Inconceivable (2008) User Reviews

tiresome style and flat repetitive story

[SnoopyStyle · 2/10 · 27 January 2018]

Dr. Freeman (Colm Feore) runs a fertility clinic in Vegas. Over a weekend, eight out of nine cases deliver a baby. Sally Marsh (Jennifer Tilly) is the only failure but she seduces the doctor. Tutu Williams (Elizabeth McGovern) notices the similarity in the babies and investigates the possible malpractice.

The only thing going for this is the cast. It's filled with interesting actors. The plot moves slowly and story telling is very repetitive. Every step is taken a dozen time. The first step should be DNA tests on the babies but the movie doesn't touch it. The camera and editing style is over-the-top which is ill-fitting for this movie. It's not an action movie. It's some kind of bad flat writing trying to be an experimental thriller. There are interesting tidbits about the clients but it's well into the second hour before it's revealed. When the style doesn't drive you nuts, the pacing would bore you to tears. There is also the ridiculous reveal where unbelievable incompetence is the explanation. When the character can't explain it, the movie has no chance.

A Medical Anomaly

[zlarvixen · 3/10 · 7 April 2019]

This film's plot struck me as very unique and almost nightmarish. The atmosphere created by the editing and camera work really felt overpowering, as if I were watching a psychological thriller rather than a satirical drama. The structure of the choreography was something I've never seen in any other film, and the mysterious aura that is created around the Doctor played by Colm Feore really tingled my skin.

His charisma was evident from the beginning, but something about him from the split second he started talking told me he's up to something sinister. This movie honestly could've done a better job to make the end result more unpredictable, because I'll be damned if there's someone who couldn't figure it all out by the time it reached halfway. The ten patients had an interesting cast, but they had very little to work with as the repetition of their seemingly identical experiences only gave way to highlight their hollowness as characters in general.

The fact that it's set in Las Vegas seemed very out of place, due to the gambling and money scamming reputation known for the city. Of course, this might have been a dead giveaway that something was up. The fact that a movie reaching just under 2 hours would only be about whether conceiving a baby was medically possible seemed too simplistic, so I knew that there must be some villainous twist to its story.

Overall, it was a pretty bland film. Its theme had potential, but the way its been carried out did not seem to be that effective. The ending just made me think how childish and incompetent the Doctor was for all of this, considering it was the purpose for his profession. It had no deeper meaning to it, just the fact that things aren't always what they appear to be. The kind of plot that would work better as a short story rather than an actual 2 hour long film.

Abusrd

[rgcustomer · 5/10 · 30 January 2010]

This film is a classic example of why I hate what has happened to Canadian film.

On the upside, you have some talented and/or notable actors: Colm Feore, Jennifer Tilly, and some others I recognize only by face (and still know only by face, because the character names are irrelevant and the characters are throwaway, so I can't even match them up on IMDb).

This apparent make-work project was funded in part by the Canadian Film or Video Tax Credit, an Ontario film tax credit, and Telefilm Canada. And yet, it was not filmed on location in Canada -- only the UK and Nevada. It wasn't even SET in Canada. Go figure. I don't know whether to praise them for actually filming on location for once (in Nevada at least, don't ask me what the UK stuff was for because it wasn't in the plot) or curse them for funding what is essentially a foreign film with Canadian tax credits.

The editor in this film needs to be called out for exceptionally bad editing. On the one hand, the film would have been better as a short. It is about an hour too long for the story it tells, given that there is absolutely no characterization. We see lots of shots of blurry traffic lights. Lots of mysterious medical stuff. Even the opening credits drag on and on and on such that you might actually miss the movie title. Then there's the endless repetitions (on the order of 10 times each) of the women individually getting embryos implanted, the women individually looking at pictures of children, the women individually reacting to news, the women doing this, the women doing that. WE GET IT ALREADY, **** IT!!! At the same time, most of the shots in the film last for about 2 seconds. The longest one that I noticed was about 5 seconds. It's like watching a really bad music video with no music. Last, the scenes were presented in what appeared to be a random order. Even what ultimately turned out to be flashbacks were not in order. It was very confusing for the group I watched it with.

