(Not possible spoilers, MAJOR spoilers, you can rest assured...) I'm writing this review because reading the other comments, I think this movie is being misunderstood by many people. Many people give it a low rating because of the ending which they see as a kind of cheap way to "solve the riddle".<br /><br />But actually, I think the ending is not a "solution" to a "riddle". The fact that Simon, the main protagonist, is dead at the end of the movie is not a clue to the story, it's rather the RESULT of the different choices he makes while time-travelling to the past.<br /><br />What I want to say is: according to me, the time-travelling is not some fantasy by someone in a coma, or someone in the process of dying. It is REAL (in the fantasy world of the movie). Simon starts out in hospital in 2002, being a victim, presumably of inhaling poisonous fumes while working in the house (but it is also suggested that this might be a poisoning attempt by his wife Anna). He lost his memory, but for some inexplicable reason gets caught in a continuous time-travel between 2000 and 2002. The significant thing is that he was in the same hospital in 2000, after the (rather unintentional) murder on his brother, and the car crash he got involved in together with his nearly dead brother (presumably while on the way to the hospital). Because of the car accident, he was able to cover up the murder, but got blackmailed by Anna, his future wife, who is after his money.<br /><br />At least, that's what we are told to believe.<br /><br />None of the "facts" in this movie are unconditional fact, namely. Almost anything that happened, could have happened in a different way if the protagonist would have made different choices while travelling to the past. I'm going to give a few examples of that.<br /><br />1. The road to the cliff vs. the road to the hospital: As we can see, originally Simon takes the road to the cliff after his brother's death (well, near-death). He clearly intends to throw his body down the cliff to simulate a suicide. However, his plan fails because some other car is there with a couple making love. After a long time, he decides to turn back. But it's not clear to what place. His house? The hospital? Has Claire already returned to the house and found the mess that is there or not? Anyway, when he had a "bad intention", Simon chose the wrong road, because it eventually led to him getting involved in a car crash, and Anna blackmailing him. When he had a "good intention" (when revisiting the past and trying to change things around), Simon chose the "good" road (the one to the hospital). And this turns out to be fatal, since he gets involved in a car crash with Claire (who is the classical blonde haired female character representing the "good") and dies just like everybody else.<br /><br />I think a strong suggestion is being made here that it doesn't really matter which road you take, the "wrong" one or the "good" one, since either everything is predetermined OR the real "wrong" (the murder) has already taken place.<br /><br />2. The unanswered phone call: We see the struggle between Simon and his brother Peter twice. The first time Simon, who is warped back to the past, sees himself getting involved in a struggle with his brother, which leads to Peter's unfortunate death. The second time, he is the protagonist himself and tries to prevent Peter's death, but unfortunately causing the exact same event to happen. Twice, we can hear an unanswered phone ringing. This is one of those points in the movie where you know that Simon made a "bad choice". I guess this phonecall is supposed to be from Claire, who has just left the house and is calling that she is on her way back.<br /><br />Actually, the fact that no one answers the phone in both cases might be exactly the reason why the fateful car crash appears in both scenarios (although in one of the scenarios, Simon survives and in the other, he doesn't): Claire decides to return because she is getting worried about Simon and/or Peter.<br /><br />Anyway, there are a lot more intriguing things in this movie that I cannot even discuss here. I'm giving it a 10 nonetheless, not because I think it is worth a 10 (I would give it a 7 or 8 or so), but because I find the general ratings given here ridiculously low (There's more to rating movies than only giving a 1 or a 10, people...).<br /><br />This is a haunting movie with a really nice, twisted plot, a lot of suspense (especially in the first part of the movie), overall decent acting (I thought the character of Anna and the guy waiting for a heart transplantation were done especially well), but rather uninspired music (although the sound effects are nicely done). I suspect that the fact that this movie was hardly ever promoted in the USA has more to do with the lack of appreciation here than anything else.