Timecode (2000) User Reviews

A daring, original piece of cinema

[mattymatt4ever · 7/10 · 24 June 2001]

"Timecode" is not conventional filmmaking, which is the whole beauty of it. This is a totally improvised piece of cinema, shot on a hand-held camera for 90 minutes straight--not a single cut--and shot in real-time. Every word of dialogue is improvised, the only thing written is the story (also by Mike Figgis). The way it turned out is quite impressive. Of course, the process gets tiresome and repetitive at times, but overall it's a pretty fascinating work that will probably be better appreciated by the more open-minded moviegoer--as opposed to mainstream viewers who will probably view this as just plain weird.

I was really impressed by the talented cast filled with great actors who simply went through the WHOLE ENTIRE process without once messing up. If you watch all these behind-the-scenes specials with actors stumbling line-after-line, doing take-after-take, until they finally get it right the 100th time--it's astounding to see that the whole cast was able to pull this off without a scratch. Even with such talented actors like Stellan Sarsgard, Holly Hunter, Salma Hayek, Jeanne Tripplehorn, etc., I have to commend them especially for taking part in this risky project. This movie not only showcases their knacks for acting, but also their potential to try something new, innovative and quite difficult--after all, taking risks is one of the main elements in becoming a good actor.

This type of format does--at points--feel like a theatrical version of a "Big Brother" episode, but Figgis wrote a story with as much intriguing elements as he can possibly fit into a film of this scope. After all, this is supposed a day-in-the-life type of story and you don't want to be too far-fetched. So he tries to generate as much suspense and intrigue (involving the many smutty attributes of the stereotypical white-collar LA resident) as he possibly could. There are subplots involving drug abuse, alcohol abuse, homosexuality, philandering, jealousy and of course the biggest theme of all...Sex! Naturally, my interest did sometimes drift, but the material compelled me enough to be interested for the majority of the running time. I've never been a fan of those corny reality shows. Quite frankly, I think the kind of reality displayed on those programs is very dull. "Timecode" transcends the dullness of the reality shows and, in a way, the "Blair Witch Project" (which is another reality-based film shot entirely on a hand-held camera, but executed very poorly). The material is engaging to a degree, the actors perform it very well and everything is down-to-earth to preserve its sense of realism. My only criticisms lie in the "earthquake effects." Those looked totally cheesy, created entirely by camera tricks and actors pretending to be shaken up. In one of the closing scenes, Jeanne Tripplehorn is clinging on to a nearby bannister while you can see cars in the background moving along smoothly. He could've done without that pretentious trick.

I'm not saying this a great film, but it is one I'll remember for its unique sense of style and I will always remember Mike Figgis for coming up with this innovative method. If you're tired of mainstream cinema and feel anxious to see something new and exciting--this is a film I would recommend.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

Interesting...yet not

[funfb · 7/10 · 6 July 2004]

Watching the film, it was easy to see that it was a challenge to film. I think it was well directed and coordinated. If only I could get past the fact that the plot line is craptacularly boring. There is really very little memorable about the plot. I mostly entertained myself in the challenge of trying to follow as much of it as possible. It was kind of fun to see a conversation going on in one frame, and seeing that same conversation simultaneously taking place in the background of another frame. Thus I can't imagine wanting to watch it more than once. Good to rent, but not to buy. I made that mistake, but that doesn't mean you have to.

First step

[xaviercromartie · 6/10 · 31 December 2000]

The purpose of this movie was not to entertain with an extremely dramatic plot full of twists. It was just to show that it is possible to film four separate quadrants and make them work together. THIS film did not even have a real script or anything, and it didn't take much time to complete. In the future, a major production could be created. The only problem is that because the viewer sees everything at once, the film would have to be shorter (Timecode did get boring because it is 90 mins x 4).

why?

[wappfalls5 · 20 June 2001]

You know, some times an 'idea' has never been done before because it should never be done. This movie is a perfect example. Why on earth would anybody think that people want to see a movie split into four quadrants?

I mean, I could take a script as bad as this, and film it upside down. Does that make it good because it is 'daring and original'?

