AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Lechuguilla Filmed in one long, unbroken take, with lots of improvised acting and dialogue, this highly experimental film by director Mike Figgis presents a screen that splits the action into four quadrants, formed by the intersection of the X and Y geometric axes. The quadruplicate visuals take some "time", pardon the pun, to get use to. But gradually, we settle into the story, as characters move out of one screen and into another.Figgis manipulates the sound to highlight which of the four segments we are to focus on. But I found this approach doesn't always work, as sound from other segments bleed into the main action segment. Further, the film's score is too loud, which compounds the problem. Because of the complex nature of the visuals and sound, "Timecode", obviously, is not a film for viewers who wish to turn off their brains.What I really liked about the four screen approach is that it conveys clearly the idea that an individual out of sight from others can have an impact on the overall trend of group thinking and behavior. Our words and actions thus affect others more than we realize. This impact doesn't come through as well in standard filming because the plot action takes place sequentially rather than concurrently.Although this is a technique film, it's the story and the characters that I reacted to most forcefully. The setting is Hollywood. The characters are all in the film business. The plot has people preparing for auditions, executives discussing scripts, people walking through offices carrying papers, and one character, Lauren (Jeanne Tripplehorn), spending most of the film sitting in a limousine, chain smoking, and listening to a Walkman.None of these people are appealing or sympathetic. They all come across as self-absorbed, desperate, two-faced, shallow, and pretentious. The irony here is that while the story is fictional, the plot and characters represent fairly accurately what does, in real-life, go on in Tinseltown.What would have been more compelling is a documentary approach, using real people in the film business, as they spend a typical afternoon doing business and interacting with others. The fictional nature of the "Timecode" story undercuts the visually experimental, real-time presentation.As a total cinematic package, "Timecode" doesn't work very well. But at least Figgis tried. We need more efforts like this that explore unusual ideas, both in technique and in story concept, to foster originality, creativity, uniqueness, and courage, in a contemporary Hollywood that has ossified into an assembly line of vacuous, copycat, cinematic trash.

valis1949 TIMECODE is a groundbreaking film by director, Mike Figgis. The movie consists of four interrelated stories which are viewed simultaneously on four different quadrants of the screen. What is most surprising about the experience is that it is much easier to absorb and understand than you might think. The focal point of this wry, black comedy centers on the offices of a film studio on Sunset Boulevard. A film is being cast, an executive meeting in underway, a limo is waiting just outside, and a montage of street activity is observed. Watching the film is similar to viewing a live performance of a string quartet. As with a musical performance, your attention shifts from one player to another without ever losing the feel or direction of the piece. The actors improvised characters and story lines, evolving and building as they went along, and Figgis's role was more of a conductor than a film director. Each of the four stories was shot in a single take beginning at 11am each day, and lasting for ninety minutes. All the four stories contain interesting performances from a stellar cast, and the soundtrack was especially inventive and supportive. TIMECODE is not a great film, but it succeeds in that it demonstrates the viability of an off-beat and creative presentation.

pinokiyo My god... I'm warning you. This "movie" is absolute GARBAGE and SERIOUSLY a waste of time! I wouldn't even call it a movie. I had to watch this for a class so I didn't really have a choice. I wanted to turn it off so badly. I want my 97 minutes of life back! At least I didn't have to pay a dime for this mess. But then again, time is money... I should be reimbursed $100 for seeing this movie. The gimmick "movie" never gets any better. Trust me.Sure, the idea sounds interesting (take four cameras and shoot simultaneously without cuts), and it was an ambitious attempt, I'll give that, but honestly, the end result is sooooooooooooooooo HORRIBLE. It's like a really bad student film.This experiment just shows why movies need cuts, directing actors (even the big stars were horrible in most of the scenes), a real script with a real story, and most importantly, using a freaking boom mic (obviously they didn't use one because it would get in the shots). It is extremely boring and horribly shot.You can tell which scene the director wants you to focus on by the audio level; the audio gain becomes louder for the one that should be focused on by the audience and the rest become less. The director cheats because while one scene that is being focused, the rest is just obviously dragging time doing absolutely nothing. For example, Jeanne Tripplehorn (Water World, Sliding Doors), I think she was supposed to be Hayak's lesbian agent or something... all she basically does is sit in her Limo 95% of the film(sometimes she gets out of it) wearing headphones to spy on Hayak. Wow. What a great part for her! I guess she accepted the role so she could make out with Salma Hayek.That reminds me... what is up with the random lesbian scenes? Everyone seems to be lesbians and making out constantly like a porno flick. It's a pathetic device to keep the simple minded audience to keep watching. That's probably the only reason some people voted high. And of course they just have to have drugs in a movie... LAME.And they also randomly throw in THREE pointless huge earthquakes within a few minutes from each other in this movie, just because they want to show off that the scenes are all connected (we'd probably forget they're all supposed to be connected if it wasn't for that gimmick effect). But so what? Obviously someone in the crew is just queuing all the cameraman with a countdown (probably with an earpiece) and then they all just shake the camera.This movie literally is like a cheap student film. I'm not kidding.Blair Witch Project cost less to make and was also experimental, but it actually was well-made and intriguing (they even had better acting!) and that's why it succeeded, even to the mass market, as well as the style repeated years later like Cloverfield.The climax for the Blair Witch was worth it and was actually the best part of movie. For this movie, the ending is just as bad as the entire movie, especially the acting. It really falls apart. It actually turned into more of a comedy; the security guard doesn't do anything, and neither does the front desk lady or whoever it was, saying "You can't go in there" but they don't do a damn thing! Worst security ever. I mean, come on. There was absolutely nothing close to being real about this movie. People are so oblivious and obviously only acting on 'que' than anything close to being natural. Oh, and did I mention it turns into a porno flick every so often.The gunshot just sounds horribly cheap. Hayak's reaction and everyone else to the gunshot is laughable. And out of nowhere, what is up with the girl, who was giving the pitch, all of a sudden just filming the dead body? -- And the lady in complete white, that was sitting outside with the security guard (why was he just chilling outside?!), seems like she was some sick person from an institute, just joins the scene as if she's some medical assistant but does absolutely nothing to help the guy. This movie was just so annoying, laughable and a complete mess.I'd bet the cast weren't that impressed with the final result than they first heard about the idea and getting on-board. That Stellan guy probably accepted the role because he could do Salma Hayek and 'improvise' whatever sexual moves he could think of and get away with it.If you pay close attention, the four cameras aren't really even synced exactly. For example, in one shot you see Hayak enter the conference room earlier than the other camera angle for a couple seconds off. That may be picky, but that's bad editing if you ask me, especially when the whole point of this experiment is to show that's actually totally synced.1/10. (1 just for trying something new. -9 for the end results.)

junk-monkey As I sat down to watch this movie I was cursing because I couldn't find the remote. Lucky break for me! After a few minutes of uncomfortable misgivings, I mean! 4 screens of hand-held camera with weirdly variable sound - Oh God, what am I watching here? I slowly became hooked and hypnotised. I would suddenly realise that I had been so intent on the top left corner that the situation in the bottom right had changed from an interior with one character to an exterior following another and I hadn't noticed when and how this had happened. If I had the remote I would have been constantly stopping and rewinding and I would have totally destroyed the flow.So, here's the thing thing. If you are watching this movie for the first time on DVD or VHS - loose the remote control! Not a Great Film but an interesting and noble experiment. (And heartening to know there are still some grown-ups left in Hollywood).