Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

TinsHeadline Touches You

Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

lgarrick-1 One of the most interesting movies I've seen in ages. Not the usual over-dramatized Hollywood fare, this film moves like nature with a pace that is not contrived.I am a psychologist and from that perspective I found it to be truly amazing. The story is of a young man who loses his episodic memory. These cases are rare, and what this means is that he loses the meaning of things as learned through experience. In fact, our perspectives on the world are self-constructed as we grow and experience the world. In this case the main character has lost that kind of memory and therefore people, places and things lack any kind of meaning - it's the most complete kind of loss I can imagine.At first he is terrified, as one would be, but as he reconstructs his life, you find yourself a little envious of his appreciation of the most ordinary things, something that is available to us only when we can deconstruct the meaning we have created for something. There is an innocence and wonder that is not ignorant or naive, rather it is pure and without baggage.It would be scary to have this experience, but a great opportunity as well.

David Poole Assuming the whole thing wasn't a hoax, imaging the luck of being a budding film maker and having your friend suffer from one of the rarest and most bizarre medical conditions, which not only appeals to the public but which is perfect film material. I think Rupert Murray blew his chance, though. All the artistic camera angles and moods he tried to portray were totally unnecessary. Like a good chef knows not to embellish on quality ingredients, so a good film-maker knows not to embellish on a story that can't fail to be interesting. This film managed to achieve uninterestingness, though. For the first half, I could forgive the attempts to capture the mood of somebody coming to terms with retrograde amnesia, with the jaunty camera angles and ambient music, after all it's his first film, and he can be allowed a little pretentious leeway. However, as the film progressed and all we've learnt is what a wonderful life he had (and will have anew) and are subjected to close ups of his beautiful ex-girlfriends smiling and laughing seductively for the camera and close-ups of Douglas smiling gormlessly as he takes in things for the 'first' time, it starts to grate. Ultimately there was incredibly little of substance in a documentary that could have been twice as long and had 10 times the substance throughout. The fact that he comes from such a privileged background and is not short of money, love and support, shouldn't have detracted from how interesting his condition was; but it did, as the film-maker seemed more interested in celebrating the former and much less in investigating the latter. There seemed to be a suspicious and alarming acceptance of his condition from his family and friends. They seemed more interested in looking demure or cool for the camera than asking questions, that most viewers were probably screaming at the television, such as 'Have you checked your bank withdrawals from the few weeks leading up to the amnesia?'I think Rupert Murray was trying to make two films here and ended up effectively making none. Either make a film about your friend's memory loss, or make a film about beautiful people, with lots of close ups, longeurs and artistry, but don't make them both together.

theoscillator_13 There is a lot of debate about how real this story is. I'd first like point out that no movie or TV show is reality. Everything is shot and edited to convey the story that someone wants to tell you. Are Michael Moore's movies real? They are documentaries but they are telling a story that he wants you to hear. Is The Real World reality? It's a bunch of people trying to go about their lives with cameras in their faces that is then severely edited to tell a story that someone thinks will be entertaining.With that said, Unknown White Male kept me engrossed for 90 minutes and made me think the entire time...which is more then 99% of the garbage that is out there today. The movie plays out like a study in philosophy. The "new" Doug seems like a great guy and his friends and family can't help but like him even though they wish he was the "old" Doug. The more you find out, the more you realize that he had a great life before he lost his memory and that is one of the interesting questions this movie brings up. Is it possible to lead two completely different existences that are equally as good and fulfilling? Is life better when you have no expectations and more importantly: nobody in the world has expectations of you? Within the world of the movie the thought will always be there whether Doug is faking this all to escape his old life. And the question will be there whether or the whole story was created for the sake of making the movie. Sure there are holes in the story, but I say it's still a great story.

superfudge73 The idea itself seems repellent to most people. In addition, Doug's apparent lack of enthusiasm for regaining his memory seems disturbing to human beings who's entire existence is defined by our memory of experiences. The reality of the situation is the impossibility to be longing and nostalgic for memories that don't exist in your psyche. In conjunction with the obvious commercial motive for faking this film, would the filmmakers and Doug himself be willing to ruin their credibility over a low budget Indi film? As far as I know, no one has ever been able to find any of the newspaper reports alleged in the film. What can't be denied is the fact that any film that makes you ponder the context and characters, be it real or fake, is worth the watch.