Suture (1993) Online

Suture ("a sewing together" according to my dictionary) has to be one of the cleverest films I have ever seen.

Definitely not to everyone's taste, it concerns two half-brothers Clay (Dennis Haysbert) and Vincent (Michael Harris) who meet up after their father's funeral. Clay is a poor construction worker whom the rich Vincent plans to kill. The idea is that Vincent is on the run for murder and he attempts to kill his half-brother in a car bomb explosion, planted with his identity so that he will be free to continue his life without harassment, the authorities believing Vincent Towers to be dead. Unfortunately for Vincent, his brother survives, and, an amnesiac, assumes his life and identity.

If all this sounds quite good, then you have to remember that Dennis Haysbert is black and Michael Harris is white, and they have no physical resemblance whatsoever. I've seen this film trashed even by professional critics, such as the British magazine writer David Quinlan who bemoaned that `no one seems to notice'. Of course, the very fact that no one seems to notice IS the point. If I were honest, I wouldn't state for certain that I know what message the film is trying to purport. In fact, so confused was I by it, that I took the unprecedented measure of reading the other user comments before I wrote mine. I normally avoid this practise to avoid unconsciously stealing another's words, but I had to get some fix, some general consensus as to what it's all about. Some interesting theories abound, including one very good point about the two being `Yin and Yang', explaining the black and white filming. (And in delightful cinemascope too!) It is suggested that race is not an issue in this film, though I feel the scene where Clay's plastic surgeon describes his face in Caucasian terms (`Roman nose… thin lips… straight hair') is a definite reference.

In fact, the film emerges as a search for the nature of identity, as well as the nature of racial perception. Of course, you could argue that what is a straightforward plot, doubtlessly tried many times before, is merely propped up by gimmickry. And occasionally the film does over-crank it's tools, such as the glorious moment when Clay is listening to Johnny Cash singing "Ring of Fire", turned down, so it's almost subliminal, before he himself is consumed by such a ring. However, this sublime moment is gatecrashed by Clay's trolley-dash to hospital being punctuated by a full-blast rendition of the same song by Tom Jones. This does, though, act as a nice coda to the piece much later, just as the prelude is effective. The idea that you could steal another man's life and possessions, even his face but never be able to become that man acts as the central thread. As you can see from this outline, it all becomes very complex and heavy going, though it's told in a slight, minimalist fashion so you never end up with too much of a headache. What makes this film worthy of a `7', even if you don't like the basic concept and theme, is the execution. Using excellent direction, which often consists of arial shots, not one scene is given over to bog-standard point-and-shoot techniques, where the camera is merely dumped in front of the actors and left to roll while the director goes off for a sandwich. (And this is no place to bring up The Phantom Menace). Especially worthy of note are the dream sequences, and the recovered memory sequences, which are starch and fuzzy like a damaged television screen. Also outstanding are the initial scenes that showcase the climax-to-be, where the two brothers must ultimately confront one another. Haysbert's dark skin contrasted with the pure white of the bathroom as the camera looks down upon him holding a rifle in a straight line ahead is a perfectly captured image. Also worthy is the off-beat acting style, very evocative of Soviet cinema in the sixties, the deliberately off-kilter and underplayed performances giving it all a continental air. For the sheer basic conceit of it's plot I would recommend anyone see this film. It is a testament to the fact that real talent in cinema often gets buried. The writer-directors have done little work since, this film making less than $200,000 in it's own country. Meanwhile the creators of production line cinema have mountainfuls of projects lined up for them with increasing regularity. A great shame.

Although the story arc of this film is fairly conventional (murder setup, memory trauma, induced impersonation, final double-ironic betrayal) it is the ominous mood and the spectacular, yet understated gamble that the writers and director take with the audience's expectation in making the central duo -brothers- utterly different racially and physically. It is so obvious a thing to point out, but for me this reaffirmed, via an otherwise rather easily-contrived situation and plot, the whole modern interpretation of the film noir.

The concept of all reality being a facade and prey to the unexpected warpings of fate, accident and whimsical doom-laden coincidence is a fundamental aspect of noir. With the twist of no one actually making the obvious connection between the brother's difference and Dennis Haysbert's character Clay gradually absorbing the life of his (not) dead brother without incident, the surreality of the film is magnetically compulsive and as noirish as some of the best films of the 1940s and 50s in dreamy, menacing atmosphere. I found myself deeply caring what happened to Clay on his odyssey towards a (false) identity and finally claiming it.