And can I just say that the sound was awful? What's with the random whooshing and gurgling effects? How does that add to anything at all? Were we at sea and I just didn't notice? I'm pretty sure Las Vegas is in a desert.

The plot of course is completely absurd in several ways.

1. Anyone who has ever had to give a urine sample in their life knows that when you give that sample (surely just as when you give a sperm sample) you are given a pre-labeled container so there can be no mistake, or even better you actually write your name yourself on the container. There is very little room for error, unless you yourself make the error, and that almost requires intent.

2. For a clinic serving apparently only 10 or so couples, why would there ever be 10 rooms in which to obtain samples, and why would they all be occupied at the same time? Floor space costs money. Rooms cost money. They would have at most three rooms, and the men would be scheduled some time apart to allow for cleanup in between.

3. We are told several times that the children look not just like siblings but like twins, or like they all have the same mother, not just the same father. And yet, this is not resolved. Surely someone would have wanted to know whose eggs were actually used, given the screw-ups with the sperm. It would have made for a more interesting film if the women had turned out to in fact all be, or mostly be, involuntary surrogates.

4. We're supposed to believe that all of these people (and the gay men in particular, because they obviously have no relation at all to the kids) do not file suit, and do not press charges against the doctor, the assistant, and the clinic? Are you kidding me? These people went to great lengths to have children biologically related to them. If they wanted to adopt, there are many babies in the US, and frankly from around the world (Haiti, anyone?) that could be adopted. They did not want that. There was no indication during this film that they had changed their opinion about that once the children were born. Keep in mind that whoever sues first is going to get the cash, leaving the rest without any way to recover, and certainly without any inheritance from Dr. Dad, the super-sperm factory.

So no, I didn't like it.

HORRIBLE

[spab-4 · 1/10 · 21 January 2018]

The editing of this movie literally nauseated me. That's the best thing I can say about it.

good intentions

[Kirpianuscus · 21 May 2017]

a strange film. because the theme, the tension, the message are good points for a movie who gives questions and propose generous subject for reflection. the only sin is the absence of story. all seems be just improvisation. the theme becomes unrealistic more and more and the fall is predictable. because it is not escape for an exercise who ignore basic , decent details. result - the effort of actors becomes insignificant and the story more than absurd. sure, the good intentions are noble. but, in this case, they are sterile.

Compelling and Confusing

[racliff · 6/10 · 9 December 2016]

Inconceivable is not a movie I had heard of before but Jennifer Tilly draws my attention. This production style has ten individuals or pairings of clinic patients interact as a group, and we are invited to watch the story unfold in an asynchronous presentation. The group have an unrealistic conception success rate and a medical review takes the viewers back and forth through several months of these peoples lives.

I found myself often confused where I was in the story and every time the setting changes, the experiences of all ten are displayed. I'm looking for the differences for the differences of feelings or responses from the ten, but mostly wondered why does the movie want me to watch all ten going through basically the same motions. This repetition maybe the only reason the movie is compelling at all.

Ultimately the movie feels like it's 20 minutes too long. The Las Vegas setting feels like a silly place for a fertility clinic unless the satire of the story is trying to make concept of taking a gamble more conspicuous. There is little which is believable about the story, and maybe that was an intention point -- we should be cautious about any technologies involving life and death choices.

While I can't really recommend anyone search out this title, it was a satisfying distraction for an afternoon.

good intentions

[Vincentiu · 21 January 2014]

and a chaotic result. a film about a delicate problem. without real mistakes because its basic idea seems be an error. a film about an accident. unrealistic. fake. so, only solution to impress is the cast. but it is not enough and, in this case, the pressure to Geraldine Chaplin, Lothaire Bluteau or Colm Feore to do a decent work , to make credible a story who has any sense is almost impossible. the good intention of Mary McGuckian is obvious and , in few scenes, admirable. but that movie is not less an experiment. it is only pure chaos in a too long product , a thriller who represents only seed on rock field. and the most delicate problem is the fragile theme who, in this case seems be ridiculed.