"Tape" is not the best film of the year (in fact, it's not even director Richard Linklater's best film of the year), but it's a strong and intriguing movie experience all the same. Just three characters, one hotel room and a whole boiling pot of backstory. One could almost imagine Linklater, Hawke, Leonard (hey, isn't that Ethan Hawke's roommate 10 years ago in Dead Poet's Society?), and Thurman hanging out with a cool stage play and a DV camera and shooting the whole thing in one night. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing discardable or amateur about this film. But watch how the play, a simple story of old friends confronting old wounds, is transformed by the camera. The story is told in real time in a cramped room, but Linklater's over-cutting almost seems to extend time and space, creating a fully-realized world outside the hotel room walls without ever taking the camera outside. The performances are dead-on and suspense builds right under your nose. Rich and engaging.
116 Reviews
this movie left me cold
buyjesus12 June 2002
This movie comes from a seasoned director who, in the same year, nonetheless, shot another movie which i would consider the best film of 2001. This one, also shot on digital cameras takes place in a dingy hotel room and contains a cast of, count 'em, 1,2, THREE people, who are never seen outside of the context of the dingy motel room. So, don't expect for the scene to change. This film, based on a play, strives on realism, hence no orchestral score, no unnecessary settings or extra characters, just three fantastic actors dealing with issues. One (Hawke) is a volunteer firefighter/ drug dealer who likes to, ahem, get excessively high off his own supply. Another is his high school buddy,a budding young director whose film is being screen in the Lansing, Michigan Film festival, whose apparent maturity and superiority over his drug-binging pal and confidente is deceptive. The final character, who arrives 2/3 of the way through the movie is a former high school crush/ associate district attorney with significantly surrogate emotional ties to both of the men.
The riveting conversations that evolve from somewhat sneeringly nostalgic to downright inhospitable fluidly move the film more actively than any number of action-packed popcorn flicks out there. In fact, you'll have no trouble getting over the fact that you're just watching 3 people talking in a room for 2 hours (I'll admit that that was a little intimidating at first). The film successfully lures us in with that inherent voyeurism that brought those first moviegoers into the transformed vaudeville theaters. As a passive observer, we become immersed in exactly that which should be none of our business, just like Hawke's character pulls himself into a situation that is none of his business. By the end, no clear resolution is reached and as compelling and intriguing as it all was, we feel guilty for looking through the peephole.
The riveting conversations that evolve from somewhat sneeringly nostalgic to downright inhospitable fluidly move the film more actively than any number of action-packed popcorn flicks out there. In fact, you'll have no trouble getting over the fact that you're just watching 3 people talking in a room for 2 hours (I'll admit that that was a little intimidating at first). The film successfully lures us in with that inherent voyeurism that brought those first moviegoers into the transformed vaudeville theaters. As a passive observer, we become immersed in exactly that which should be none of our business, just like Hawke's character pulls himself into a situation that is none of his business. By the end, no clear resolution is reached and as compelling and intriguing as it all was, we feel guilty for looking through the peephole.
Past ignited in motel room....
film-critic16 January 2005
This film took me two days to decide whether I liked it or not. When the final credits rolled, rather creatively at that, I couldn't figure out if this was pure brilliance on the part of Richard Linklater, or if it was nothing more than a group of friends trying to make an independent film. I could not decide. I even listened to the audio commentary of Ethan Hawke and Richard Linklater to see if I could capture their mood of the film to hopefully influence mine. While it was a very interesting audio commentary, it only provided more indecisiveness. After thinking about this for two days, I finally thought about it long enough and realized that if a film makes you think for two days after viewing, there has to be something spectacular about it, and there was. After two days I was able to put my finger on it. You had a very chilling story, a deeply disturbing confession, a powerhouse of acting by Robert Sean Leonard and Uma Thurman, and then there was Ethan Hawke. I put him aside because it was his acting, his portrayal of Vince that took away the inches of film that nearly made it into perfection. Let me explain.