The whole cast is good, but in this film Dennis Haysbert shows the gravita s and dignity and vulnerability that makes him the real star of the excellent TV thriller '24'. A landmark film of the '90s gone unnoticed!

A masterpiece of black and white Cinemascope, a brilliant use of the format. Every frame is beautifully composed with meticulous production design and art direction. It is so stylized that perhaps only ardent cinephiles can really appreciate it.

The story is about a rich murderer who discovers that he has a long lost brother who looks so much like him that, if he is killed by a car bomb (in the murderer's car, in his clothes, carrying his identification), nobody will guess it isn't the murderer. The innocent brother is so poor and naive that he allows himself to be set up, but, instead of dying, he survives with a smashed face and no memory.

The justification for this implausible setup is the opportunity to explore the idea of identity by positing an amnesia patient who is fitted with a very different person's face and past. If this story had been told in a conventional way with color, a narrower screen size, realistic rather than stylized acting, and the casting of two actors who looked very similar, it would have made a reasonably interesting thriller.

The brilliance lies in the artifice, especially in casting the wonderful Dennis Haysbert in a role written for his directly opposite physical type. The filmmakers seem to expect the audience to be able to watch the movie on more than one level. The story allows the audience to consider the obvious questions about the nature of identity, but the stylization allows the audience to consider the different questions about the nature of the film experience.

A few years ago a friend and I were picking out a movie to watch. Since we had seen just about everything we decided to give this movie a try. The film ended up being a huge surprise to us, clever, well shot and nicely paced, with strong acting. This film is overflowing with Hitchcock style themes and also has a 1960s Twilight Zone feel to it. This was also the first time I have seen Dennis Haysbert (24, All State Commercials) in a film and he does a fantastic job. Some of the compositions and the overall cinematography are also handled with skill with some shots being smartly composed. What really made a lasting impression was the way the film handles reality, and the reality that the camera sees. Don't let the silly title and the black and white film stock keep you away from this unique movie.

The filmmakers have created a stylish suspenser that would make the master of suspense proud. Filmed in black and white, "Suture" weaves a tale of two brothers, one whom wants to use the other as a pawn for his devious scheme involving murder and mistaken identity. If I could mention two scenes that reminded me of Hitchcock, it would be these: 1) the first scene that sets up the film, and 2) Vincent explaining his dreams to a psychiatrist--reminiscent of "Spellbound." This is an excellent thriller that should be seen.

Working class Clay travels into the city to meet his wealthy half-brother Vincent for the first time. Their shared father has just been killed. Shortly after Gus arrives, Vincent announces that he must fly out of town overnight and Gus drives him to the airport. On the drive back Vincent sets off a car bomb to kill Gus, however Gus survives despite being badly disfigured. Believing him to be Vincent the surgeons rebuild his face and try to bring his memories back. However Gus finds he is now accused of murder (as Vincent) and that he has only strange dreams about a possible past life.

I have seen this twice in an attempt to try and break into the deeper issues that it alludes to. I have not been totally successful but this not to say that I think this is a bad film. The plot involves the complexity of personality. I first watching it thinking it sounded like a good set-up for a thriller – if you think the same then you may be let down. The plot is more about how our personalities are formed – are we an ID picture, are we who we chose to be? The split personalities and the dual aspects of the plot are best seen in the casting of the two main roles. At first I thought it was a lazy art-house trick to cast a black and a white actor as `similar brothers' but the metaphor is used quite well.

The problem with the film is that the inner themes are not fully explained (pr at least I found them hard to reach fully). I know roughly what it was saying but I would find it very hard to explain. This means that if you can't get inside the plot you are left with what's on the surface and this isn't enough. It moves slowly and appears to go nowhere in particular. But focus on the bigger picture and this will give you something to think about even if it fails to grip you for the whole running time.

Haysbert is pretty good – if fact all the cast are OK bu they all seem to know they're in an arty movie. The result is that they talk slowly, say big meaningful sentences and stare into the distance regularly. What saves this film is the direction. The use of black and white is superb, the framing of every shot is interesting and I was honestly transfixed by the bleak beauty of every shot. Things that would have been ordinary in colour are fascinating in this bleak frame. On top of this the music is good too – lots of classic music gives a cold, unsure feel to the film but the use of `ring of fire' is brave and, happily, comes off.

