Dot the I (2003)

The title of the story "Dot the I" shows an expression of putting the I in the center of relationship. It connotes of self-centering over the other. In other words, self-I is portraying an attitude of selfishness, egoistic and the determining subject over the object- You. Thus, everything evolves on the self- I. When I try to look at closely the title itself, it seems that there must have something lacking on it. The "dot the I" expresses actually an action, i.e. I Love. However, It does not give an indication of who the action of loving directed to. The "dot the I" on the story is not referring neither to Kit nor to Carmen, but on Barnaby's self- subjection. He is actually seeing only himself. He does not considering the feelings of other person. So, to make the story more accurate and complete in itself, it should be therefore- I DOT YOU! It implies a complete object and receiver of the action. But, beware! When you learn to love, be wise in loving.The story has indeed projects different areas of concern of man-to-man relationship. It even touches to the deeper shield of one's world, i.e. committed to his internal-external relationship. My in-depth personal assessment on the story simply explicate on human distinctiveness from object or thing. What I am trying to drive out here is that; human life is precious gift. It entails respect and to keep pure and blameless in eyes of God. I don't like the way the story ends. It should not be a tragic presentation- like on the death of the antagonist, Barnaby. But, I guess, it would be more appealing and touching when it will end having reconciled with each other. I would prefer to see how Barnaby converts himself and make peace and reconciliation with Kit and Carmen. This would allow us, the audience, to reflect in ourselves that in spite of one's wretchedness in life, there is always a room for conversion and reconciliation. In this way, the theme and title of the story end of giving forgiveness which leads eventually to loving one another beyond our human limitations and weaknesses.

My summary line above just about says it all. There are a few firsts in this film,It is the Director/writer Matthew Parkhill's first screenplay & first film he has directed.It is also the star GAEL GARCIA BERNAL's first film in English.It is also the first time I have seen the female lead Natalia Verbeke in any role.It also may be the first time I have seen the other lead actorJames D'Arcy perform.I want to see more of all the above.For a first time writer/director DOT THE I is a noble effort.Gael Garcia Bernal's English is very clear & understandable & of course to me, he is excellent.Miss Verbeke is a very pretty lady & a talented actress. James D'arcy is equally talented & also quite good looking.This is a romantic comedy, that get a bit dramatic towards the end.This is an R rated film for a few sex scenes & language.I cannot understand why this only opened in a few theatres .It is much better than most of the films that open in 300o theatres.Rating *** (out of 4) 88 points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)

The film is based on three premises which do not allow for a "willing suspension of disbelief." Touted as the "Memento" of 2003, it doesn't come near. Nevertheless, it's amusing--if amusing is appropriately applied to a noir film--amusing enough to enjoy if you suppress your expectations.Here are the three fatal flaws: Warning, spoilers: 1.In a restaurant full of possible choices there's no way that the Portuguese actor might be predictably chosen for the bride-to-be's last kiss of her single life. And if he wasn't, Bareterlby's plan collapses.2. Since Carmen actually married the rich Bartelby, she could have sued this him he was worth in a divorce action, causing B's clever but ill-conceived plan to boomerang.3.Bartelby obtains by fraud Carmen's signature consent on a contract to release the film by presenting the document as just another bureaucratic document required for their marriage, a fraud he later admits on film. Seems likely that the contract she signed would be voided in a lawsuit.

Having seen most of Bernal's films, or at least everything available in the US, I've grown to like him greatly as an actor, thus explaining my motivation for renting this. The description given on the jacket, added with the blurb equating it with Memento (which was a very entertaining mind-boggle), talked me in. Call it a two-for-two deal.Reading through the commentary left by others, I'm troubled by the negativity being attached. Exactly when did it become a crime to invoke plot-twists as a story device? The last I knew, filmmakers such as Hitchcock and Preminger relied upon them incessantly. A twist in plot, if carried off well, can satisfy viewers and fire the imagination.Personally, I find the romantic drama as a genre in dire need of a wake-up call. Films such as this one, Closer, Unfaithful, Wicker Park, and very few others, are daring to attempt something original, whether it be a more frank look at relationships, a less clichéd or sexist view of infidelity, or a new take on the love triangle... and by new I mean new in both this film and Wicker Park. Rather than recycle Shakespeare, Jane Austen, or An Affair To Remember for the forty-billionth time, the director and cast broke new ground.This is not a perfect film, and really, honestly, who gets entertainment from "perfect" films? Admiration, yes. Respect, yes. Are perfect films fun though? That's an argument for a forum... I gave this an eight out of ten, with two points off for those imperfections. The three leads are solid; the story is clever and solid enough. The two points to perfection can easily be forgiven.I had fun watching this movie.