It Is Time For These Types Of Films

[meeza · 7/10 · 3 March 2001]

Imagine seeing four different stories at the same time on screen. Well! My friends! The time has come. This movie concept has been developed in Director Mike Figgis' `Time Code.' Even though it is visionary exhausting, I think it works. Of course, all four stories interrelate with one another in the film's last act (which is something that we see from time to time- `L.A. Confidential' , `Magnolia', and `Short Cuts' etc.) Even though it is not as good as the Figgis' classic `Leaving Las Vegas', I am glad that Director Figgis took the time to make a different type of film. **** Good

"The capitalistic society we are living in has absorbed all the innovations"

[The_Movie_Cat · 6/10 · 2 September 2000]

In an age where top-rated films involve Australians in xenophobic, concocted histories, or should-know-better Oscar winners in films about nicking cars, innovation seems rarely welcome.

It comes as no surprise then that the first film to be told via four separate panels on the screen, with continuous 93m takes and improvisation should only be shown on one single screen in the whole of the West Midlands.

What did surprise me, however, is that the film isn't that good. It is above average, though is too mainstream to really appeal to the artset, and too arty to interest a mainstream audience. The attention is directed around the four separate panels by virtue of judicious sound editing; dips and fades occurring throughout.

Of the four panels, while their fixations may merge or change, generally speaking they take the following form: the top two are the serious ones, the upper left seeing Lauren Hathaway (Jeanne Tripplehorn) using surveillance to listen in on her girlfriend's conversations, whom she (correctly) suspects is having an affair. The upper right is the dullest, a meandering affair with the self-absorbed Emma (Saffron Burrows) who goes through counselling and has very little interaction or involvement with the rest of the film.

Lower left are the cast-offs, often sharing perspective with its adjacent panels and mostly being used for light relief. Lower right, arguably the most interesting, is centred on a movie production meeting which allows for some industry parodies. These include movies such as "Time Toilet", "Bitch" and a hip-hop Soviet incidental music that offers "Can you dig it - Trotsky in da house!"

I did chuckle at the Asian staff member whose name - Connie Ling - produces sniggers when introduced, though Onyx Richardson's (Golden Brooks) assertion that black people get short shrift in film seems hollow when you consider the only thing her character gets to talk about is her colour, and that she's the only black cast member. The film's lesbian relationships also seem only there for titillation. Lastly, when you meet a character who pitches a film based around four separate panels and continuous takes (dismissed by a committee member as "pretentious s***") you realise that this film either isn't as clever as it thinks it is or too clever by half. Without the gimmickry - and it could easily get by with only half of it's four screens - this would be a forgettable 4. Therefore, isn't it a pity that the innovation wasn't applied to a better movie? 6/10.

Interesting Experimental Film

[gbheron · 7/10 · 6 February 2003]

What an idea! Use four different cameras to shoot a movie in real-time, simultaneously. Stage the action at a single office building and nearby streets. Each camera has a group of characters to follow as they act out their parts. For 93 minutes, the interwoven stories are filmed with no breaks, as actors sometimes move from one camera's line of sight to another. Just film the events as they unfold. Now here's the kicker. Theatrically show all four films simultaneously by dividing the screen into four quadrants. You watch the movie as it was filmed. The viewer's attention is focused from screen to screen by turning up the volume on one screen, and diminishing the other three.

And it works...just don't do it again.

Too many degrees of freedom

[Euphorbia · 3/10 · 25 November 2002]

There is a rule in science that for an experiment to be meaningful, all the variables must be controlled but one. That rule could be applied to experimental cinema, too; at least it should have been applied to this film.

Time Code combines two experiments, one that has promise, and one that is doomed. The promising experiment involves multiple screens following different parts of the story in "real" time. The doomed experiment involves requiring actors to script and direct themselves.

In addition, this movie was shot in four simultaneous uninterrupted takes. Maybe this was an experiment, too, but it is comparable to live theater, which is not exactly a novelty. It is neither a good thing nor a bad thing -- and should be a matter of complete indifference to the audience, as long it works. Instead of cutting from scene to scene, our attention shifts from screen to screen.

The four-screen experiment did work reasonably well here, especially on DVD, where one can instantly back up to catch bits one missed. The multi-view device might even have been truly excellent in this film, had it not been for the other experiment -- the Absentee Director.