This is a story, that on the surface seems small, is very large in structure. While its only setting is inside a motel room, the written word by Stephen Belber transforms this into a thrilling drama about past lives and future consequences. From the opening scene of Hawke throwing his beers into the motel door until the final dramatic conclusion where Vince is caught up in the web of his own lies, we never really know anything about him. Leonard talks briefly about what he is doing and why he is currently single, but we never really get to know Ethan's character. This is what muddled in my mind for those two days, I continually had to ask myself who Vince really was. Was he a friend trying to help Leonard with a guilty conscious, or was he on the side of Amy trying to give her the conclusion that she wanted. Who knows? I think I needed more structure with Ethan's Vince. We needed more from Linklater to help us understand this self-appointed villain, or even more from Ethan to reveal his ultimate purpose. Instead, what occurred was Ethan just jumping around being annoying with no purpose except what you could hear Linklater telling him. Here is what I could hear: "Ok, Ethan, your purpose in this scene is to ensure that Leonard doesn't leave, do whatever it takes". Ethan takes this direction and adds a couple of swear words and uses screaming to keep him in the room instead of countering with more plot. Does this make sense? I felt like I knew why Leonard and Thurman were there in that room, but WHY Ethan was bringing them together was never told. I know that perhaps it was left up to the viewer, but this story needed a hint. It needed to provide some reasoning for the situation. I felt Ethan held us back from learning that. Someone else in the role may have done better, but Ethan just felt lost and stagy.
As I said before, Leonard and Thurman really carried this film on their shoulders. I was impressed to see Leonard taking such heavy work, but his true acting ability really came forth. The same goes for Uma who successfully took the idea of "husband and wife" away while working with Ethan. I was concerned that it would be a factor in Tape, but luckily these two were able to keep their characters separate. The chemistry that Leonard and Thurman had on screen was shattering. I found myself holding my breath during their parts from both emotion and the tension that they created. Outside of Ethan, they did a great job.
The story was a very tight story. I loved being brought into the middle of this controversy and seeing that a world can be created and destroyed in a hotel room. I thought that concept was a hard one to tackle, but Stephen Belber (who also wrote the play) did a fantastic job of eliminating the corporate element and giving us the pure human drama that exists between these characters. Linklater likewise really pulls this film together well by keeping the tensions high and elaborate as our characters progress through the phases of this predicament. The only trouble I had with Linklater's direction deals with his swirling camera. Whenever two people were talking to each other we found ourselves swirling between the two instead of using one large shot or quick cuts. I thought this was annoying at times, and quite dizzying. It detracted from the words that the actors were speaking and from the impact of the story. That is my only critique of Linklater's direction, which was nearly flawless.
Overall, this was an impressive and very intense drama that will keep you on the edge of your seat due to its strong reality and human element. It took me a while for me to realize this, and will probably take some time for it to sink into your mind, but that is the nature of this film. It is created to leave this lasting impression on your mind and to haunt your mind during your next visit with friends. I think Linklater did an excellent job with the material that he was handed, proving that his work could be compared to early Cameron Crowe material. Leonard and Thurman explode onto the scene, while Hawke leaves a bit more to be desired. I do believe that Linklater should have considered another actor for his role. Either way, this was a great film that took away the classic Hollywood backdrop and gave us nothing but 100% pure acting.
Grade: **** out of *****
This is a story, that on the surface seems small, is very large in structure. While its only setting is inside a motel room, the written word by Stephen Belber transforms this into a thrilling drama about past lives and future consequences. From the opening scene of Hawke throwing his beers into the motel door until the final dramatic conclusion where Vince is caught up in the web of his own lies, we never really know anything about him. Leonard talks briefly about what he is doing and why he is currently single, but we never really get to know Ethan's character. This is what muddled in my mind for those two days, I continually had to ask myself who Vince really was. Was he a friend trying to help Leonard with a guilty conscious, or was he on the side of Amy trying to give her the conclusion that she wanted. Who knows? I think I needed more structure with Ethan's Vince. We needed more from Linklater to help us understand this self-appointed villain, or even more from Ethan to reveal his ultimate purpose. Instead, what occurred was Ethan just jumping around being annoying with no purpose except what you could hear Linklater telling him. Here is what I could hear: "Ok, Ethan, your purpose in this scene is to ensure that Leonard doesn't leave, do whatever it takes". Ethan takes this direction and adds a couple of swear words and uses screaming to keep him in the room instead of countering with more plot. Does this make sense? I felt like I knew why Leonard and Thurman were there in that room, but WHY Ethan was bringing them together was never told. I know that perhaps it was left up to the viewer, but this story needed a hint. It needed to provide some reasoning for the situation. I felt Ethan held us back from learning that. Someone else in the role may have done better, but Ethan just felt lost and stagy.
