Bacchus, I think that's exactly the point. Rather than follow conventional editing techniques, Soderbergh doesn't clarify the relationship between past, present and future by means of continuity editing. The question of whether our past affects our future is what informs this film's editing.

Terence Stamp is an excellent actor, but I felt his English accent was overdone unnecessarily throughout the film, such that it almost became annoying (something I never thought I'd never say about English English). I was a bit disappointed with this film. I certainly wasn't on the edge of my seat, and didn't find anything very "thrilling". The plot and characters didn't develop much - both were quite boring. In reference to time, the main character was thinking over what had happened, etc, hence the disorderly manner of the scenes, people speaking and so on. When we think about past events, our minds are a mass of thoughts, often changing slightly each time we look back. We mostly try to sort these out, to keep them clear. That's how I understood it.

It had a good idea, I guess it was well executed as a film but the director had this vision of how it should be edited that didn't make any sense to me. Having said that, I still am glad I watched it, but still scratching my head as to why things were done the way they were. 7/10

Terence Stamp gives his usual good performance in this visually pleasing movie. I'm not sure though that I 'got' the message the director was sending. Good camera work. 3.5/5 Thank you linkers