A feature movie is not an improv sketch. There is a reason that an army has one general, and that a movie has one director. Although each of these endeavors requires the effort and cooperation of many talented people, both a military campaign and a feature film must be focused on one person's vision and goals.

Time Code has the same fatal flaw as Dancing at the Blue Iguana. Each actor was instructed to invent his own character, and then to direct himself. In Time Code each performer was evidently told to make of his character a recognizable Hollywood stereotype. The result: eight variations on "coke-snorting pretentious but sycophantic loser," who all walk stiffly through their parts like zombies trying to perform soap opera. I cannot imagine how desperate a viewer would have to be, in order to care about any of them.

I suppose this should not reflect badly on the performers, although it cannot have helped their careers. I have seen most of them in other films, and they are all capable actors. It does reflect dismally on the director. Where was he hiding while the four cameras were running? Maybe he was busy watching four tumble dryers at the laundromat up the street.

Time Code might be worth a peek on dollar-day at the video store -- which is how I found it. Otherwise, forget it. 3/10.

Ridiculously good

[neil_mc · 10/10 · 7 September 2004]

I am pretty sure that I will not see a more jaw-dropping piece of film-making for quite some time. To put the complexity of filming 4 continuous takes simultaneously and in full co-ordination into any perspective, is extremely difficult. And then to have such a dramatic climax at the end of 93 improvised minutes is pretty mind-blowing.

I'm sure plenty of people will scream "pretentious crap" - as the girl suggests in her meeting speech - but the innovative brilliance of this film should be applauded above everything else. For example, little things like how the camera is focused on Skarsgard in the meeting while his wife is having it away with another woman. And then bigger things such as each screen simultaneously focusing in close-up on their characters eyes. Unbelievable.

I'm sure this isn't everybody's cup of tea - some people just don't appreciate the concept of doing something unique and risky. Some people even go as far as criticising Mike Figgis for attempting this - when in truth, this experiment was never likely to reach the masses, so any accusation of arrogance/pretension are pathetic.

As for the story and acting, I have a sneaky suspicion that maybe the sound was turned down on certain screens in post-production when actor's were fumbling or struggling for dialogue, I also thought the sound should have been muted from the other 3 screens while we were focused on one - because at times we get mumbling from all 4 at once, which doesn't work. But none of this detracts from a truly great achievement from all involved - for actors to go 93 minutes undisturbed is very impressive.

A perfectly constructed and co-ordinated film, I am in absolute awe. 10/10

Interesting experiment, but

[larcher-2 · 7/10 · 20 August 2001]

Interesting experiment, but if you look past the experimental bits, its really a mediocre little potboiler. As with all movies that are fundamentally dependent on "special effects," the question arises whether technical wizardry really can so transform the nature of film as to make the more conventional elements (plot, dialogue, acting) relatively unimportant.

Form, form, form, form...

[mauricio-19 · 3/10 · 29 January 2001]

I respect the challenge that this movie presented. Four cameras running in real time, with synchronized events? Wow. But without an engaging story the challenge is equivalent to building a replica of the Empire State Building out of matches. Impressive but pointless.

If you are a movie student it is worth seeing. Maybe you can turn this great idea into a real movie.

A film doesn't have to be revolutionary for it to be brilliant.

[the red duchess · 9/10 · 2 October 2000]

Mike Figgis does a Robert Altman. Except, instead of creating a large narrative of interconnecting plot strands, he puts them all on four split screens. Is this therefore more subversive than Altman? I don't think so - Altman's method is an attack on Hollywood linearity, on conventional methods of 'connection'; his characters exist is the same space but are emotionally etc. miles apart. The characters in 'Short Cuts', like the city of L.A. itself, are a mass without a centre. Figgis, for all the supposed diffusion of his visual strands, actually reunites, glues together Altman's ruptures. In this way it might seem a more optimistic kind of film. It isn't.

