it ends up being about; I was into last act before I finally understood it really was going in that direction.
The special features on the DVD include not only an alternate opening and an alternate ending, but also an extended strip dance and bloopers (I am not making that order up). I was almost tempted to take off another star on this train wreck just because of the special features, since the alternate ending speaks to a lake of artistic vision by the director and the extended strip dance qualifies as adding insult to injury. The sexy dance is not sexy, the bloopers are not funny, and in the end the big quandry is whether in the final analysis "I Know Who Killed Me" was hurt or helped by Lohan's presence. Of course, if this indeed proves to be Lohan's last film, the biggest irony would be how she has come full circle from her first one.
16 of 21 people found the following review helpful
Maybe not as bad as you heard, but still terribleFeb. 8 2008
- Published on Amazon.com
There are many reasons for my 1-star rating, which is something I don't normally do. Prior to this I only rated a movie 1-star three times before and I also very rarely rate a movie 5-stars even if I loved the movie. While there are a couple of 2-star reviews that I think this movie might be better than the reason I give this one star is simple; I Know Who Killed Me attempts to be an intelligent and clever thriller, but instead ends up being idiotic.
Right now the reviews out there are quite bad and you might ask yourself is it really that bad? Well and yes and no. This isn't the worst movie of the year, but it's still really bad. The thing is the movie tries to be smart and it fails. Also there are a few ways you can see this movie on what actually happened, I cannot get into detail as it would ruin the movie, but who really cares if this is spoiled? But I still won't get into detail, but the problem is the movie is so horribly presented most of these things will be lost on you unless you pay full attention and well that's quite tough to do.
Right now Lindsey Lohan is getting a lot of heat and personally I thought the negative reviews were due to that. I wasn't expecting a great movie, but a better one than I got. But the reviews are mostly legit this was a bad movie. About the only good thing I can say is the stripping scenes by Lohan only she's not naked. How can you make a movie about a stripper and not show her nude? Regardless when that is the only good thing about the movie you know there is trouble.
Writer Jeffrey Hammond wrote a terrible screenplay. He tries to be smart and fails all the way. The script is idiotic and the characters are mostly terrible. They have no depth and well nothing going for them. If not for casting some semi-known actors you wouldn't remember who was who. The idea wasn't bad, but so horribly written. The investigation was the weakest parts.
Director Chris Sivertson fails at brining any suspense or tension, but in fairness he didn't have much of a script to work with. In film it's more about the director, while in TV it's more about the writing, but you still need a passable script and in TV need a decent director. Quite honestly Alfred Hitchcock could have directed this and ok maybe the movie would have been better, but still would be a total mess. The visual look was interesting and the use of colors were some what interesting, but it seems like Chris Sivertson was trying to a little Argento, don't try it. You aren't him. The final act where it was more suspense was really week. There was no sense of pacing at all, while the final act wouldn't salvage the movie it could have at least shown some potential the movie had. I would be open to seeing another movie by Chris Sivertson to see what he is capable of. He was failed by a script and there was no way he could save the movie.
The acting was fairly decent; there were some good actors here, but none have anything interesting to say, but do their best on selling it. Gregory Itzin surely could do better than this. He's been around for a while, but recently his star rose from playing Charles Logan on the hit show 24. Thankfully his role was small, shame to see such a talented actor like him stuck here.
Lindsey Lohan takes a lot of heat and honestly I think a lot of it is personal. Remember when Lindsey first started to make a name for herself? She was the cute kid with potential, than the cute teenager with potential, but once she got a little wild the media turned on her and made her into a villain and sadly the public buys into it. What Lindsey Lohan does on her own time is her business; judge her acting based on her performance and not her private life. Lindsey does well here and I think has potential to be an excellent actress in the future, but she just has to get on the right track. It seems these days she's famous for being famous. But the girl does have talent and hopefully she doesn't blow it.
Again I think Lindsey Lohan gave a good performance, but she took on the wrong role. I understand she wants to break away from the roles she was doing, but this wasn't the movie to do that with.
In closing, I Know Who Killed Me is a lousy flick that tries to be clever and intelligent and fails at every level.