As I said before, Leonard and Thurman really carried this film on their shoulders. I was impressed to see Leonard taking such heavy work, but his true acting ability really came forth. The same goes for Uma who successfully took the idea of "husband and wife" away while working with Ethan. I was concerned that it would be a factor in Tape, but luckily these two were able to keep their characters separate. The chemistry that Leonard and Thurman had on screen was shattering. I found myself holding my breath during their parts from both emotion and the tension that they created. Outside of Ethan, they did a great job.
The story was a very tight story. I loved being brought into the middle of this controversy and seeing that a world can be created and destroyed in a hotel room. I thought that concept was a hard one to tackle, but Stephen Belber (who also wrote the play) did a fantastic job of eliminating the corporate element and giving us the pure human drama that exists between these characters. Linklater likewise really pulls this film together well by keeping the tensions high and elaborate as our characters progress through the phases of this predicament. The only trouble I had with Linklater's direction deals with his swirling camera. Whenever two people were talking to each other we found ourselves swirling between the two instead of using one large shot or quick cuts. I thought this was annoying at times, and quite dizzying. It detracted from the words that the actors were speaking and from the impact of the story. That is my only critique of Linklater's direction, which was nearly flawless.
Overall, this was an impressive and very intense drama that will keep you on the edge of your seat due to its strong reality and human element. It took me a while for me to realize this, and will probably take some time for it to sink into your mind, but that is the nature of this film. It is created to leave this lasting impression on your mind and to haunt your mind during your next visit with friends. I think Linklater did an excellent job with the material that he was handed, proving that his work could be compared to early Cameron Crowe material. Leonard and Thurman explode onto the scene, while Hawke leaves a bit more to be desired. I do believe that Linklater should have considered another actor for his role. Either way, this was a great film that took away the classic Hollywood backdrop and gave us nothing but 100% pure acting.
Grade: **** out of *****
Linlater's ramble gathers force and wins you over.
babcockt3 November 2001
The concept, cinematically, of TAPE is the conceit that you are going to keep three actors in a room talking for an hour and a half and that we are going to stay interested. At the top we have a giddy and uncomfortable Ethan Hawke who is awaiting the arrival of his friend Robert Sean Leonard. The interaction between these two seems forced at the beginning...almost as if the two actors know they are stuck in a room for awhile and they better make it interesting. But soon enough, one comes to realize that the uncomfortability is due more to the estranged and uneveness of the two's relationship more than anything else.
TAPE unfurls in an imrov-like environment (I was actually surprised this was a play in that I did think the actors imrovising)where theres overlapping, interruptions, belches and tangents...it leads you to believe you are on a banal ride of actor's without direction and slowly steers you towards and unexpected conclusion. Luckily, true to Linklater, this conclusion isn't of the gunshot variety( always the easy out when faced with the harder possibility of character epiphany of any sort)but rather of the more painful type of self-reflection and realization.
Hawke bumbles, preens and flounders all over the screen as Leonard expertly evades scrutiny...but the real revelation here is Thurman. For the first time since Beautiful Girls she is just -playing-a person. Doing so, she shines right through in her most powerful role to date. She arrives completely in her own skin and then, without much of any prestidigitation, uses that same humble demeanor to lance through the boys complete murk and bulls**t. For that reason alone this film merits viewing.
It's other virtue is in it's rambling force in which it arrives at an honest dissection of our own hipocrisy.