'timecode' is being touted as a revolution in cinema, a new way of watching films. Instead of watching one screen and being led by a director, we are given four, and asked to make our choices. I was surprised at how panicked I was at this in the first 20 minutes, darting between scenes, wondering which one I should follow. This forced me out of the film much more disturbingly than anything by Fassbinder or Godard. But this alienation is deceptive. Firstly we are not really bombarded by four narratives - put 'pierrot le fou', 'diary of a country priest', 'vampyr' and 'branded to kill' on four screens, then you'd be confused. Figgis leads you all the way, gives you an illusion of choice, but rarely fulfils it. The focus is on one screen at a time - either the soundtrack is turned up loudest, the plot is more interesting, whatever. For long periods of time, you can safely ignore other scenes because there is nothing going on - for about 20 minutes, for example, Lauren sits in a limousine listening to a bug planted on Rose; this leaves us free to watch another screen and see what she's listening to. Other scenes are merely tedious - eg Emma droning to her shrink (a nod to Godard's 'week end', that famous end of cinema?) - so that you gladly look elsewhere. It is possible to listen to one scene, and flit around at the others to catch up on what's going on.

What I'm saying is, 'timecode' is not a difficult experience - after the initial adjustment, you watch the film as you would any other, especially as all the stories converge and are really only one story. Even at the beginning, the feeling is less one of Brechtian alienation than akin to being a security guard faced with a grid of screens - you rarely think about the physical processes of film or performance, as you would in a Dogme or Godard film.

So if 'timecode' is less revolutionary than it seems, that doesn't mean it isn't a brilliant film, a real purse in a pig's ear of a year (or whatever the expression is). One reason for this is the four-screen structure: I would have to watch it a few more times, but I was very conscious of the orchestration of the screens, the way compositions, or camera movements, or close-ups etc., in one screen were echoed, reflected, distorted in the others - a true understanding of this miraculous formal apparatus would, I think, give us the heart of the film, and bely the improvised nature of the content. Figgis is also a musician - he co-composed the score - and the movement here, its fugues and variations are truly virtuosic, almost worthy of my earlier Altman comparison.

But the content is great fun too. At first I was disappointed at the self-absorbed drabness of the material, the idea that we shouldn't be made to work too hard because we've enough to deal with the four screens. And, it is true, that the stories rarely transcend cliche. But, such is the enthusiasm of the performers (people like Salma Hayek obviously relishing slightly more useful roles than the bilge they're usually stuck in); the precision of the structure; the mixture of comedy and pathos, and the way the style facilitates both, that you're convinced you're watching a masterpiece. Quentin's massaging and Ana's pitch are two of the funniest things I've seen in ages, while Stellan Skarsgard's rich performance stands out all the more for its brittle surroundings.

Four frames at once not confusing at all

[ruby_fff · 7/10 · 29 May 2000]

It's not confusing. It's kinda like watching security camera screens 4 frames at the same time -- and in TIME CODE, there is actually going's on in each of the 4 frames simultanously.

If you appreciate film experimentation and graphic/visual satisfaction, and able to swallow Hollywood drama (menage a trois) easy, try TIME CODE. Mike Figgis' very much digitally generated 4-frame movie, delivered with the concerted effort of 4-camera individually manned yet simultaneously coordinated, is truly a technological fete. They must have had fun, including the spontaneous improvised acting by the team of actors. The storyline evolves around a day's event of a Hollywood production company. The cameras captured (top right frame) Saffron Burrows' activities; (top left frame) Jeanne Tripplehorn and Salma Hayak inside a limousine; (lower left frame) the street scenes and happenings outside of the production company office, shooting from the office reception area; (lower right frame) inside the office space's conference meeting room -- the lower left and right frames cycle through/forth and back to capture the going's on within the office space.

Once you've established the sense of the settings and picked up the relationships of the multiple characters (include Stellan Skarsgard, Holly Hunter, Julian Sands, Leslie Mann, Steve Weber, Kyle MacLachlan), which are all somehow related in this Web of Hollywood saga, you'd be drawn into the drama of it all by the audio as much as the visual. You will feel at ease -- the activities within each frame will naturally be absorbed and the mind will get used to the 4-frame setup and be able to follow the event of things. The fact that the audio is monitored concurrently with the conversation/sound volume of each frame being choreographed to be louder or softer helps the audience's aural/visual reception of this techno-innovative "filmic" effort. Bravo to another Mike Figgis bold attempt!

