Rating: 
Summary: Innovative.
Review: 4 digital cameras. 4 quadrants. 4 continuous shots. All in real time. All improvised. Mike Figgis (Leaving Las Vegas) is definitely one of the most innovative directors out there. And that's what makes the film worth seeing. It wasn't as challenging as I thought it would be to follow all four quadrants at the same time. Figgis turns the volume up on the shot he wants you to pay attention to. The cast does a fine job, although I'm not exactly sure what Salma Hayak is doing in this company. Stellan Skarsgard is great as usual. Jeanne Tripplehorn is literally on screen in a continuous shot for the length of the film and she is fantastic. Look out for Holly Hunter, who has very little screen time, but who gives her character more depth than this film deserves. The reason I only gave this film 3 stars is that it didn't engage me. Watch it for its stylistic qualities and not for its story. I recommend the DVD format. After all, digital cameras deserve digital video.
Rating: 
Summary: Run Lola Run, in slomo and on four screens... well not quite
Review: This movie uses an idea which if not new, has at least not been fully utilised before. The screen is split into four parts, each one in a different place in the same city, four stories happen at the same time, with characters moving from one screen to another. Surprisingly it isn't as confusing as one would think. Usually only one or two screens have important action going on at the same time. Half comedy, half drama, this movie should not be missed. Oh yeah another cool thing about this movie is that it was recorded in four long takes, it wasn't shot in a million different parts. The story is rather complex so I won't go into it, but it does involve a jealous lesbian lover, an independant movie studio and the world's worst hip hop artist. P.S. Can't remember all the actors but the cast is pretty decent.
Rating:
Summary: A very original movie....
Review: ...This movie takes advantage of digital photography to allowthe screen to be divided into four seperate views (each a different camera). The story happens in "real time" as you see characters move from one part of the screen to another. This might sound confusing but only one or two views have important action going on at a particular time and every once in a while there is a minor earthquake, guess this is in L.A. or something, that reminds you that this is all happening at the same time. The story really is too complicated to get into, it involves a jealous lesbian lover, an independant film studio, and the world's worst musician.
Rating: 
Summary: Groundbreaking
Review: Split into four different sections, Mike Figgis' new film Timecode deals with the barriers people set up around themselves and how, even though we are all separated into our own microcosms, we are all connected. One of the main themes throughout the film is communication. Massive use of cell phones and intercoms shows the paradox of our lonely 'global village' in which we use our technology to bring the world together while at the same time isolating ourselves. The symbolism of the four sections is astounding, truly this is a film to be experienced. The story centers around a handful of people in a small production studio. An older jealous lesbian follows her younger lover with surveillance equipment to find she is cheating on her with a producer who is still in love with a woman who left him. A movie director tries to get his film made amidst all of this trouble, while the executives argue over political controversy and money, the security guard does drugs with an actress in the bathroom, and Julian Sands gives new age massages to all involved. Each section of the screen is a continuously shot DV camera focusing more or less on one character. There is no editing and a good deal of the actors' dialogue is improvised. It may take a few minutes to become used to watching four separate actions taking place, but through music cues and well-timed action, one is able to follow the story clearly. Mike Figgis' music adds to the story successfully as it did in Leaving Las Vegas, his music expressing the loneliness felt by the characters in this movie. There are times the dialgoue slowly fades down and a short 'musical montage' takes place - the actors and the music expressing the message of the story successfully without dialogue. The main song is titled "Comfort of Strangers" that being the theme of the film. Unfortunately, Timecode, being a low budget independent film was only released for a short while in a few theaters in major cities. Hopefully this movie will come out soon on VHS and DVD so that it may reach larger audiences. Truly original and clever, Timecode is an interesting look at people and our double nature to yearn for connection and our necessity to set up barriers.
Rating:
Summary: Watch it four times, and it might make sense
Review: Timecode is a behind-the-scenes look at Hollywood life - the business, the politics, the jealously, and even the drugs, sex, and rock `n' roll. Salma Hayek plays Rose, an aspiring actress who will do anything to get an audition - even if it means cheating on her jealous lover (Jeanne Tripplehorn) with a male film exec (Stellan Skarsgard). But I said that Timecode is unique, right? Well, it is. It had no script - just a story, four digital videocams, and a bunch of actors who could improvise their way through 90 minutes of filming. The four cameras shot non-stop - no cuts, just one take. The entire film was shot 15 times - and the final one was released. No editing was required because viewers see the footage from all four cameras - simultaneously. The screen is divided into four quarters, and it's up to the viewer to decide which one to watch. Believe me - it's not exactly an easy task. Though you're often given audio hints (the sound of one quarter will dominate for a while), you'll still keep jumping from quarter to quarter, trying to figure out what's going on - and what you've missed. It's definitely not a movie to watch if you're not completely alert. It is, however, very interesting. And while I wouldn't say that this is one of my favorite movies, it's still an interesting experience. If you're looking for something out of the ordinary, it's worth checking out. If you happen to pick up a copy of the DVD, you'll find all kinds of goodies. The special features include the entire Version 1 of the film (and yes, it really is different) and an audio option that allows you to choose which dialogue you want to listen to. Perhaps, then, if you watch the entire movie four times, you'll be able to make sense of it all...