TAPE unfurls in an imrov-like environment (I was actually surprised this was a play in that I did think the actors imrovising)where theres overlapping, interruptions, belches and tangents...it leads you to believe you are on a banal ride of actor's without direction and slowly steers you towards and unexpected conclusion. Luckily, true to Linklater, this conclusion isn't of the gunshot variety( always the easy out when faced with the harder possibility of character epiphany of any sort)but rather of the more painful type of self-reflection and realization.
Hawke bumbles, preens and flounders all over the screen as Leonard expertly evades scrutiny...but the real revelation here is Thurman. For the first time since Beautiful Girls she is just -playing-a person. Doing so, she shines right through in her most powerful role to date. She arrives completely in her own skin and then, without much of any prestidigitation, uses that same humble demeanor to lance through the boys complete murk and bulls**t. For that reason alone this film merits viewing.
It's other virtue is in it's rambling force in which it arrives at an honest dissection of our own hipocrisy.
Linklater's edgiest film to date.
craiginarea519 September 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Richard Linklater's new film, "Tape" is the most jarring film of his career. The film takes place entirely in a hotel room in Michigan where the main character, Vince, (played by Ethan Hawke),is downing two beers at once. He is waiting for the arrival of his old friend, John, (Robert Sean Leonard), an indie film-maker whose new film is playing at a local film-festival.
Vince's motivations for seeing John have less to do with seeing his friend again and more to do with confronting him about an incident which happened when they were younger. Apparently, back in their high school days, John raped a woman named Amy, (played by Uma Thurman). Amy was Vince's ex-girlfriend and someone whom both men are still infactuated with. However, the story is less about the somewhat ambiguous question over whether or not John raped Amy and more about these two characters and their lack of control over their lives. If any character in a Richard Linklater film can be described as a loser, it's Vince. He drinks beer, smokes pot and snorts coke throughout the entire movie. He is a drug-dealer who deludes himself that he also has a legitimate job, and therefore control over his life, as a volunteer fire-fighter. John, on the other hand, seemingly has more control over his life, but that's only because he deals with his shattered ego internally while Vince deals with it externally. John has a dream job - a young up and coming film director whose movie is playing at a film-festival. And yet, he is terribly dissatisfied with his life. He tells Vince that the film festival is only showing his film once in the afternoon and that it is only a small film-festival, anyway. One gets the feeling that the only reason why John hangs out with a guy like Vince is to feel secure in his own existence. He only seems relaxed wheh he tells Vince that he should get a life.
Two-thirds of the way through the movie, Amy herself makes an appearance in the hotel room. And it is then that we realize that all this time she has been merely a pawn in these mens' lives to allow them to feel they were in control of their own lives. Whether or not John raped Amy or merely had violent concentual sex with her, that situation was all about the self-conscious John feeling that he was controling someone else since he couldn't control his own life. And Vince's defence of Amy's honor has more to do with the fact that Amy never went all the way with him and John did. As it turns out Amy is the only one who has any control over her life. And, subsequently it is she who uses these two men as a kind of revenge at the way they have been using her. This is a very daring and extremely unconventional film which will have a hard time finding an audience. Certainly, it will not be for everyone. Visually, it is far different from any film Linklater has made in the past. In films like "Before Sunrise" and "SubUrbia", Linklater's camera was brilliantly unobtrusive, enabling us to quietly observe these charcters and what makes them tick, with Linklater never drawing attention to the camera. In "Tape", on the other hand, the viewer feels like a voyeur intruding on something that has nothing to do with them - the way Amy herself probably feels when watching these two men. And the camera is constantly drawing attention to itself to the point where it's actually distracting and even infuriating. If the sight of people talking in previous Linklater films felt inviting, this feels more like an uncomfortable situation you can't get out of.
