Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Borserie it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Patrick McCart Suture is a beautiful film... great B&W 2.35:1 (Super-35) photography and keen editing. The performances are excellent. Everything is great except for one thing: It relies on such a suspension of disbelief that becomes distracting throughout the film. Don't get me wrong. Dennis Haysbert has the best performance in the film. But I feel that it was a bad idea to make the whole plot hinge on everyone mistaking a black man for a white man. I understand the reason why it was done, but there's no motivation for this.This gimmick ends up being as distracting as Bela Lugosi's stand-in for Plan 9 From Outer Space. There's no reason why the two would be confused with each other, obviously. However, it's never indicated WHY the use of two actors with opposite races would be confused with each other. I wouldn't have a problem with this if they didn't constantly show us how different they are. Vincent mockingly says they look the same (meaning they don't). The plastic surgeon watches a tape and views photographs of Vincent repeatedly. We basically have to let it pass that no one can recognize just basic features of the two (Vincent's gaunt face and receeded hairline). This gimmick was used perfectly in Luis Bunuel's That Obscure Object of Desire - two actresses play the same character for no reason. But that's a surrealist comedy. It almost feels like the directors put the gimmick in Suture just for the intent of being distracting. That's nice, but it's like keeping a hand over half of the lens for a whole reel to show blockage. It's nice, but it gets old.The use of the making the actors completely oblivious to something obvious to the audience can only work in something like a comedy or at least a film that doesn't take itself seriously. This is why Weekend at Bernie's can work, because it's so silly. Suture doesn't seem to be a movie meant to be taken as a jokey film. Maybe it's a parody of art-house films and we just can't accept that.This film basically shows that the switch of a driver's license is enough to switch identities. I really think that without this misfired gimmick, it would have been a great film. Or at least making it a comedy would have worked.

allar100 The thing that makes this film kind of odd, is the fact that they use two completly differant looking people to be confused as the same person. While it is kind of a bothersome gimmick at first, it grows on you, and you soon forget it. Not bad, there is some good acting, and I kind of like the fact that it was in black and white. This is not for everybody though.

joybran2000 A masterpiece of black and white Cinemascope, a brilliant use of the format. Every frame is beautifully composed with meticulous production design and art direction. It is so stylized that perhaps only ardent cinephiles can really appreciate it. The story is about a rich murderer who discovers that he has a long lost brother who looks so much like him that, if he is killed by a car bomb (in the murderer's car, in his clothes, carrying his identification), nobody will guess it isn't the murderer. The innocent brother is so poor and naive that he allows himself to be set up, but, instead of dying, he survives with a smashed face and no memory. The justification for this implausible setup is the opportunity to explore the idea of identity by positing an amnesia patient who is fitted with a very different person's face and past. If this story had been told in a conventional way with color, a narrower screen size, realistic rather than stylized acting, and the casting of two actors who looked very similar, it would have made a reasonably interesting thriller. The brilliance lies in the artifice, especially in casting the wonderful Dennis Haysbert in a role written for his directly opposite physical type. The filmmakers seem to expect the audience to be able to watch the movie on more than one level. The story allows the audience to consider the obvious questions about the nature of identity, but the stylization allows the audience to consider the different questions about the nature of the film experience.

dbrunton I find it interesting how so many people would bother to try and draw deeper meaning from this low-budget, poorly acted, art film. It looks like it was put together by a rather ambitious drama major with some help from his friends.Of course there is a certain group (conspiracy theorists?) who go around thinking that "nothing is what it seems".Rather than come up with a real location or an expensive movie set the directors of this set could only find an abandoned car dealership to use as the protagonist's "mansion" Then they covered up the real furniture with sheets to try and make the place look like someone just moved in.If the definition of surreal is to take actors and have them read their line in a wooden fashion so that the audience doesn't think this is a real film, then this film qualifies.Having two people pretend to look alike when they obviously don't is neither interesting nor funny.This film is void of creativity, and is what happens when for lack of budget the producers take a stab at developing an art film with a cult following. They succeeded only it's a pretty small cult.