Painful

[ennui- · 1/10 · 31 December 2002]

Timecode was a failed experiment. Four screens running simultaneously, running for 90 minutes in real-time. Sounds pretty intriguing, right? Sure.. If you assume that the plot is interesting, the characters believable and likeable, and the acting competent. (spoilers) This was not the case here.. It started off pretty good, with an amusing lesbian verbal exchange(You are a $@^#%$# SLUT!) but got progressively worse as the movie went on. A vapid sex scene follows, as well as some conversations between characters that seem to be completely impertinent and unnecessary. Seriously, I would've liked to see Salma Hayek get hit by a car or something in this movie, she comes off as sounding so "highschool drama course". One of the LEAST annoying characters dies in the end, and then they throw in a weak connection to this blonde woman who did absolutely nothing of import previously.

Seriously, skip this, or watch this as an example of how innovation doesn't always produce "sexy, tense and unnerving" results..

Space Code

[tedg · 24 September 2001]

Architectural Location

Spoilers herein.

Much has been made of the three experimental techniques used here: unbroken takes; four screens; heavy improvisation. But there is a powerful effect that seems to be overlooked.

Film is inescapably two-dimensional, and many clever tricks of different types have been used to give meat to the narrative eye. The most interesting of these concern how to introduce visceral notions of space. Studying these is one of my film hobbies -- there are many clever ideas, but nothing with the immediacy seen here.

Its because very soon, you understand that the four cameras are near each other and all deal with the same time. People move from one frame to another, with the view often overlapping. In `regular' film, you get used to a single eye. Talented directors will play with this single note, shifting between god, an invisible person, the perspective of a character, the position of a virtual audience. Here, all cameras are uncompromisingly human, but because you always have these four eyes, you are given a particularly deep notion of space. In fact, it is hyper-real: a richer feel of depth than you can get with your own eyes.

Figges is particularly aware of this effect (though it doesn't come up in his DVD comments). The primary narrative involves the fellow splitting his attention (between two women) and involves the notion of films about film. It has a primary character who `listens' in on other frames, from (mostly) a car, expanding her virtual space. She's the center of the `action.'

A Captivating Exploration of Love and Connection Through the Lens of Modern Technology

[Mysterygeneration · 6/10 · 12 January 2024]

Juanjo Giménez's short film Timecode cleverly examines the nexus between modern technology and human connection. It is distinctive and visually arresting. The narrative is told through a sequence of security camera clips that show Luna and Diego, two security guards who work in a parking lot, going about their daily business. A beautiful dance of connection is created from what starts off as a straightforward observation of their daily tasks, demonstrating how movies have the ability to take the commonplace and make it special. Giménez skillfully crafts a surprise and endearing relationship between the individuals by making the most of the viewpoint constraints imposed by the security camera.

never before

[Zepheus · 6/10 · 12 June 2000]

A movie has never been made like this before. I had been waiting for months for this movie to come out, and was excited to see how it worked on the screen. The four stories interwove beautifully. And it was pleasing to be able to decide which I wanted to watch. Plus, Stellan Skarsgård gives a great performance. Dramatic AND funny. Great ending. Mike Figgis is a definite innovator.

QUADRUPLE VISION

[kevin c · 6/10 · 29 August 2000]

You soon immerse yourself in the feel and flow of this film, and it works very well. In this multi-channel/Big Brother era, we're perfectly equipped to watch such a film. The 4 screens attract you, bore you and frustrate you. It becomes quite compelling.

A very strong cast, with Hayek particularly good. Figgis always seems to produce something of interest, with his approach to direct, write and score always mixing well.

This film will leave you exhausted at the end, and probably give you a headache too. It is worth it though.

Impossible to watch

[ceefoo · 1/10 · 20 June 2014]

TIME CODE (not Timecode) was filmed in 4 continuous takes beginning at 3:00pm on Friday, November 19th, 1999. All of the cast improvised around a predetermined structure... WHAT'S THE POINT!?!

This film may being "artsy" or "experimental" but if the audiences viewing and enjoyment of the film is totally ruined as a result; then really: What Is The Point?