Vince's motivations for seeing John have less to do with seeing his friend again and more to do with confronting him about an incident which happened when they were younger. Apparently, back in their high school days, John raped a woman named Amy, (played by Uma Thurman). Amy was Vince's ex-girlfriend and someone whom both men are still infactuated with. However, the story is less about the somewhat ambiguous question over whether or not John raped Amy and more about these two characters and their lack of control over their lives. If any character in a Richard Linklater film can be described as a loser, it's Vince. He drinks beer, smokes pot and snorts coke throughout the entire movie. He is a drug-dealer who deludes himself that he also has a legitimate job, and therefore control over his life, as a volunteer fire-fighter. John, on the other hand, seemingly has more control over his life, but that's only because he deals with his shattered ego internally while Vince deals with it externally. John has a dream job - a young up and coming film director whose movie is playing at a film-festival. And yet, he is terribly dissatisfied with his life. He tells Vince that the film festival is only showing his film once in the afternoon and that it is only a small film-festival, anyway. One gets the feeling that the only reason why John hangs out with a guy like Vince is to feel secure in his own existence. He only seems relaxed wheh he tells Vince that he should get a life.
Two-thirds of the way through the movie, Amy herself makes an appearance in the hotel room. And it is then that we realize that all this time she has been merely a pawn in these mens' lives to allow them to feel they were in control of their own lives. Whether or not John raped Amy or merely had violent concentual sex with her, that situation was all about the self-conscious John feeling that he was controling someone else since he couldn't control his own life. And Vince's defence of Amy's honor has more to do with the fact that Amy never went all the way with him and John did. As it turns out Amy is the only one who has any control over her life. And, subsequently it is she who uses these two men as a kind of revenge at the way they have been using her. This is a very daring and extremely unconventional film which will have a hard time finding an audience. Certainly, it will not be for everyone. Visually, it is far different from any film Linklater has made in the past. In films like "Before Sunrise" and "SubUrbia", Linklater's camera was brilliantly unobtrusive, enabling us to quietly observe these charcters and what makes them tick, with Linklater never drawing attention to the camera. In "Tape", on the other hand, the viewer feels like a voyeur intruding on something that has nothing to do with them - the way Amy herself probably feels when watching these two men. And the camera is constantly drawing attention to itself to the point where it's actually distracting and even infuriating. If the sight of people talking in previous Linklater films felt inviting, this feels more like an uncomfortable situation you can't get out of.
Richard Linklater gains my respect
Rogue-3229 May 2002
The moment the credits were finishing rolling on my rented VHS copy of TAPE last night, I immediately rewound it and watched the movie through til the end a second time. It's that good. With this experimental and brilliantly realized piece, Richard Linklater proves he's no 'slacker' but rather a cunning force to be reckoned with in the movie world. Based on a play which takes place in one room with only 3 characters, you will either love or hate this movie - it's an all-or-nothing proposition, plain and simple. I recommend you get your hands on it, get extremely, ahem, RELAXED and find out which category it falls in for you.
An uncut diamond
naaarfDE8 August 2020
A gem
spazzissimo18 August 2003
Tape is a really smart movie. It debats the ideas of principles and perceptions as your own perception is constantly changed as the story (or should I say dialogue) unfolds. This movie is filled with layers just like it's characters (Ethan Hawk is incredibly funny b-t-w)and the ending adds a superb twist. Don't worry about the somewhat overly artsy camera angles in the beginning, you get used to it (and even start to enjoy it).
For indie lovers only
=G=1 June 2002
"Tape" is a claustrophobic indie psychodrama which takes place in real time in a single motel room with three characters. An excellent piece of work for what it is with solid performances from the cast of three, the film whets interest in the beginning, lags in the middle, and ends with an unexpected conclusion. Although not likely to be appreciated by the film-going public in general, "Tape" should be a good watch for indie lovers into psychodrama in spite of all the squabbling and its much-ado-about-nothing plot.
Superb three character thriller
stamper8 May 2004
Despite the fact that this film looks like it has been shot with a 500 dollar budget it is very worth while. Of course Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke are somewhat famous actors, but they are not necessarily famous for their great acting skills. Yet in this cheap production, that has no tricks whatsoever to distract you from bad performances both are able to stand tall, as is Rovert Sean Leonard. Sure the film takes a bit getting used to, especially in the beginning when the actors have almost nothing to work with, but in the end the actors are what carries the film and they do so in a grandiose fashion. Some part of the credit has to go to the great dialog as well though, since the words that are spoken are able to grab you by the throat and keep you interested in figuring out what truth lies behind the talk. Nothing Linklater did was too spectacular, so I am sure any director could have pulled this one, but since Linklater was the one I must give him credit (and the rest of the cast and crew) for making such a good film.