Overall is this for everyone? No. Is it worth a try? Yes. On my second viewing I feel that it has layers I'm yet to understand and fully appreciate. The visual aspect of the film alone is worth a watch. Although I suspect that the plot is not as deep or as clever as it thinks it is, I know that there is plenty ot be discovered about this. Give it a shot – I did and now am about to go and give it a 3rd watch.

The first time I watched "Suture", in 1994, it ripped through me like some kind of high speed extra-terrestrial spacecraft, and I found myself asking, "What was that?" A year later I watched it again and the whole thing began to make sense. This film is unapologetically bizarre, mysterious, and aesthetically engaging -- almost everything I desire in a film. It is more like a piece of music, becoming more enjoyable with each viewing. One reason for the films superb milage is that it can be enjoyed on so many different levels. It is both a mirror image of contemporary society and a message from some alternative universe. The Surrealists made the point that the transcendent is found in the mundane, and "Suture" wallows in the mundane. Must be seen more than once.

The construction worker Clay Arlington (Dennis Haysbert) meets his wealthy half-brother Vincent Towers (Michael Harris) in their father's funeral and sooner Clay travels from Needles to the city to visit Vincent. When Clay arrives, Vincent changes their IDs, gives his clothes to Clay and tells that he needs to travel but would be back on the next day. Clay drives Vincent to the airport in his car and Vincent explodes a bomb planted in the car. However Clay survives with amnesia and with his face and bones are restored by the specialist Dr. Renee Descartes (Mel Harris) that uses a video and pictures of Vincent to rebuild his face. The amnesic Clay assumes the identity of Vincent and learns that he is the prime suspect of Lieutenant Weismann (David Graf) for the suspicious murder of his father. Further, Renee and he fall in love for each other. With the support Dr. Max Shinoda ( Sab Shimono), Clay finally retrieves his memory and has to decide which life shall be buried.

"Suture" has a good story but the viewer shall buy first that the African American Dennis Haysbert and the Caucasian Michael Harris resemble each other. The plot has many flaws, and I believed that the brotherhood of Vincent and Clay had been kept in secret due to racial issues. Therefore, there is no explanation why the brothers have different social conditions having a wealthy father. And what about the fingerprints of Clay and Vincent, how could they match each other? The black and white cinematography is very beautiful and the camera work is excellent. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): Not Available.

I caught this film upon it's cinematic release, and thought it to be one of the freshest films for the whole of the 1990s. It was interesting to catch it again recently on BBC2, and find it still stands up well.

The nods to noir and Hitchcock are there for all to see. This partnership finally has another film (U.K release before 31/12/01) due out, and I await it with bated breath.

Suture is written and directed by Scott McGehee and David Siegel. It stars Dennis Haysbert, Mel Harris, Sab Shimono, Dina Merrill and Michael Harris. Music is by Cary Berger and cinematography by Greg Gardiner.

Identity is the crisis can't you see - X-Ray Spex 1978

Suture is an unusual film that on the surface hangs its chief premise on a most ridiculous concept. Yet what is most striking about the film's heart and soul is that it embraces a number of staple film noir narrative threads. Photographed in spanking monochrome, and featuring an unnerving musical score, this surreal like play works with a cheeky glint in its eye as it challenges the viewer's perception of the unfurling story.

Wrapped around a suggested agony of identity, Suture revels in films and styles of film making it is influenced by. Name checking them all is folly, but as the amnesia angle blends with surgical reconstruction, and the murder plot betrayal sidles up to the voiceover, other potent pics spring instantly to mind. And yet in a piece heavy on identity, Suture, in spite of its reliance on influences, does have its own identity, very much so.

It's quite a debut from McGehee and Siegel, one that begs the question of why they didn't go on to greater things? Here they have great camera craft, with close ups, overheads and frame blends in action, while there's some striking imagery and noirville shadow play to take in as mood setting accompaniments. It could be argued that much of it is highfalutin, and that the philosophical probing is overkill, but the film remains unique and intriguing, if not as remotely thrilling as one hoped. 7/10

I can remember the first time I saw this movie. I was watching and providing ratings part time for Joe Bob Briggs' newsletter. A box of VHS tapes would show, you'd watch them, send ratings and then pass them on to the next person. Watching this film at that time I didn't get it. It made no sense to me. A black man and a white man identical to one another? And yet it works now.