Going into the movie I didn't know what to expect and when I saw that the picture was split into quarters I thought "this is unusual" but was wondering WHEN the screen would turn into a single visual. It wasn't until about 15 minutes in that it occurred to me that - THE WHOLE FRAKKING FILM IS LIKE THIS! All 97 minutes. Even the flipping End Credits FFS!

Trying to follow a story from one of the 4 frames is very restrictive because although you can see 4 frames at once, you are only allowed (for obvious reasons) to hear one frames' dialogue clearly at a time.

And just as you are following THAT storyline, the filmmakers decide to fade down the volume and switch to a different frame. SO F***ING ANNOYING! What's most annoying is that this fail of a movie does have a brilliant cast, so it's a real shame that their efforts went to waste on this nonsensical idea for a feature film.

Awesome Effort

[daveisit · 8/10 · 23 January 2001]

A fantastic effort that narrowly missed out on being brilliant. I loved what this movie tried to do, although ultimately it became a little boring. I love real time movies, and I love long takes, in this case the whole movie. With a stronger plot and script for the actors to work with, this style could succeed. The one thing I noticed at the end of the movie was how draining it was trying to follow every conversation on each of the four screens.

Interesting Experiment in Opening Up Time and Space

[noralee · 6/10 · 8 October 2005]

"Time Code" is an interesting experiment, kind of the World's Fair-type go-go movies as "Purple Rose of Cairo" done as an improv.

With four related quadrants going at all times, I frequently was on sensory overload and had to tune out.

While the improv aspects of goofing on the superficiality of what goes into making a movie were a bit precious, what was intriguing was the experiment with the opposite of opening up the fourth wall by in effect opening up the other three walls.

In another step from the circular story-telling of "Pulp Fiction" and "Go" we literally see what happens before a character enters a room and where they go when they leave (whether or not that's interesting). It's one way to make a point that everyone in Hollywood is a hypocrite.

(originally written 5/29/2000)

ABSOLUTE CRAP! Just shows why we need cuts and a real script in movies.

[pinokiyo · 1/10 · 3 March 2009]

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.)

Loose the remote!

[junk-monkey · 9/10 · 12 July 2005]

As I sat down to watch this movie I was cursing because I couldn't find the remote. Lucky break for me! After a few minutes of uncomfortable misgivings, I mean! 4 screens of hand-held camera with weirdly variable sound - Oh God, what am I watching here? I slowly became hooked and hypnotised. I would suddenly realise that I had been so intent on the top left corner that the situation in the bottom right had changed from an interior with one character to an exterior following another and I hadn't noticed when and how this had happened. If I had the remote I would have been constantly stopping and rewinding and I would have totally destroyed the flow.

So, here's the thing thing. If you are watching this movie for the first time on DVD or VHS - loose the remote control!

Not a Great Film but an interesting and noble experiment. (And heartening to know there are still some grown-ups left in Hollywood).

Not boring

[John-312 · 7/10 · 4 September 2001]

Every so often, I see a film on cable and I've never heard of it and I try to guess the title. In 1,000,000 years, I never would've come up with "Time Code." The four-way screen is done very effectively. The film holds your interest . . . possibly even to see it again. But it is marred by two big drawbacks. The movie's themes are old and trite (Hollywood casting couch, etc.) and the earthquake scenes do not ring true. People do not stop talking about an earthquake five seconds after it happens. And they also seem very contrived, like the raining frogs scene in a disastrous film that we won't name. Also, what happened to Jeanne Tripplehorn? I thought she could act.

Film school geek gone mad

[ponger · 1/10 · 25 May 2002]

Too much. Too bad.

Screen split into four sections. Some seem connected. Some don't. Woooooooo.

It's got the "video" look. Glassy. Too bright. Too far away or too close. Shaky at times. Woooooooo.

The dialogue is hushed in three screens. Loud in one. Loud screen changes often. Draws your attention. Woooooooo.

All this can't cover up the fact that this film is essentially crap. Boring dialogue. Stilted acting. Pointless drivel. Boooooooo.

Too much. Way too bad to watch more than a few minutes.