Very well executed

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

in 1948, Alfred Hitchcock released a film that had been created using 8 ten-minute continuous takes. The takes were then 'stitched' together using the camera moving toward a black background so that the film reel could be reloaded and shooting could commence. The result, ROPE, made for an 'interesting' film. i don't believe it did supergreat box-office-wise, but it was an interesting innovation. the film was a bit like a clever play, and it seemed a bit long for its 80 minutes. However, this was Alfred Hitchcock, and the plot line and much of the dialogue kept audiences interested. I mention this earlier film as a comparative to Timecode. Timecode's basic technique is innovative. it's clever, stylish and carries its urban ambiance quite well. However, the technique of dividing the screen into four quadrants, and having our attention (presumably) manipulated to focus on certain sections at certain times, comes off as annoying and gimmicky. it is annoying partly because when the one panel is being auditorally underlined, at least one other panel is still having something important going on, which creates distraction. also, sometimes, perhaps because of the real-time and improvisatory aspects of the film, there isn't always something that interesting going on in one of the panels. I became really tired of watching jeanne tripplehorn listen and smoke. this isn't acting; at least not in a truly cinematic way. it reminded me of off-off Broadway plays in the VIllage or some kind of Andy Warhol film-art-commentary piece. The acting on the whole was fairly good..not overwhelming...the only standouts really were Selma Hayek as Rose, and Stellan Skarsgaard was good as Alex. A lot of the other actors seemed to be playing quirky instead of compelling..it reminded me of some of the actors in SLACKER. of course, in that movie, you were fully able to hear what was going on, and it did move in a calmer linear fashion. also, i don't think Linklater was trying to take his characters half as seriously as Figgis does for this film. Still, i can say that this film is an improvement over The BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. the one common trait both films share is that Mr. Figgis wants us to truly believe and feel for his characters. that is a bit of a challenge in BLAIR where everyone seems overcome with hysteria in what was hyped as a 'real' film about witches. this kind of manipulation doesn't make the viewer trust the director when it comes to his intentions. Overall, an interesting technique. i would be curious to know if it has been used in other modern films.

My god... I'm warning you. This "movie" is absolute GARBAGE and SERIOUSLY a waste of time! I wouldn't even call it a movie. I had to watch this for a class so I didn't really have a choice. I wanted to turn it off so badly. I want my 97 minutes of life back! At least I didn't have to pay a dime for this mess. But then again, time is money... I should be reimbursed $100 for seeing this movie. The gimmick "movie" never gets any better. Trust me.Sure, the idea sounds interesting (take four cameras and shoot simultaneously without cuts), and it was an ambitious attempt, I'll give that, but honestly, the end result is sooooooooooooooooo HORRIBLE. It's like a really bad student film.This experiment just shows why movies need cuts, directing actors (even the big stars were horrible in most of the scenes), a real script with a real story, and most importantly, using a freaking boom mic (obviously they didn't use one because it would get in the shots). It is extremely boring and horribly shot.You can tell which scene the director wants you to focus on by the audio level; the audio gain becomes louder for the one that should be focused on by the audience and the rest become less. The director cheats because while one scene that is being focused, the rest is just obviously dragging time doing absolutely nothing. For example, Jeanne Tripplehorn (Water World, Sliding Doors), I think she was supposed to be Hayak's lesbian agent or something... all she basically does is sit in her Limo 95% of the film(sometimes she gets out of it) wearing headphones to spy on Hayak. Wow. What a great part for her! I guess she accepted the role so she could make out with Salma Hayek.That reminds me... what is up with the random lesbian scenes? Everyone seems to be lesbians and making out constantly like a porno flick. It's a pathetic device to keep the simple minded audience to keep watching. That's probably the only reason some people voted high. And of course they just have to have drugs in a movie... LAME.And they also randomly throw in THREE pointless huge earthquakes within a few minutes from each other in this movie, just because they want to show off that the scenes are all connected (we'd probably forget they're all supposed to be connected if it wasn't for that gimmick effect). But so what? Obviously someone in the crew is just queuing all the cameraman with a countdown (probably with an earpiece) and then they all just shake the camera.This movie literally is like a cheap student film. I'm not kidding.Blair Witch Project cost less to make and was also experimental, but it actually was well-made and intriguing (they even had better acting!) and that's why it succeeded, even to the mass market, as well as the style repeated years later like Cloverfield.The climax for the Blair Witch was worth it and was actually the best part of movie. For this movie, the ending is just as bad as the entire movie, especially the acting. It really falls apart. It actually turned into more of a comedy; the security guard doesn't do anything, and neither does the front desk lady or whoever it was, saying "You can't go in there" but they don't do a damn thing! Worst security ever. I mean, come on. There was absolutely nothing close to being real about this movie. People are so oblivious and obviously only acting on 'que' than anything close to being natural. Oh, and did I mention it turns into a porno flick every so often.The gunshot just sounds horribly cheap. Hayak's reaction and everyone else to the gunshot is laughable. And out of nowhere, what is up with the girl, who was giving the pitch, all of a sudden just filming the dead body? -- And the lady in complete white, that was sitting outside with the security guard (why was he just chilling outside?!), seems like she was some sick person from an institute, just joins the scene as if she's some medical assistant but does absolutely nothing to help the guy. This movie was just so annoying, laughable and a complete mess.I'd bet the cast weren't that impressed with the final result than they first heard about the idea and getting on-board. That Stellan guy probably accepted the role because he could do Salma Hayek and 'improvise' whatever sexual moves he could think of and get away with it.If you pay close attention, the four cameras aren't really even synced exactly. For example, in one shot you see Hayak enter the conference room earlier than the other camera angle for a couple seconds off. That may be picky, but that's bad editing if you ask me, especially when the whole point of this experiment is to show that's actually totally synced.1/10. (1 just for trying something new. -9 for the end results.)

Seems good plot. However, the idea of showing the movie in real-time in four different quads ruined the whole thing. One can watch it for 15 or the worst for 30 minutes like that, but it is really too much to stand it for the entire movie. The directors or whoever decided to do this should have opted for different means. The same plot could have been made better in different ways - but this was more than annoying to watch all four quads at the same time and to come for a conclusion to judge the movie However, the story and the baseline of the plot are still interesting. Casting, music, coordination all are, in fact good. In summary, they could have avoided this 4-quad plan.

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.