Two brothers, Vincent (Michael Harris) and Clay (Dennis Haysbert) meet at their father's funeral and are stunned at how near identical they look to one another. While Vincent has lived a life of wealth around his father Clay has been poor with less interaction. Vincent invites Clay to stay with him and he thinks things are looking up. Except that in reality Vincent intends to shoot kill Clay and leave his body behind to make everyone think he is dead.

Shot in the face, Clay survives the murder attempt. Dealing with amnesia Clay has had his features restored by Dr. Renee Descartes (Mel Harris). As he pieces together the remnants of his memory Clay is now mistaken for Vincent. Few have any idea that Clay actually existed. To complicate matters "Vincent" is the lead suspect in the murder of his father by Lieutenant Weismann (David Graf). As Clay slowly begins to put back together the memories of who he was he is faced with a question: does he go back to being poor Clay or does he take on the mantle of wealthy Vincent? And if so, what of the real Vincent? As I said when I first saw this I didn't get why anyone would think that Haysbert, a black actor, would think he looked identical to Harris, a white actor. The two look nothing alike. But this time around as I watched I saw the method to the madness. If you suspend belief and accept that these two are identical then everything falls into place. It is the concept that we, as an audience, are watching actors in roles rather than reality that sets their differences aside and allows us to accept them as the characters they are playing. Once you get past that then the story becomes a fascinating mystery.

Arrow Video has outdone themselves this time with a 4k restoration from the original camera negative. The presentation, shot in black and white, is crystal clear (unlike the old VHS version I saw years ago). Extras include an audio commentary track with writer/directors David Siegel and Scott McGehee, all new interviews with Siegel, McGehee, executive producer Steven Soderbergh, Haysbert, cinematographer Greg Gardiner, editor Lauren Zuckerman and production designer Kelly McGehee, deleted scenes, BIRDS PAST the first short film by Siegel and McGehee, the US trailer, the European trailer and a reversible sleeve with newly commissioned artwork.

I fully understand that this movie might not be for everyone but if you give it a chance, if you suspend belief, then you will end up having a movie worth discovering. It is the story that matters not the look of the actors telling it. That they are excellent actors helps with the momentum of the film. When viewed years ago I wouldn't have thought of watching the film a second time. Now it has become a part of my collection, a film to watch every now and then. It's that good.

Suture is a wry, if overly self-conscious, and relatively amusing rumination on race, subjectivity (of the Cartesian variety, and its attendant mind-body dualism), class mobility, and perhaps to a lesser extent, the American criminal justice system.

Comparisons to Hitchcock are misguided, as Suture better resembles, if pays homage to, John Frankenheimer's classic Seconds (1966). Yet whereas the latter explores fickle desire as constitutive of subjectivity as its protagonist transforms from beleaguered banker to artist playboy (a lateral move in terms of class), Suture considers subjectivity's more social aspects. It plays with filmic conventions such as black-and-white imagery and period costumes and scenery as denoting the past, while providing us with the central conceit of a race-blind society (mirroring perhaps our 'post-racial' one?) The difficulty or discomforting level of dissonance required to accept the film's premise, and the implications such a conceit has for the film's characters, is perhaps itself the 'message' of the film.

I'd recommend a triple feature, watching first Seconds, then Suture, then the documentary 13th.

Brothers Vincent (rich playboy) and Clay (average construction worker) meet up for the first time after their father's funeral and remark on how similar they look. But unknown to Clay, who thinks his life is taking a turn for the better, Vince is actually plotting to kill him with a car bomb and pass the corpse off as his own, planning to start a new life elsewhere with his father's inheritance.

Before the script was even written, those involved were looking into identity, paranoia and amnesia, and drew strong influences from Hiroshi Teshigahara's "The Face of Another", "Seconds" and "Manchurian Candidate", among others. (One of the writer-directors almost pursued a PhD in Japanese film, actually.) Mix that in with the tropes and cinematography of film noir, and you have the birth of "Suture", a minor masterpiece that anticipates such films as "Memento" (which unfortunately have overshadowed this).

