Time Code
|
List Price: Our Price: $21.95 You Save: $3.00 (12%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.25 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of Time Code
Movie Review: Only worth watching on DVD
Summary: 4 Stars
Yes, I generally agree. I watched the whole thing through first and enjoyed the novelty, although felt rather overwhelmed by it. The plot is rather insignificant; definitely it's a film for those interested in the ideas involved (i.e. four cameras filming a single take, and the synchronicity between them) and this is most interesting when you hear Mike Figgis' voiceover track or see the other excellent supporting stuff on the disc. It's also useful on the DVD to be able to select one of the four cameras and only hear the sound from that, instead of just the overall mix.All in all: A very interesting idea - Not hugely entertaining in it's own right as a film, but most definitely worth renting or buying to see what Mike Figgis was attempting. Unique.
Movie Review: What if?
Summary: 4 Stars
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.Movie Review: A very original movie....
Summary: 4 Stars
...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.Movie Review: Interesting, but Unsatisfying
Summary: 3 Stars
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.
Movie Review: Watch it four times, and it might make sense
Summary: 3 Stars
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...