8 out of 10
8 out of 10
Don't look at the screen.
scowl25 December 2004
Maryse Alberti went too far in trying to create a visual style in hopes that you wouldn't notice that this is just a videotaped play. Surprise, the quick pans, the quick cuts, and the dopey changes in perspective after every sentence just makes you more aware that this is a low-budget enterprise. Fortunately you hardly have to watch to follow what's going on so just don't look.
Since this movie is driven by dialog, that's the second weakness. The script is painfully padded with aimless dialog. It's obvious to anyone even listening to the film what's going on yet Jon remains clueless. He continues to ask Vince questions that will make your eyes roll: "What's that?" (pointing to the obvious plot point), "What's going on?", "Why are you doing this?" (repeated many times), "And that's worth more than our entire friendship?", "Why won't you give me the (plot point)?", "Will you stop being a dick, Vince?" and "What are you going to do with the (plot point)?" It's as if Vince needed to explain how blackmail works to Jon while he continues to laughingly attempt to persuade Vince to not blackmail him using insults, vague moral arguments (to a guy who has just snorted two lines of cocaine!) and more dumb questioning. Jon has made films but sure hasn't seen very many.
This film could have easily worked with more intelligent characters and more realistic dialog. This was more like a jerk and an idiot in a motel room.
Since this movie is driven by dialog, that's the second weakness. The script is painfully padded with aimless dialog. It's obvious to anyone even listening to the film what's going on yet Jon remains clueless. He continues to ask Vince questions that will make your eyes roll: "What's that?" (pointing to the obvious plot point), "What's going on?", "Why are you doing this?" (repeated many times), "And that's worth more than our entire friendship?", "Why won't you give me the (plot point)?", "Will you stop being a dick, Vince?" and "What are you going to do with the (plot point)?" It's as if Vince needed to explain how blackmail works to Jon while he continues to laughingly attempt to persuade Vince to not blackmail him using insults, vague moral arguments (to a guy who has just snorted two lines of cocaine!) and more dumb questioning. Jon has made films but sure hasn't seen very many.
This film could have easily worked with more intelligent characters and more realistic dialog. This was more like a jerk and an idiot in a motel room.
Small scale, GREAT result
The_Void22 September 2005
When it starts, Tape seems like a very unprofessional, student film and I was expecting not to like it - but by the time it's reached it's conclusion, Richard Linklater's talky little drama has hit all the right notes and, despite the fact that this is simply three actors spending 85 minutes in one location; Linklater has done what he did with Before Sunrise, and proved that great dialogue is enough to make a film great. Of course, he didn't write this film, and that honour goes to Stephen Belber, whose play this film is based on. The dialogue itself is brilliant, and it's constantly fascinating to see how the characters are built up through what they say. Although we don't know anything about these characters before the film starts, by the end we know about them just through their dialogue, which shows the thought that has been put into everything the characters say. The plot is deliciously simple, which gives all of the characters room to expand and interact with each other. Basically, what we have here is two high school friends that meet up in a motel room for the first time in ten years. While there, they discuss the darker areas of their time together at school
Of course, for this film to work, good actors are a definite must have; and this film definitely has them! Ethan Hawke massively impressed in Linklater's Before Sunrise, and he does so again here, albeit in a totally different way. The character he has been given here is much harder to like than his one in Linklater's masterpiece, but Hawke shows his worth as an actor by brilliantly stepping into the role, and giving his character a definite grounding in realism. His co-stars, Robert Sean Leonard and Uma Thurman give similar portrayals, and the ensemble helps to make the film what it is. What makes films like Tape great is their ambiguity. Many of the things that the characters say can be interpreted in different ways, and most people will have different ideas as to why certain characters say certain things. The story behind the immediate goings on is well orchestrated, and even though nothing that the characters are talking about is shown; it's still easy to picture it. What happens in the hotel room is also very well executed, and the playwright has made sure that his story is never boring. Linklater's use of the camera is good, with the swirling angles creating a claustrophobic feel within the small confines of the hotel room. Tape is the sort of film that can be analysed in all different ways, and that gives it infinite rewatch value and when the material is this good; rewatching can only be a pleasure.