Being an independent film, the budget was low, and the production ironically benefited from the recent S&L crisis and scandals. Shooting in Phoenix, they found some buildings closed down, including a bank that became Vincent's palatial estate. This was fortuitous, as the space works perfectly (I would never have known it wasn't an actual mansion.) Other corners were cut in more clever ways... watch close to see how they afforded blowing up a car -- they use an almost Troma-esque maneuver.

There seems to be a deeper message in the writing, with an obvious nod to Descartes, and a psychiatrist who seems overly reliant on quoting Freud. I am not sure what I missed. But you have to love the brilliance of the casting. Maybe I am a little bit daft, but it took me forever to get past the two brothers looking identical... while looking nothing alike. That was a purely genius move. (Not surprisingly, producers balked at the film's central "conceit" and their insistence of filming in black and white... this could easily have ruined some careers.)

The Arrow Video release is packed with goodies. Not only does it have the full-length audio commentary (with no less a person than Steven Soderbergh), but we have a 30-minute behind-the-scenes series of interviews with just about everyone. We have deleted scenes. And, perhaps best of all, we have "Birds Past", a short film from the directors that has very rarely been seen anywhere. This is a must-own film, and for true film geeks, you will want to listen to the commentary: there is as much discussion about this film as there is about film-making in general, with plenty of stories about "sex, lies and videotape", Terrance Malick, and more.

This film is like when you're sitting around drunk with your friends and some guy says something clever, and then you're like "Oh dude that would make a cool movie!" Then you wake up the next day and think "Wow, I was really wasted last night, what was I thinking"?

*SPOILER*

So, some scrawny old balding guy decides to kill his brother who is this big black guy. He slips his magical, indestructible drivers license into the black guy's wallet, and proceeds to blow him up. The dental records won't survive, but the ID card certainly will!

The black guy survives, but has amnesia. But somehow everyone mistakes the black guy for the white guy... Apparently, being in an explosion gives you black skin, African facial features, a full head of hair, and a different voice and personality.

Despite how insanely ridiculous this movie idea is, somehow the film continues to be completely predictable throughout. It's boring to boot.

If anyone can give me one good reason this film exists, please do.

But I will say the cinematography was pretty good/interesting.

"Plan 9 From Outer Space" is a brilliant accomplishment compared to this piece of crap. Whatever possesses some people to write reviews saying this movie has merit is beyond me. Whenever the discussion of the worst movie of all time comes up, I immediately think of this film "Suture". Some movies are so bad, they leave a vestigial imprint on your memory cells which one wishes could be obliterated. This is such a film. The visual imagery of having two individuals exchange identities, and then no one notices, is absurd. Nothing hangs together throughout the film. The script is preposterous. The miracle is the fact that funding was obtained, a greater miracle that the film was produced, unbelievable that copies are out there for you to rent, and mind-boggling that some people like it.

Since some of the reviews compared "Suture" to a Hitchcock, we watched it waiting for a rationale for why nobody seemed to grasp the lack of resemblance between the presumably half-brothers (one has distinct Afro-American features, the other does not). Could everyone here who pretended not to notice be in a conspiracy to cash in on the white brother's fortune? Didn't seem likely, since nobody was shown even suspecting, but we endured this bore to the bitter end just to find out. No MacGuffin. No relationship to Hitchcock. A complete waste of time, not only for the viewers, but for those involved in making the film.

Very excellent film. The choice of black and white to shoot the film was a very good idea. So was the casting of the 2 brothers. I believe they are chosen to look completely different (although in the narrative they are supposed to look identical) is that the director/writer wanted to show how different their personalities are. Perhaps this could not have been conveyed so easily if 2 actual twins were cast. The dreams with the metaphorical flashback triggers were very clver, i.e. needles in the arm/Needles the town. They don't make films this thrilling anymore unfortunately. Hitchcock couldn't have done this any better.

Anyway, this was an excellent film, check it out.

I had seen this movie about 10 years ago, liked it at the time, and was waiting for an HD version to appear to make my own copy. Lo and behold it came on today! Moreover, I just noticed Amazon carries a DVD that I simply have to include in my collection.

Had it not been for the obvious twist, this would simply have passed as a predictable crime drama involving one brother trying to pass off the responsibility and consequence of one of his own crimes on to the other.

