lyrafowlpotter I watched this film on Vudu on a whim about a month ago, I was looking for mysteries or thrillers and I stumbled upon this film somehow, and I have not been able to forget it since. It sounded weird and out there(it is), it seemed like it would be way outside the mainstream thematically and tone-wise as a film (which it is), and I tend to enjoy movies that are a bit out on a limb and not your every day fair, that stretch the boundaries of storytelling. This has a linear plot line, but much of the details of things are revealed in a very unconventional fashion, and in a non-linear way without being confusing, which is a feat in and of itself. This is not a perfect film, but it is also a very memorable one. I also would challenge the statement of others that the length of this film is the problem and that the second half of the film falls apart. I actually found the second half of the film quite a bit more compelling than the first half, and things really picked up at the half way mark, as we begin to understand more about the night David's wife dies. The whole film is built around this premise, if it intrigues you, watch it, if it doesn't, don't I loved the idea of the drug and experiencing other's memories, it is still a very unique idea, and the way that he has to do it makes it very hard, it is not just simply taking a pill either. If you are off-put by the idea of a man using an untested drug that induces the memories of other people for the purpose of solving a the murder of his wife(that is not a spoiler, it's in the description) framed as a bit of neo-noir with sci-fi elements and very much a murder mystery, walk on. I am shocked that anyone walking in to this film would be surprised by the weirdness of this film given it's unusual premise. The main negatives that keep this from a full 10 stars is somewhat cheap feel at times. First, the cinematography and lighting does very well in setting the tone in the beginning, and in the end, but in other middle parts of the film, it is it's weakest least because of a cheap look, that is the best way to describe it. The second thing is that in some sections the tone is slightly confusing due to some hammy acting from particularly person who feels grossly out of place in this film, Christopher McDonald, who feels very out of place as Steward. Everyone else does a great job in the acting department, especially Ray Liotta, Peter Coyote, and Kim Coats (he is surprisingly sinister and yet very human at times), and actually McDonald isn't bad, I am just guessing he got this crossed with "Happy Gilmore" since they were filmed around the same time, and his performance is quite hammy, though I suppose it does provide a slight reprieve from the ultra-serious tone of the film. There two things, unfortunately, give the film a somewhat uneven tone, especially in the middle, but it is not bad enough that it hurts the film overall. There are shades of this film in other later films, I watched "Frequency" for one is very similar in many ways, I cannot say what they are without a spoiler though. Even Cronenberg's "eXiStenz" seems to use very similar ideas and tone. This is not to say if you like those films, you will enjoy this, as this film is not much like either of them in terms of the actual films, they just have similar elements.I did enjoy the fact that Ray Liotta is not cast as the villain for a change. This film is a heck of a lot better than another Ray Liotta film where he generally plays a good guy, which for me, was middling and kind of boring for the most part. Other than these two films and "Field of Dreams" or even "Goodfellas" it is very hard to think of a film where Ray Liotta plays a good guy, and after watching this film especially, it is very clear he is more than capable of it. Although, even though David is a good guy, he does a lot of questionable things, and there are consequences to his actions, which makes this a very believable role for Liotta. The other actors, for the most part do an admirable job, Peter Coyote is very much worth noting, and was far and away the best performance outside Liotta's, even if the rest of the cast are generally very good actors, they are just not given enough to work with, as the central focus is really on David's hunt for his wife's killer. This is a very unique film, and if you enjoy off-beat or unusual films, then you will enjoy this. I was engrossed the entire time, except in the little bits with Christopher McDonald, that through the vibe of the whole film off a bit, not enough to ruin the film.. It is somewhat violent, and it is a fairly tense film in parts, it is rated R for a reason. God Bless ~Amy

geenam I recently saw this movie although it was released in 1996. I was pleasantly surprised by Ray Liotta's performance. Usually he plays such a bad guy. However, I enjoyed that his character showed some emotion.There are a lot of twists and turns in this movie and you will be surprised at the ending. The storyline is far fetched, but you will enjoy it. However, the movie at two hours, is a bit long and they could really have cut out a half hour. There were times I thought the movie could have ended, but it went on and on...All in all, a good movie.

Bob-45 "Unforgettable" has a great first first hour, as Ray Liotta tracks down the man he believes to be his wife's killer. He is greatly aided by Linda Fiorentino, playing against type as a slightly mousy scientist. Linda has developed a drug which, when mixed with another person's spinal fluid, enable Liotta to experience key traumatic experiences in that other person's life.Unfortunately "Unforgettable" becomes so convoluted in the second hour, a viewer may lose interest. I certainly did, though stuck it out for the fairly predictable conclusion.I give "Unforgettable" a "6".

dbdumonteil There have been harsh words about this "unforgettable",probably exaggerated.This could be some kind of update of "spellbound"(1945) and it recalls sometimes" D.O.A. "with Dennis Quaid and Meg Ryan (1988) ,and even "Jennifer eight"(1992)with Andy Garcia (the latter for the murderer's identity).Except for Hitchcock's classic,of course , the movies I mention had disastrous reviews.And however,they have much more imaginative scripts than ,say,"die hard" (one,two or three,take your pick,they are interchangeable)Script for "unforgettable" is more polished than it has been given credit for.It's stunning when,in the end,the two stories come together,this time recalling "dead again" (K.Brannagh ,1991),another movie with an unfairly mediocre reputation;only 2 stars and a half on the Maltin!OK ,the plot for "unforgettable" is far-fetched,but it has an intern logic,and anyway,is it less credible than B.Willis singlehandedly taming a whole bunch of terrorists ?(Die Hard is rated 3 stars!)Ray Liotta is an actor whose parts are not always worthy of himself.He's convincing here:during the whole movie,his face remains sad,wistful,as if he were waging an almost lost war.He rarely smiles,except when he's with his daughters.Linda Fiorentino,once she's provided Liotta with her drug,is not very important for the action (definitely not Ingrid Bergman in "spellbound").And we will be very thankful to Dahl for sparing us the umpteenth love affair between the patient and his doctor.More,we have here a very original ending,marred by the syrupy eponymous song though.It might be a happy end,after all,and which justifies the title.All in all,it's an entertaining movie,mixing smartly sci-fi,thriller,and whodunit.It could become a sleeper.