Of course, for this film to work, good actors are a definite must have; and this film definitely has them! Ethan Hawke massively impressed in Linklater's Before Sunrise, and he does so again here, albeit in a totally different way. The character he has been given here is much harder to like than his one in Linklater's masterpiece, but Hawke shows his worth as an actor by brilliantly stepping into the role, and giving his character a definite grounding in realism. His co-stars, Robert Sean Leonard and Uma Thurman give similar portrayals, and the ensemble helps to make the film what it is. What makes films like Tape great is their ambiguity. Many of the things that the characters say can be interpreted in different ways, and most people will have different ideas as to why certain characters say certain things. The story behind the immediate goings on is well orchestrated, and even though nothing that the characters are talking about is shown; it's still easy to picture it. What happens in the hotel room is also very well executed, and the playwright has made sure that his story is never boring. Linklater's use of the camera is good, with the swirling angles creating a claustrophobic feel within the small confines of the hotel room. Tape is the sort of film that can be analysed in all different ways, and that gives it infinite rewatch value and when the material is this good; rewatching can only be a pleasure.
Talkative trio in a conversation about guilt jealousy and revenge
sol-kay7 February 2004
******SPOLIERS****** In a motel room in Lansing Michigan three old high school friends meet together for the first time in ten years and open up old wounds and start new ones in this strange but interesting movie.
Vince, Eathen Hawke, tries to get together in his motel room with an old flame from high school Amy, Uma Thurman, and his best friend Jon, Robert Sean Leonard, in a jealous attempt to embarrass them and make them feel guilty for 1. His girlfriend Amy cheating on him. 2. The person that she cheating with was Vince's best friend Jon ten years ago.
Vince a petty drug pusher and user who has a job as a volunteer firefighter using the job as cover for his drug dealing in the firehouse. Jon a struggling film-maker who has a movie that's going to be displayed at the local Lancing Film Festival. Amy is an Assistant DA in the Lansing Justice department.
Long winded movie that tries to make a point but the point seems to be that when you get three different people who are eye witnesses to an accident you get three different versions of what the accident was. Vince is so annoying and obnoxious with his jealous obsession about his former girlfriend having an affair with his best friend that his nagging and prodding both of them makes them see just want Vince wants them to see or at least in Amy's case she makes it seem that way; that it wasn't love but rape on the part of Jon in his relations with Amy back then.
Vince's constant nagging even got Jon to believe his viewpoint and after Jon admitted it Vince, to Jon surprise, produced a audio tape of his confession. Amy at first reacted to her affair with Jon in a sweet and loving way by saying that she loved Jon at that time and her affair with him was totally free and consensual on her part. But with Jon's neurotic actions about what happened due to Vince's manipulation of him Amy's opinion completely changed. She suddenly and inexpediently started to act like Vince wanted her to toward Jon's actions, that he raped her.
In the end of the movie it was Vince who got shafted big time by Amy who seemed to have caught on to what his plan was with her and Jon. Vince in a panic ended up holding or better yet flushing down the drain his bag of tricks. Good acting with great dialog made the film holds your attention from start to finish.
Vince, Eathen Hawke, tries to get together in his motel room with an old flame from high school Amy, Uma Thurman, and his best friend Jon, Robert Sean Leonard, in a jealous attempt to embarrass them and make them feel guilty for 1. His girlfriend Amy cheating on him. 2. The person that she cheating with was Vince's best friend Jon ten years ago.
Vince a petty drug pusher and user who has a job as a volunteer firefighter using the job as cover for his drug dealing in the firehouse. Jon a struggling film-maker who has a movie that's going to be displayed at the local Lancing Film Festival. Amy is an Assistant DA in the Lansing Justice department.
