Timecode

Rating:
Summary: Interesting concept, poorly executed
Review: Mike Figgis is a director who likes to take chances and doesn't follow the crowd. Sometimes the chances pay off ("Leaving Las Vegas", "Miss Julie") and sometimes they lay an egg ("Loss of Sexual Innocence"). This attempt belongs in category B.

Figgis has to be given high marks for ambition and innovation in producing this unusual movie. He shoots the story from four cameras at different locations that are all shooting in real time as the characters weave their way from camera to camera. The resulting footage is then shown simultaneously with emphasis placed on a particular camera by bringing up the sound. The technique is interesting and vanguard from a production standpoint. The result, however, is disappointing.

Figgis is so intent on the gimmick that he abandons all else to pursue it. The story is extremely weak. The movie is shot with hand held video cameras giving it a homemade look. The work by the camera operators is dismal. Shots are out of focus and bouncing around, subjects are improperly framed. It looked like it was shot by a bunch of college students (Oh, I forgot; that is what made Blair Witch Project a smashing success. I didn't like that one either). The lighting is poor and other than the limo, the sets and props are just whatever is lying around.

Two of the frames spend almost the entire movie focused boring characters doing next to nothing. One stays with Lauren (Jeanne Tripplehorn) eavesdropping on her girlfriend Rose (Salma Hayek) with an electronic listening device from the cab of her stretch limo; a real yawner. The other follows Emma (Saffron Burrows) around as she wanders the street depressed over her breakup with Alex (Stellan Skarsgard); another utterly unexciting theme. Thus, there are only two frames of any interest for 90% of the movie (notice I don't call this a film, because video is not film). Figgis also throws in four visual non-sequiturs, i.e. the inexplicable earthquakes that relate in no way to the action in any of the scenes. I suppose he felt that watching four screens simultaneously wasn't chaotic enough.

Figgis played around with the idea of simultaneous shooting in the seduction scene of "Miss Julie", where he used a split screen of the scene from two different perspectives. In that film, the technique worked well. Actually, the technique is not new, as it was used from time to time in the 1960's ("The Thomas Crown Affair" with Steve McQueen jumps immediately to mind). However, Figgis should be given credit for taking the concept to a new level with an uncut real time shoot, strangely reminiscent of the Steve Martin film, "Bowfinger" where he had actors follow Eddie Murphy's character around in real time, playing scenes with him without his knowledge.

The acting is more a tribute to the ensemble cast's improvisational ability than anything else, and in that regard the acting is excellent. The story is unscripted and the actors improvise around a general framework provided by Figgis. Given that fact, the scenes went extraordinarily smoothly and whatever magical means Figgis used to cue the actors to stay coordinated, it worked amazingly well. The cast is comprised of recognizable and talented second tier actors, who normally appear in supporting roles in major films. The exception is Holly Hunter, who is a bona fide star, but had very little to do in this movie. The two best performances are given by Salma Hayek and Jeanne Tripplehorn. Tripplehorn, when she was not sitting around eavesdropping, was explosively good.

Figgis, who could never be described as unassuming, throws in a little tribute to himself by having one of the characters pitch a concept to the movie producers that is essentially the movie of which she is a part. As always, he cast his girlfriend Saffron Burrows in the film, which is becoming his signature much the way "Silent Bob" is Kevin Smith's signature. Hopefully, they will never break up, or Figgis will need to find a new watermark.

Overall, this self-indulgent experiment does some things well, but lacks the minimal production values necessary to make it more than a novelty film. I rated it a 4/10. It is an interesting concept that is poorly executed, wasting some good performances by a talented cast.

Rating:
Summary: get a huge screen TV
Review: There is a warning on the box: four cameras, one take, no edits. One should take this warning seriously. Andy Worhol's "The Chelsea Girls", which, according to All Movie Guide, is of high historical importance, has two simultaneous series of images. "Timecode" has four simultaneous series, which, I guess, is going to bring its historical value up to the skies. Besides that, it's simply impossible, since the screen is divided into four smaller screens, and you have to follow four plot lines simultaneously. Be prepared and get a HUGE screen TV if you are going to watch this movie.

