Between

Robert Nelms and Director David Ocanas have penned what was referred to at Sundance as a "metaphysical thriller." It almost works. The movie begins with a mysterious sequence of a woman seen only by her bare feet walking along a sidewalk in a Mexican city. Shortly thereafter, we are introduced to Nadine James, an attorney who soon learns that her sister is missing in Tijuana.

Although they were not close, Nadine is haunted by dreams of her sister, and immediately heads for Tijuana to try to find her. But it quickly becomes clear that what we are experiencing is not the linear and tangible reality we are all accustomed to. Dream-like sequences come and go. Events are repeated, but not exactly. Nadine runs into Kafkaesque characters in an Alice in Wonderland setting. On one level, she is playing the role of a detective, trying to unravel a mystery. But on another, she is clearly battling her own demons and trying to decipher the meaning of her own psychological flailings.

You get the feeling that Ocanas is attempting to follow the success of M. Night Shyamalan. But there are too many flaws in the script; too many contrivances. The tension drags on without building to a climax. Some of the clues are too obvious, and some absolutely elusive. Having said all that, I believe that thrillers need to play by a simple rule: At the end of the film, do I realize that I could have figured it out if I had been sufficiently smart and observant? And to be fair, Between passed this litmus test.

As an aside, at Sundance I sat next to the producer of the movie at its world premiere. He was coming out of his seat in excitement. (That's a great part of the fun at Sundance. There is so much anticipation and enthusiasm accompanying each movie.) Turns out I was right in the midst of the cast and crew. For many of them, including Ocanas, it was their first feature-length film. To their credit, this was an ambitious maiden voyage.

It is truly amazing that, a film as horrific as BETWEEN even gets accepted into a prestige festival such as Sundance. I am not mad at the director for making such a poorly produced feature (even though he owes me $10 and 2 hours of my life), I am confounded how this movie made it past the Sundance judges. There is NO doubt that it is who you know at Sundance.

Before the movie began at the Echols Center at Park City, I knew I was in trouble: the director steps up to the podium then tells the audience this: "Folks, you are going to see a movie with a lot of twists and turns. Please, stay with it, as I promise you, the BIG twist ending is something you will love!" I mean, how dumb was that? Not only was he telling us the movie has a big twist, he was also trying to justify the weakness of the film's story-telling, that we must "hang in there". Bad start.

The film itself is a monotonous thriller about a girl whose sister is missing in Tijuana. THe girl goes to Mexico in hopes to find her sister.

The movie's title is a dead giveaway of "the twist" after watching 20 minutes of this film. Also, a deposition scene gives the movie away BIG TIME. You HOPE you are being led down a different path, ie, the recent SAW or even SIXTH SENSE for that matter, but no, you are not. You are spoon fed the entire movie within 30 minutes. And, for all of you stupid people out there, there are even force fed FLASHBACKS just in case you didn't get what was happening.

THe group I was with were constantly looking at their watches. Even a bunch of people got up and walked out.

DO NOT waste your life or $$ with this film.

On the other hand, the short film MOTEL that preceded BETWEEN was one of the best shorts I have ever seen. Now the guy who directed this DESERVES to work in this town. I would hope that the director of BETWEEN would give him $9.99 from the $10 I gave to him.

Can you put it together? In the same way a puzzle begs this simple question, so does the cinematic mind bend BETWEEN. From the first several seconds of the intro, cut by dramatic scene leaps & use of black and white to color, the film begins to offer us one jagged piece after another. And this is how we are pulled from our seats and strapped into what this film is selling, an entertaining and intellectual challenge. The general theme of one woman's physical and psychological journey, wrapped in a cloak of conspiracy and love, is offered in well thought out doses that keep us hooked as we catalog the pieces. It may be almost impossible to gather them all your first time through (I've seen it three times), but when we step back at the end of the film, with just a little help from director David Ocanas, the picture emerges. We are left partially satisfied, and overwhelmingly in immediate need of a second loop to gather the pieces we are sure we missed! Pierced with beautifully shot scenes across gritty Tijuana, this film is a visual and cleverly weaved intrigue that cannot be missed…several times!

Director David Ocañas and co-writer Robert Nelms have made possible a somewhat simple and straightforward metaphysical film. Simple as it could have been, the plot is made unnecessarily complicated for the sake of dramatic and suspensive effects. There is a handful of psycho-philosophical ideas but not many well-developed. Yet, the movie is successful to some extent. Still, the film hangs from a thread so delicate like that of a ripen apple on a tree.