The twist is that one of the brothers cast is black. However, his race, ANY racial overtones OR stereotypes, are EVER mentioned. EVERYONE plays it TOTALLY as if Dennis Haysbert were white. Or, more importantly, as if this has absolutely NOTHING to do with ANYTHING. The cinematography was crisp black and white which perfectly complemented the very unique question the film has posed to me ever since I first viewed it: Could we ever get to this? Haysbert and Dina Merrill (who for me were the biggest names here) give excellent performances driving a very interesting film that uses a simple crime format and elevates it into a thought-provoking and hidden gem that constantly forces the viewer throughout to take the chain offya brain! Seeing it again today reminded me of not so much the story but simply the possibilities it suggests.

I hiiiiiiiiiiiiighly recommend as a very worthy addition to any film library.

Excellent modern noir, though could've had a better ending as I will explain later. Elements of Hitchcock and David Lynch could be seen/felt, but definitely had it's own style. Acting was great, though not in a completely realistic way, more like the other worldly, slightly dreamlike delivery found in a Lynch film, but it didn't get as bizarre or unfathomable as Lynch often does (don't get me wrong, I love David Lynch!). Direction, Cinematography and Editing, again, excellent. So many interesting shots and sequences.

A lot has been said about the choice of actor for Clay and the fact that everyone in the film sees the brothers as identical. My interpretation is that they ARE identical twins and that there just happens to be a black actor playing Clay and a white one playing Vincent. If the director decides they are identical twins in the film and that everyone in the film will see them as that, then they are. If a director has a prop of the Grand Canyon made for a film that doesn't look like the Grand Canyon, but he decides it is and has all the characters in the film treat it as the Grand Canyon, then in that film, it is the Grand Canyon. Obviously this was done on purpose to give more weight to the theme of identity. I don't think race had anything to do with the story of the film except in the mind of the viewer, which is valid, as it is such an issue in our society and why i think the director chose a black actor (rather than another white actor) so that the viewer will think even more about identity.

I believe the twins were born to Mrs. Lucerne and separated at birth. There is a sequence where she describes this. I think this is when he received the St Christopher. Why Vincent was kept by Mrs Towers we don't know. Why Clay didn't stay with Mrs Lucerne, we don't know. Mrs Towers must have known there was another twin because he was at the funeral. Where did the St Christopher appear from after going missing? Was it put there by Vincent or Mrs Towers?

I would have given this 10 stars, but for the ending, which was OK, but could've had a choice of twists.

1. He assumes the identity of Vincent, but then some new evidence comes to light and he ends up being charged with the murder of his father.

2. Even better, the Clay we see at the beginning of the film before the explosion is a facade and he actually killed the father after finding out about the details of his birth. this is why he also shot Mrs Lucerne because she gave him away to a poor life in a poor town. He was then planning to kill Vincent and assume his identity, but Vincent got to him first. I think this is borne out by the fact that, once he realises who he is, he's not as nice a guy as at the beginning of the film. I think he decides to remain as Vincent because that was his plan all along. And then the new evidence comes to light and he ends up being charged with the murder of his father.

I think Mrs Lucerne, Mrs Towers and the St Christopher could've been woven into a much better ending, but even so, one of the best films I've seen for a while

The debut feature of US filmmaker-duo Scott McGehee and David Siegel is a pristine-looking psychological forensics of an individual's confused identity, shot in widescreen black-and-white cinematography, SUTURE has its unmissable neo-noir panache awash but also undeniably undercut by its slight story-telling stratagem.

McGehee-Siegel's conceit is surprising and madcap, the purportedly identical half-brothers Vincent Towers (a dour-looking Harris) and Clay Arling (Haysbert) are diametrically different in their appearances (the racial distinction strikes as a self-aware but caustic jape), which at once impels viewers to suspend our disbelief and blatantly dissociates its scenario from any pretension of realism, as if to declare in its opening: don't trust what you've seen.