Rating:
Summary: What if?
Review: Most people seem to hate or love this movie. The point is that Mike Figgis has laid out a template for an alternative cinema. A new, fresh format. The only way Mr Figgis could make the industry understand his concept was to actually make one. This movie is perfect testament to his vision and perseverance. The possibilities are far more challenging, yet satisfying to the actors. The ensemble choreographed the free-wheeling creation of a huge 3-D stage. This cinematic brother of theatre in the round allowed them to reside in the 'moment' for an ungodly amount of time, much like theatre. Watching the actors having so much fun was a wonderful viewing experience in its own right.

Rating:
Summary: An extra star for novelty
Review: As Dr. Malcolm from "Jurassic Park" would say, Figgis was so excited that he *could* make a movie this way that he didn't stop to think whether he *should*. For one thing, if it's possible to shoehorn a meaningful story into two hours of real-time (and the dismal John Badham thriller "Nick of Time" strongly suggests that it isn't), Figgis didn't figure out how. This is one stupefyingly dull movie! To make things worse, the jazz-loving director calls upon the sort-of-all-star-cast to improvise the dialogue for him. If all the actors had the talent of Holly Hunter or Stellan Skarsgard (who predictably provide the few good moments here), it might have had a remote chance of working. But when you have performers with as little going for them as Jeanne Tripplehorn and Salma Hayek clumsily pretending to be lesbian lovers, the result is painfully embarrassing. And while I enjoyed having to work at monitoring the different streams of visual information, there was so little payoff at the end that I felt foolish for having bothered.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but Unsatisfying
Review: Since 1999, several films using unconventional techniques or creative storytelling methods have hit the mainstream and done pretty well. I have only to cite `The Blair Witch Project', `Being John Malkovich'or 'Memento' to remind anyone of the innovative and provocative movie-going experiences most us have recently had. Now in the midst of this lively period comes the latest Mike Figgis film to push acceptable viewing boundaries even further out. Where `Time Code' differs from the three aforementioned titles, however, is that its innovations are really only technical. There is a strong sense, gained twenty minutes in, that this movie exists to demonstrate its unusual approach to visual format.

`Time Code' addresses several questions that have surely floated through every viewer's mind while watching movies. What might prompt an editor to cut away from, or return to a given scene? How might a character behave, if the camera is kept running after a scene has ended? What if the viewer, and not the filmmaker, were to choose which character or plotline to follow? To answer to these and other queries, the director chose a format utilizing four main cameras, each receiving one quarter of screen space. The viewer of `Time Code' is presented with four simultaneous viewpoints at once. On rare occasions, only one or two mini-screens are on view. And just as rarely is more than one interesting narrative occupying the attention. Watching `Time Code' is like seeing dailies shown all at once before editing. The viewer can choose which screen to watch, but Figgis directs attention to a given quadrant by bringing up the sound on it, while the other three remain silent. On a few occasions, dialogue on more than one screen may be heard, but never when both are important. There is at least one interesting sequence when two screens present differing angles of the same scene, and at these moments the film really seem alive with possibility. But the use of this multi-screen method must be counted as a very interesting failure, since, in order to make a coherent film, Figgis has to direct attention by sound level and by having three screens show nothing of interest to distract from the main narrative. In the end, we are left with a rather conventional movie experience. The use of smaller, multiple screens is hardly new: in 1968, `The Thomas Crown Affair' made colorful, if ultimately pointless, use of the technique. In neither film is montage, the great contribution of the editor, rendered superfluous.

Had Figgis found more interesting narrative threads to follow, the film might have worked better. Not that the main plot thrust-an independent filmmaker trying to cast his latest project-- lacks potential. There just are not enough attention-grabbing moments. An audition scene, for instance, unintentionally involving an on-set masseur, never fulfills its comic implications. Instead of showing the many aspects of such a project that would certainly fascinate most viewers, the film presents lengthy, static production team discussions. Subplots don't fare any better. In one, an executive is unhappily surprised by news from his wife and goes temporarily insane in a sequence that feels half-baked. Another subplot involves an actress en route to her audition: we witness a heated argument in the car with her female partner, then, later, we see the partner take up her own story line. The problem with these and other minor threads is that they all feel like excuses for the film at hand and its technique. A sudden melodramatic turn at the climax comes across as pure contrivance, and-as a result of the multiple screens-something the audience quite literally can see coming. In addition, there are not one, but two female on female make out scenes which also feel completely inserted for the benefit of a hetero male audience.

