WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

bradbrad after gritting my teeth of why i should keep watching this movie all the way through it, when i got to the end all i could think to myself is 1. why would anybody make this pointless of a movie. 2. why did i keep watching this movie. 3. the clichés where terrible.they tried to make this movie artsy, but the conclusion of we don't know what lies ahead was over simplified, and never left me thinking about what it meant, because its just something that you already know and there wasn't any new dilemma added to make the idea more complex.If i were you, and you were thinking about renting this movie, don't. if they show it on TV for free, i'd go out side and do something more constructive with my time.

Michel_spain At the beginning of the film one can read:"The Tesseract is a hypercube unraveled." "When a square unravels to a live, two dimensions become one." "When a cube unravels to a cross, three dimensions become two." "When a hypercube unravels to the tesseract, four dimensions become three."In fact the tesseract is a 4 dimensional cube (term by Charles Howard Hinton, mathematician and science fiction writer) and this concept tries to introduce us into more than three dimensions.This movie is a strange mixture of Matrix (special effects), Kill Bill (slow camera scenes with Tomoyasu Hotei's "Battle Without Honor or Humanity" style) and Memento (playing with time, backward and forward). Four strange and different characters reunited in a hotel of Bangkok with nothing in common. Really nothing in common? The first minutes promise an excellent film that does not convince in any moment. It's a pity, could have been magnificent.

kazaadude2000 Alex Garland is an awesome writer. The Beach novel was great; the movie threw away everything good about it, including the essence of the main characters, and predictably sucked. 28 Days was pretty fun. Haven't read the Tesseract book, but this movie's pretty bad. Pacing's bad, acting's bad, script is bad.Some of the early visual sequences were done really well, but I hate it when directors use visual type camera effects and pulp-fiction or boomtown type chronology as their MAIN arsenal to grab people's attention, to try to make it look hip. Like another reviewer mentioned, it's not like these things weren't already used in several movies. Couldn't finish the movie. I wonder if Garland was happy that his novel was connected to this film?

Thriceshy . . . that word would have to be "ack." Too danged artsy, trying too hard to be "avante garde." Stop action photography, cut frames effects, more darkness than a barrel full of--well, darkness, and the pastiest bunch of people I've seen in a long while. Sad thing is, it's a fair story, with some solidly laudable acting (and some solidly BAD, too).Memento worked because it followed a linear pattern, even if that pattern was reversed. "Tesseract" leaps all over the place, leaving folks with that head scratching, pause-button-hitting sense of "huh?" Sure, you can figure it out, but do you really want to spend the whole movie figuring out time line instead of enjoying the film?Unless that's your sort of gig . . .In all? Ton of potential here, not much of it realized.