Truly, what we see is a rather simple identity-swapping scheme goes amiss, after murdering his minted father, Vincent plots to liquidate Clay, his doppelganger half-brother, whose existence is conveniently sealed from the outside, thus Clay would be the whipping boy passing off as Vincent, guilty and perished, then the real Vincent can return as Clay to claim his munificent inheritance. The plan is seamless a priori, but miraculously Clay survives the car comb and ends up with a disfigured visage and severe amnesia. Treated by Dr. Renee Descartes (Harris) to reconstruct his face, now believing he is Vincent, Clay's memory has to take a longer divagation to recover his true identity under the psychoanalysis of Dr. Max Shinoda (Shimono), who is welded together with the image of Rorschach test and passes wisdom in shrink's parlance by rote, and it goes without saying, the real Vincent will not have Clay usurping his heirdom for too long, danger and myth (for instance, what is the ulterior motive of Vincent's recently widowed mother Alice Jameson, played by an elegantly dressed, seemingly benignant Dina Merrill?) are hovering like dark cumuli, and the film's ending sternly keeps the lid on its barbed irony of Clay's ultimate choice.

In lieu of salting the plot, McGehee-Siegel duo resolves to making the mark of their cinematic style with their puny budget ($900,000). Potentially intensified by the sagacious choice of monochrome, the film emanates a beguiling retro-experimental flair with its punctiliously arranged compositions, high contrasted lighting and shades (inside the post-modern edifice equipped with bed-sheet- covered furniture and unadorned walls functioning as Vincent's clinical abode) and jumpy montages.

Another boon to this glossy debut is Dennis Haysbert, a straight-up leading man material endowed with virility, sensibility and fine fettle, who totally has it in him to rival Denzel Washington's prominent status in Hollywood only if we were living in a world of justice, and SUTURE, at any rate, is the bona-fides of the overlooked standing of McGehee-Siegel's oeuvre.

This is one of those films that defy convention and easy description. I'm tempted to call it an "Arthouse Thriller", but that wouldn't do this film justice. If you enjoy a good intelligent thriller that will test the boundaries of your comfort level as well as your imagination, I recommend giving this film a chance. It is a unique and brave film. A similar film mind bending mystery is Last Year at Marienbad (1961) (L'année dernière à Marienbad).

When I first started viewing Suture, I said to myself "yeah, right what a premise." Mid way through the movie I realized that they really made it work. By the end of the movie even I believed.

You've got to let yourself go and truly get into the fantastic acting, great dialog and wonderful use of black and white cinematography. I my humble opinion this movie should be considered a classic in the turnaround genre.

Dennis Haysbert does a fine job as the main character. He makes you believe that his ailment of amnesia has truly overcome him. This was one of the first movies I saw him in and his performance made him stand out as a fine character actor.

there are a lot of things going on in this movie, but i think the most fascinating is the way in which you must try and respond to the images before you. "oh yeah, i am supposed to be seeing a white man and woman in bed," you remind yourself. you have to lie to your eyes. what you see you should not perceive. simply amazing. blackness is not an after thought, it is a before and during thought. it is an indelible marker in all realms of consciousness.

The cinematography (Greg Gardiner) is obviously the most outstanding in this b/w psychological thriller, that I found reminiscent of 'Seconds' (Frankenheimer, 1966), due to the identity problem and the unconventional progression of the story. BE sure to see this in widescreen, for it will lose its appealing character in full-frame. The performances from the cast aren't really convincing enough for that matter. I guess they have a hard time keeping up with the off-beat vision of the directors. That vision crystallizes into an almost expressionist and sometimes minimalist worldview without turning into imagery. Visually, this film could only have been made after or before the eighties, because in the eighties the cinematic style and art direction would probably have been taken for granted (without actually being something Michael Mann would have made) while it is actually subtle and intentionally pregnant, as is the music. Recommendations are most films by John Frankenheimer, 'The Limey' (Soderbergh, 1999), and visually maybe 'Das Kabinett des doktor Caligari' (Wiene, 1920).

9/10

I find it interesting how so many people would bother to try and draw deeper meaning from this low-budget, poorly acted, art film. It looks like it was put together by a rather ambitious drama major with some help from his friends.

Of course there is a certain group (conspiracy theorists?) who go around thinking that "nothing is what it seems".

Rather than come up with a real location or an expensive movie set the directors of this set could only find an abandoned car dealership to use as the protagonist's "mansion" Then they covered up the real furniture with sheets to try and make the place look like someone just moved in.

If the definition of surreal is to take actors and have them read their line in a wooden fashion so that the audience doesn't think this is a real film, then this film qualifies.

Having two people pretend to look alike when they obviously don't is neither interesting nor funny.

This film is void of creativity, and is what happens when for lack of budget the producers take a stab at developing an art film with a cult following. They succeeded only it's a pretty small cult.