The soundtrack of `Time Code' is also problematic, but in a less straightforward way. We hear several pieces composed by the director himself as well as segments of the Adagietto from the Fifth Symphony of Mahler. The music seems `placed' within the film, never functioning organically, to underscore a scene. This abstract, objective use of music has the effect of a pretentious hommage to Jean-Luc Godard and not an integral part of the film at hand.

A very good cast is used to little effect. While it is good to see Xander Berkeley is a major part, he and Holly Hunter, Stellan Skarsgard, Kyle MacLachlan, Steven Weber, Julian Sands and Jeanne Tripplehorn are not given roles that add up to very much. Only Salma Hayek is memorable as a creatively ambitious aspiring actress.

There is little doubt that the film has its greatest possible effect on the big screen. For all the above criticism, this movie is still worthy of a look by anyone interested in new storytelling solutions. Just don't expect any revelations.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting concept poorly executed.
Review: Don't buy this. Rent it with NetFlix instead.

While the concept is very interesting, the execution is poor. I keep having a hard time hearing the different dialog in the movie... Also, the character are all stereotypical "LA entertainment crowd" which, personally, I am not interested in their story/life...

Rating:
Summary: Great Indie Film - Loved It.
Review: Time Code is an excellent example of what film can and should be. It's definitely an experiment that the affordability of digital video allows. Shot on a Sony digitial video camera, Mike Figgis has woven a great story. The screen is split into four separate quardants, four intertwining, and simultaneous, storylines. I defy you to follow a single set of characters. Figgis uses sound to draw you through the story, raising and lowering the levels of different quads he'd like you to be looking at. It's excellent filmmaking. It is a challenging watch, but not as hard to follow as you might think. This excellent DVD version has an entire other "version 1" of the film which even features different actors. It's great fun. Highly recommended to the Indie Film Fan. Best regards, turtlex.

Rating:
Summary: a mindbender
Review: Film is an art form. Sometimes. Timecode is art. Its story reminds me of an Altman movie (one of the old ones, from when he knew what he was doing), but presented in real time and split into four points of view presented simultaneously. For the first ten minutes or so, it's difficult to follow the four screens, but it's not as confusing as you might think. The stories are touching, although they could have been tightened a little bit - at times it looks like the actors are drowning in improvisation. Most of the time, however, things flow beautifully. The stories are great, just don't expect them to be all wrapped up neatly by the end of the movie. They're more like "slice of life" stories. A few people have criticized Timecode for the fact that a boom and a cameraman's hand intrude into the shot during the movie. Come on - we're talking about four cameras moving simultaneously around a bunch of improvising actors for two hours at a time! It is utterly impossible to expect a perfect shot under these circumstances. Plus these people are totally missing the point. One final note - the DVD includes an alternate take which, as I understand it, is a complete alternate version of the film. I can't wait to see this.

Rating:
Summary: 4 screens=4 times the movie?
Review: i'll admit that i liked time code a good bit but that doesn't mean that this is the type of movie for everyone by any means. first you can forget an intriguing story line because it takes place in an hour and a half of time and no REAL stories happen in that amount of time. also, the actors who are mainly improvising (more entertainig than you think) so they end up going to the lowest common denominator, sex and COCAINE, lots of cocaine. so you gotta realize this is more art than it is entertainment but it will definitely make you go hmmmmm. it is true that if you want to see stories interact this isnt the best example but the film knows that and the filmmakers are not trying to express that this is the best method of story telling. it is more like ART FOR ART'S SAKE. some technical notes: the music is great and works exceptionally well with the movie, there are some noticable mistakes throughout but you can make it a game to see who can spot them first(afterall they were extremely long takes)and of course the small screen takes away from the movie and may have you squinting some.

Rating:
Summary: possibly the worst movie ever
Review: Good Idea. Bad Movie. Not only is there little to no story, there are mistakes like a boom mic comming into the shot and a camera man's hand in the shot holding open a door. Even with four shots going on at the same time nothing happens. I would rather see 4 different angles of grass growing.