"I Know Who Killed Me," is it a title, or is the movie trying to tell us something? It may be that the movie is the only one to know who killed it, but I am going to take the liberty of making a few speculations. But first, perhaps a little background. This movie is the newest in the line of perpetual crap that is the psychological thriller genre. Yes, gone are the days of supernatural serial killers murdering a bunch of teenagers who just can't help but take a shower while being hunted, and attempting to fill that void are movies with uninteresting and understated serial killers with no back-story who feel people deserve to be punished for their crimes; crimes such as not wanting to play the piano. At least, that is the case in this movie.
The movie begins with a paper being read by Lindsey Lohan's character Aubrey Flemming. The paper is a story she is working on about the stigmatic experience of a girl named Dakota Nash. Over the course of the next few scenes we are introduced to several characters, including Aubrey's gardener whom she flirts with a bit, and her boyfriend who plays football at her high school. At that nights game Aubrey is kidnapped by…someone, and tortured by having her fingers and limbs cut off.
Her parents call for the FBI who get involved and we are informed that there is another girl who this has happened to. Later on, Aubrey is found lying by the side of the road, and when we skip the a scene at the hospital, we find she is missing a hand and a leg. She then turns into the 6 million dollar Lohan, by having a Luke Skywalker-esque hand and a robotic leg attached (presumably because the movie would have moved a lot slower if Lindsey hand to act on crutches for the rest of it).
In subsequent scenes we find out that Aubrey is stricken with amnesia (maybe) and thinks she is Dakota Nash, the twin sister of Aubrey Flemming, who was bought off a hooker when she was born in the place of the child Aubrey's mom had who was miscarried. Confused yet? Because for some reason the stigmata Dakota feels in regards to Aubrey also includes being able to see out of the eyes of an owl who is watching Aubrey get buried alive (and by the end of the movie, Aubrey has lived for days underground with no food, water, or oxygen). Dakota goes after the killer with Aubrey's fake (maybe) dad. They catch up to the killer and after he kills the fake dad, Dakota cuts off his hand, stabs him in the crotch, then knifes him the neck. It is at this point we find out that the piano teacher is actually the murderer (maybe) and Dakota goes off to dig up Aubrey. In the final scene we see Dakota lie down next to Aubrey (who is now inexplicably in a gown) in the grave and the movie ends.
As far as this movie is concerned I think that any attempt in arguing the "reality" behind this movie is impossible, and that is where this movie needs to be criticized. There are several things that need to be behind an abstract movie for it to be good. First, you have to give a damn about the characters involved. Second, several alternate explanations need to be allowed for, with evidence to back each up and evidence to shoot each down. Third, the plot needs to evolve over a series of coherent events that are pieced together in a way that in the end one big overbearing question is left with several possibilities as to the answer. This movie failed miserably in all three counts.
The first offense this movie committed was making Lindsey Lohan the narrator. While I think she did an absolutely miserable job in this movie while at the same time attempting to make herself seem more intelligent and deep than she actually is, I don't necessarily blame the narration on Lindsey's lack of talent, but rather the fact that somewhere along the line the director decided that a 21 year old ex-Disney star had the voice to narrate a thriller. But appropriate voice quality aside I absolutely didn't care about a single person in the entire movie. But how could I? They all disappeared after they served their purpose of adding questions to the plot and never came back to resolve anything. Take the gardener for instance. I thought for sure he was going to have more to do with the plot, but alas, he was there for all of five minutes and then was gone from the movie. Could he have been the killer? Perhaps, she did flick him off and the first finger she lost was her middle one, but who cares, because we don't ever get to know who he is?
This is also the fate of the mother, who gets close to Aubrey/Dakota, and then disappears forever. As does the boyfriend, her friends, her father, the parents of the other girl who was murdered, all of the FBI agents, the guy the movie keeps trying to get us to believe is the killer, and every other character that ever appeared. In the end the movie ends with a completely nonsensical conclusion with two Lindsey Lohans, one of whom is in a Victorian dress (but I'll come to that point later).
Regarding the second point, it fails miserably, not in giving support for different points of view, but never giving anything that knocks the theories down. They are all equally supported with indisputable evidence. Are Dakota and Aubrey the same person? Yes, they have to be, their DNA is the same. Are Dakota and Aubrey different people? Yes, they have to be, the dad admits to buying Aubrey off of a mother who has twins in the hospital. The movie needs to go ahead and pick one, or at least give evidence that can be argued.
As for the third criterion, Helen Keller might have well been the editor of this movie. Some scenes didn't make sense, some seemed to be in the wrong places, some started with a blue flash, some with a red flash, some with no flash at all, and all of which for no apparent reason. A drunken child could have pieced together a movie better than they did, and it would have seemed "smarter."
This movie, whether you like the psychological thriller genre or not, is bad. It doesn't make you think, it just confuses the hell out of you, with the characters being so uninteresting and brief that they can't draw you back in to the hodgepodge of random coincidences that it calls a story. Brutal torture comes off as a pathetic attempt to scare and is really quite laughable as the movie tries to move from horror to psychological in a fashion that if this had been the first movie to ever be made, I wouldn't be writing this right now because no one would have invested in the idea.