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: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Review: THE GOOD: Time Code is wildly original with it's 4 real-time stories unfolding simultaneously in each corner of the screen. The idea is fabulous, new, and shooting it entirely on digital video adds an element of realism to the film.THE BAD: The acting. Even though it sports a well known cast of good actors. THE UGLY: Time Code, while unique, is TERRIBLY BORING! You'd think that having four real-time stories unfold at the same time would always give you something interesting to look at. Instead, you just have 3 extra boring screens to view. The story, characters, and dialogue were all a big snore. CONCLUSION: This idea had such potential. I only wish they would've made the story and execution as interesting as the concept.
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).
Rating:
Summary: BOLD, BUT DISAPPOINTING
Review: Although the concept behind Timecode is highly unusual and creative, the technique of showing four different scenes at one time by dividing the screen into four windows is distracting. Three windows will continue their action silently while the viewer is privy to the soundtrack to one of the four windows. And the soundtrack changes to different windows throughout the film, so you are never quite sure what is happening and where. Eventually you piece together the whole story and easily see the interconnectedness of the four screens, but it is, like I said, a distracting technique. However, I applaud whatever person attempted this concept because it is groundbreaking and different and strives to be something more than what we are used to. Interestingly, you would think that the character development would suffer immensely from this kind of format, but oddly, you can tell a lot about each of the characters by their actions with and without the soundtracks.
Rating:
Summary: Split screens, confusion, dizziness, great film!!!!
Review: Time code opened my eyes & ears immediately when i heard it was going to be split into 4 separate screens. The way Mike Figgs came up with this idea is incredible! I have to admit that this film can get you confused with all the thing happening all at the same time. But that's the magic in this whole film. The Actors/Actresses in this film are excellent with improvising their acting capabilities; it really pushes them to the limit.
Rating:
Summary: An innovative experiment wasted by a mundane plot
Review: I greatly admired the technical feats in this bold experiment in film narrative, but at the end of it all, it feels like a wondrous opportunity wasted. It is obvious that a tremendous amount of time and care was spent to engineer and choreograph the simultaneous and interweaving real-time stories with the four cameras, so it's deeply disappointing that such little attention was given to the actual story. The main problem with the story is that it is so prosaic, not to mention its dearth of creativity as exhibited by its use of an earthquake not once but FOUR times! The story's conventionalism frustrated me because it begs the question of why it needs to be told with such an unusual narrative technique. I can only assume that Figgis included the more pointless and tangential threads in the story in order to justify the four concurrent screens, but Robert Altman has been effective in depicting the multifariousness and random nature of human existence for decades without needing to abandon conventional cinematic methods. No, I think the only way to do this experiment justice is to have integrated into the story the concept of telling it in such an unusual fashion, perhaps not unlike the concept film the Russian songstress was pitching to Red Mullet near the end of the film. This resulting movie may have indeed been "pretentious", but at least it would not have been aimless and pointless. Stellen Skarsgard's Alex's charge that the songstress' pitch was "pretentious" is an obvious sign that Figgis had more ambitious plans in mind but laziness clearly prevailed, and Figgis attempts to pass his film off by deconstructing the pitched concept film to the point that it becomes the film that we are actually seeing on the screen. And this deconstruction is not only cheap, but bizarre as well, because deconstruction should only be applied to well-worn ideas and not avant-garde ones, because otherwise, avant-garde would never get beyond the artist's imagination and into the production stage. But most importantly, I would rather see a contrived and pretentious concept film that sparks conversation rather than an exercise in self-congratulatory cleverness.
Rating: 
Summary: A grand cinematic experiment in a time of me-too productions
Review: True, Mike Figgis' great experiment is not an unqualified success, but it's so far from a failure that it deserves recognition. The split-screen shooting, which initially might seem a gimmick, quickly becomes a revelation. (I remember audibly gasping the first time two images combined to form one.) Few commercial directors are as actively trying to redefine and reinvent the form as Figgis. Gimmicks/innovations aside, the film is a hilarious send up of both Hollywood-style politics and Altmanesque busy narratives. The DVD version features perhaps the best use of the technology yet, allowing the viewer to see an alternate take of the entire film, and freely switch between soundtracks.
Rating: 
Summary: Why not 9, 16, or even 64 simultaneous camera angles.
Review: Brilliant? Innovative? Hardly.. Nothing more than a gimmick that wears off after a couple of minutes. A compelling plot (or any plot at all) might have made this film watchable - but only if it had been a 15-30 minute short.
Rating:
Summary: This could have been the greatest movie of all time...
Review: ... if only it had a plot. I give it one star because I admire Figgis' innovation and risk taking. Otherwise I would have to delve into the negatives. Overindulgent is a word that comes to mind.
Rating:
Summary: A great experiment, get high with it...
Review: This a real flick for movie lovers, and since most people are what I would think can be described as the lowest common denominator (after all, this movie did come out in DVD and people are still willing to experiment with movies they have little clue about) - it's no wonder it got low ratings. SO here is the warning - if you want simple straight-forward entertainment - don't get this DVD. It is meant for those willing to put up with 93 minutes of constant deciphering, and then can still take the extra 7 versions of the same thing. Note that the DVD has version 15 (the released version), then the version with the director's commentary, then version 1 and version 1 with the director's commentary and then you can view version 15 with the audio separated to each frame, basically allowing you to view at that point each frame by itself. That last feature seems to work very oddly on my DVD and after a lot of hacking I was able to view only 3 of the 4 frames (couldn't get the lower right one to play by itself). This experiment teaches you as a viewer a lot about the meaning of a frame, of improvisation, of locales and positioning of cameras, the importance of continuity, and so on. Take it and get yourself a free evening with this gem. I personally suggest smoking something before it, because then the 5.1 audio is simply divine.
|