What is someone thinking when he or she is dying? Without giving up the end of the movie which in reality, as in unfinished dreams, paradoxically starts where it begins, David Ocañas directs a film which happens to be a somewhat good exercise in the inimitable Alfred Hitchcock classic suspense or the Psycho-liked psychological thrillers. That is how the movie is successful. Not only that, the scriptwriters had in the back of their mind, or perhaps in front of them, the film Six Sense where a child says, "I see death people." Or better yet, the director was supported by the works of the great Czech writer Kafka. This is case of memorable art. But there is also artwork that is like a bad dream and one wants to assure oneself that it never happened. I vividly remember Joseph K., who we know nothing of, who has just come from a distant town to a mysterious and new city in search of something that we, detail by detail, get to know. He has come to let himself in the castle who symbolizes what Between couldn't make justice to– the problem of reality, of death and dying, and of the metaphysical anguish of being alone in this godless world. The city of Tijuana and its visitors are a bad parody of The Castle.

Further, I believe that directors like Hitchcock or the Wachowski brothers can be –almost– imitated by good film maker. But it is a desperate and overwhelming task that of imitating great literature in cinematographic scenes. And everything is worth seeing in Between. We can see, for example, that literature is insuperable and that films are for entertainment. Even well-intentioned films can't portray what good literature portraits: men and women caught between one thing or another, whether it is human emotions or the never ending problem between the divine and human, reality and dreams, good and evil, innocence and guilt.

Despite its shortcomings, could I say that I like it? The movie tries to depict life after death, or between here and there. A movie like Between makes a serious theme like the after death experience a common place and makes it no more than forgettable entertainment. Did I like Between because the movie beings where it ends, with a barefooted woman, walking towards her immortality? After this scene, the mystery supposedly begins: there is a woman who when either when alive had an identity problem or is dreaming all the scenes while agonizing. Is there anything new in having a woman go on a journey (in real life, she wouldn't make too far into the city of Tijuana without falling prey to the real demons surrounding big and furious cities) looking for a sister whom, according to clues in form of clichés, does not exist. From the beginning I suspected that she only exists in the mysterious visions of the dying woman.

Dreams and reality, being caught between death and life, are subjects that need to be taken separately if one is serious enough to examine them. That is not one of the discoveries of Between; it fabricates a mind-twisting mystery, only to unravel it (mysteries that are deep inside ourselves can never be decipher and that is the beautiful human experience) and discover that it was only a psychological break down of a woman near the end of her life.

Also, the reality in Tijuana is not what is being portrayed in Between. What is a beautiful woman doing in a desert almost without being noticed, first wearing a plain white dress and after that wearing a plain red dress? We all know that it can only happens in dreams. But good movies who play with black and color, with dreams and reality, are successful at making the dreams seem real, so that one is almost certain that the dream is as true as reality seems to be.

As a psychological film, Between wouldn't even had made Freud proud. Is the meaning of death deciphered by having dreams or visions –and revisions– of a lost sister? I think this phenomenon should now be called the Sister-complex. In contrast the Matrix, even when it felt short of being aesthetic acceptable –great works of art imitate nature and not machines– was much more accurate than what Between tried to depict. Between is a theory that never let us see any evidence to support the claim that dreams, and mind-made mysteries are part of the dying experience. On the other hand, Between would have sadden the french philosopher Descartes who claimed that the mind can live without the mind.

When it comes to sound and picture, I can say that all was astonishing. In most movies there is no suspense without sounds. These tricks benefited this film. I dare to say, after all, that I liked the clues that keep the moviegoer wondering. First it is Valentines' day. There is a letter found inside the zinc pipe. A bus and collection of clocks, repetition of phrases and scenes. And there is the woman-Oracle, who is directly taken from The Matrix.

I believe that the greatest achievement of this movie is its impeccable déjà Vu. It reminded me of all good and bad movies I have ever seen. Perhaps that is a good thing. And in the mind of moviegoer, Between will soon be nothing else but a pleasant déjà Vu.

All these comments on here before the "real" comment listed below have GOT to be studio plants made up for this movie to get any sort of distribution. This was one of the films I was unlucky to see at Sundance and it was wretched. It will be lucky to get a straight to video release. The only thing going for it was Poppy Montgomery, who looked to be at least trying hard in this piece of garbage. Mainly she was just good eye candy.

I too noticed the director coming to the podium, distraught probably from previous screenings, warning the audience that they may want to get up and leave but to stick it out. What???!! The only thing that crossed my mind at that point, was "Uh oh, what have I got myself into?" No suspense or atmosphere created and the movie couldn't have ended with more of a disappointment. The only ride that this movie took you on was the fact that you were just guessing what the twist ending would be. Nothing else mattered, no good buildup or anything.

Shame on these producers or studio plants or whatever just trying to shamelessly plug a horrible movie.