Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Rob Starzec The idea for Timecode is an excellent idea and it seems like such a concept could have amazing potential. Sadly, it simply does not have the greatness to make it a memorable revolutionary film. Sure, this concept has never been done before, but it doesn't make up for the fact that the film tells a boring story and feels more like a video than a prestigious film.It is extremely difficult to follow all four screens throughout the duration of the film. Not all screens focus on a specific story, but certain stories are made less important than others which is disappointing with this film trying to be a good web-life film as well as the first to capture real time from four cameras.The audio mixing definitely manipulates the way the audience attempts to watch the film. Certain dialogue is tuned down so that only one or two screens can be heard and which have more "importance" than the others at certain times in the film. This may help to focus on what is essential in each moment, but overall all information within a story should be essential, so when some of that information is tuned out it can be an aggravating experience and not enjoyable.This is a failed experiment to change cinema forever.2.0/4.0

Python Hyena Timecode (2000): Dir: Mike Figgis / Cast: Jeanne Tripplehorn, Salma Hayek, Stellan Skarsgard, Saffron Burrows, Holly Hunter: Focusing our attention becomes a big priority when one embarks on Mike Figgis's creation. Unique film in which its initial concept works against it. Four situations are presented in real time on screen blocked into cells. It is impossible to keep track of all of the action, however dialogue and noise usually gain an advantage. Director Mike Figgis details the film with a large ensemble cast as well as present his own personal project where viewers can decide what they wish to devote attention to. Among the cast is Jeanne Tripplehorn who acts out jealousy and lets the air out of her lover's tires. She will bug her purse and spend much of the film listening in on an audition, which will result in a fatal jealous rage. Salma Hayek plays her lover and she is off to an audition but Tripplehorn believes that she is cheating on her. Other than Tripplehorn and Hayek there is Stellan Skarsgard as a diverse member of the film crew whose projects contains an unexpected twist that is fatal. Saffron Burrows plays his wife who is planning a divorce. Holly Hunter steals moments as an executive. Figgis is setting out to make a film that is compelling and original. The challenge for the viewer is focus but it plays off several points of view. It is up to us where our attention will go. Score: 8 / 10

bob the moo While Alex is dodging the morning team meeting for his fledgling film production company, his team are complaining about his attitude and time keeping. Meanwhile on a cab drive, upcoming actress Rose is sharing a limo with lover Lauren, who is confronting her on her suspected infidelity. Meanwhile Alex's wife Emma sees her shrink to discuss dreams and issues within her life. Meanwhile the security guard and receptionist greet those coming to audition for parts and pitch scripts.Those looking for a night in to just veg out and half-watch a movie should probably bail out as the opening titles roll because this is not a film to provide you with the type of entertainment where you can just not pay attention for time. The film has a very disjointed narrative following a collection of characters and it is the type of story that would have been well delivered in a "Short Cuts" style approach. It isn't perfect but it is interesting enough and has plenty of stuff going on within the script. Ironically the split screen, real time approach (gimmick?) make it selective viewing but also worth a wide audience seeing. It takes a minute to get into the stride of the film and pick up the threads . Specific frames have their volume raised to be audible above the others and this tends to work very well while visually I was still following each frame. While it is fair to call it a gimmick it does make the film worth seeing simply because it is so original an idea (at least as far as I am aware). It does have boring patches and it is certainly not a brilliant film in the traditional sense (the dramatic resolution didn't convince or engage me) but the "gimmick" does make it worth seeing.Technically the film is impressive because of the long takes and the way the action moves between cameras/frames in a seamless and it comes off really well. The cast are pretty impressive on paper and you can see why they were all drawn to this challenging experiment. With the nature of the film nobody is really given the opportunity to dominate but considering the difficulty of keeping going with four cameras doing single takes it is impressive that nobody messes up. Burrows wasn't all I would have liked but main turns from Skarsgård, Tripplehorn and Hayek were all good in their characters. The support cast is also strong with solid work from Berkeley, Brooks, Hunter, Huston, MacLachlan, Sands and others.Overall then not a great film but one that is successful on its own terms. The story is engaging even if it becomes forced towards the end but the delivery is the main reason for seeing it. The cast work well with the challenge of working in one take but it is the direction that is more impressive as four cameras work really well together on the one take and it is hard not to be taken in by it on this level. Not great in the traditional sense but well worth seeing for what it does.

Lea Cave This movie is a pretentious attempt at being "revolutionary" or whatever the hell you want to call it. Sure this was a potentially interesting idea (real time and quartered screen), but it wasn't used in a very powerful way. Being different doesn't make something good, and this movie is a prime example of that. This idea could have actually made a point or followed a story that wasn't clichéd and boring instead of some over-dramatic Hollywood crap. This movie was a confusing and bland waste of time. I never felt the need to find out how anything ended up or felt any attachment or interest in any of the characters. It was lacking in any kind of substance whatsoever, and I hope that the majority of people who consider viewing this movie spare themselves and change their minds.