Time travel, eh? What a tricky old subject it is. Never seem to get it quite right, do they, these filmmakers? They always seem to drop a clanger that's caught not only by those film geeks who can spot obscure meaningless anachronisms that nobody else cares about, but even those who are paying only passing attention (eg. the older daughter doesn't have scars when she should). On top of this, the character caught up in this time-hopping conundrum resolutely fails to do the one thing every ordinary person would do in the same situation: try to break the chain of events. If the reasoning of this film is to be followed the outcome would be the same, but at least there would be a little logic involved.

Sandra Bullock plays the depressed housewife who, for no apparent reason, finds herself batted back and forth in time like a ball of wool between a kitten's paws. Every time she wakes up she finds herself one side or the other of her husband's death and very slowly pieces together the pieces of the puzzle. For the most part her predicament is surprisingly uninvolving, possibly because the writers neglected to give her any sort of character whatsoever, just a set of predictable responses to fantastic situations. Only at one brief moment, when Bullock asks her screen mother, 'If I let Jim die, is that the same thing as killing him?' does the film even remotely look as if it is going to go off in some interesting direction. Unfortunately, that idea is dropped as quickly as it is suggested, and the film lumbers toward one of those predictable conclusions that used to be a twist when Rod Serling wrote it in the 50s.

The film isn't boring, but it isn't particularly interesting either. Bullock does what she's paid to do, but she's a lightweight actress at the best of times so, really, you should know what to expect when you see that she's appearing in this type of film.