Rating:
Summary: Clever, but also a bit narcissistic
Review: Whatever. I mean, I appreciate the experimental nature of the film -- the screen split into four separate-but-interlocking screens, each shot in a continuously-running tracking shot, filmed on digital video. The "action" shifts from scene to improvised scene, and gradually we figure out how each of the characters know each other. Still... did the story really have to be set in (yawn) Hollywood? Can't modern filmmakers think of something else to make movies about? Couldn't the actors improv their way through somebody else's life, for once? Regardless, this is one of the better uses of DVD technology I've seen -- they kept the audio tracks intact on each camera's footage, so after you soak up the edited version of the film, you can go back and see (hear, actually...) what they had to work with... Rarely do we get such a clear-cut chance to get into the headspace of the director and editor, so that at least was kind of cool.
Rating:
Summary: brilliant execution, lame story
Review: "Time Code" was directed by Mike Figgis, best known for "Leaving Las Vegas." I'm not a fan of his work, but was intrigued by the concept of this movie - it was filmed in one 90-minute take and is told via four cameras shown in different quadrants of the screen. The movie was filmed 15 different times over a period of a few weeks, with the 15th take being the theatrical release. The story (such as it is) concerns 20+ people in Los Angeles who are connected in one way or another to a small indie film studio. The soundtrack is emphasized in certain quadrants at any given time to show you where to direct your attention. I was concerned that the movie would be difficult to follow, especially on a TV, but it was actually fairly easy to watch it and understand what was transpiring. The technique is innovative and daring, and one cannot help but admire its audacity. It was also interesting seeing how the different stories overlapped. However, there are simply too many weak points for the movie to ultimately succeed. First, the acting and script was largely improvised, and it shows. Selma Hayek has one of the largest roles, and she is simply not up to the challenge. Holly Hunter also comes off poorly with her tentative stuttering character. Second, the plot (which was loosely structured by Figgis) is not very interesting. If this same script was shot in a conventional manner, it would not be worth the price of admission. Third, the concept of the four quadrants is interesting, but most of the time little is happening in any given quadrant. For example, the upper left quadrant, features mostly Jeanne Tripplehorn and she spends a huge portion of the movie sitting in the backseat of a limo or pacing the sidewalk in front of the studio. It just isn't very entertaining. The DVD includes several interesting features. For example, the full first take of the movie is included. Also, you can remix the soundtrack to hear what is going on in the other quadrants. Overall, I have mixed feelings about "Timecode." I'm glad I saw it and hope that other directors will be inspired by its unusual and daring techniques. However, it was ultimately boring and pretentious.
Rating:
Summary: The Future...?
Review: So you know by now that this is a film, shot on digital video, presented with the screen divided into quadrants with the action and focus shifting and flowing from one section to the other. This seems like it would be a hard way to watch a film but I found that there was a definite rhythym to the action and that you could actually ignore parts of the screen and still follow the basic action of that scene and how it contributed to the whole.
That being said, I think the most interesting thing about this movie is that it was, I believe, shot in one day with four cameras and the actors improvising on top of a basic plotline and dialogue framework. I read a previous review that noted that the story and performances were weak and I don't really take issue with this assessment. I only would note that given the time and logistical constraints the production was under, or imposed on itself, it's amazing that the film was a success at all, which I think it was to some degree. Consider then the enormous effort that goes into your average Hollywood schlock-fest...the money that is spent, the endless self-indulgent takes, the trailers, the lighting set-ups etc. And then contrast that with what Figgis offers with a group of talented actors - a cheaply shot, quickly made film that holds it's own with a movie like Pearl Harbor - a film that took a thousand times the effort to make. Granted the two films are going for different things in the short run, but isn't the goal in the end to keep an audience entertained? Oh, if only the Figgis formula was the blueprint for the future.
Rating:
Summary: One of the Best - One of the Worst
Review: In terms of the "Art" of cinema, Timecode is probably one of the most important films to be presented in over a decade. Unfortunately, it is also a terrible movie. The intertwined stories are "vapor thin" and the characters are practically non-existent. There is a certain amount of pleasant confusion created when a phone rings on the soundtrack and people in two different quadrants pick up a receiver to begin seperate, unrelated conversations, or when you realize that the actor who moments before left quadrant two has just entered quadrant four, or when quadrant's one and three are filming the same action, but from different perspectives. Unfortunately, these charms are not capable of sustaining interest for the entire film. I'm grateful for the existence of this movie, but I don't really want to sit through it again (though I guess I'll have to since I bought the DVD). Timecode is like a question mark, a challenge to contemporary narrative modes. But, I suspect it will take many many years for that question to be answered, and the narrative challenge it represents to be assimilated and used artfully. If you really want to get a glimpse of the immediate future of narrative film technique, watch Memento, or grab a copy of Tender Loving Care or Point of View (of the two, TLC is better than POV).
|