Long winded movie that tries to make a point but the point seems to be that when you get three different people who are eye witnesses to an accident you get three different versions of what the accident was. Vince is so annoying and obnoxious with his jealous obsession about his former girlfriend having an affair with his best friend that his nagging and prodding both of them makes them see just want Vince wants them to see or at least in Amy's case she makes it seem that way; that it wasn't love but rape on the part of Jon in his relations with Amy back then.
Vince's constant nagging even got Jon to believe his viewpoint and after Jon admitted it Vince, to Jon surprise, produced a audio tape of his confession. Amy at first reacted to her affair with Jon in a sweet and loving way by saying that she loved Jon at that time and her affair with him was totally free and consensual on her part. But with Jon's neurotic actions about what happened due to Vince's manipulation of him Amy's opinion completely changed. She suddenly and inexpediently started to act like Vince wanted her to toward Jon's actions, that he raped her.
In the end of the movie it was Vince who got shafted big time by Amy who seemed to have caught on to what his plan was with her and Jon. Vince in a panic ended up holding or better yet flushing down the drain his bag of tricks. Good acting with great dialog made the film holds your attention from start to finish.
What are we even talking about?
sunriseinyoureyes22 September 2017
I'm a Linklater fan. Waking Life is among my top five favorite movies. The Before Trilogy awakened me to the true power of dialogue in film. This Linklater film, however, was way more frustrating than satisfying to watch, and the dialogue was, far too often, a mind-gamey labyrinth of petty sarcasm, passive-aggressive antagonizing, manipulation, and verbal circumnavigation. There were so few moments of clarity, if any, which to the writer's benefit, may have been the point. The prospect of this being the intention, for me, was the only redeeming factor of this movie.
Ten years out from high school, old but distant friends Vince (Hawke) and Johnny (Leonard) reunite in a hotel room in Lansing, MI for the debut of Johnny's first independent film at a nearby film festival. Vince is a somewhat volatile and immature Oakland drug-dealer who recently broke it off with his girlfriend of 3 years; his character is the defensive screw-up whose misery loves company. John is his foil, apparently more stable, idealistic, but whose sense of self isn't very concrete but can still come off inflated, especially when in the same room with Vince. Amy (Thurman) is an old fling for both male characters, but in a way that, whenever brought up, inspires ancient unresolved tensions centered on a nebulous incident in high school, the exploration of which drives the majority of the movie.
I think the dialogue was smart from the standpoint of it demonstrating the emotional and manipulative power that words can wield and the haziness of recollection, but in the broader scope of the movie, over time even the characters themselves got lost in what they were talking about! This is when even an iota of clarity could have saved the movie for me. But for me it never came, which felt unjustified because these are supposed to be ADULTS talking, and none of them can seem to muster a straightforward statement. Hence, this film left me resentfully asking the same question plaguing the characters to the end, "What are we even talking about?"
Ten years out from high school, old but distant friends Vince (Hawke) and Johnny (Leonard) reunite in a hotel room in Lansing, MI for the debut of Johnny's first independent film at a nearby film festival. Vince is a somewhat volatile and immature Oakland drug-dealer who recently broke it off with his girlfriend of 3 years; his character is the defensive screw-up whose misery loves company. John is his foil, apparently more stable, idealistic, but whose sense of self isn't very concrete but can still come off inflated, especially when in the same room with Vince. Amy (Thurman) is an old fling for both male characters, but in a way that, whenever brought up, inspires ancient unresolved tensions centered on a nebulous incident in high school, the exploration of which drives the majority of the movie.
I think the dialogue was smart from the standpoint of it demonstrating the emotional and manipulative power that words can wield and the haziness of recollection, but in the broader scope of the movie, over time even the characters themselves got lost in what they were talking about! This is when even an iota of clarity could have saved the movie for me. But for me it never came, which felt unjustified because these are supposed to be ADULTS talking, and none of them can seem to muster a straightforward statement. Hence, this film left me resentfully asking the same question plaguing the characters to the end, "What are we even talking about?"
Unravelling Secrets On Tape
Chrysanthepop4 May 2008
Shot on DV in one night at 'Tape' makes the viewer feel like a voyeur peeking into a motel room. It's set in a motel room where two friends reunite after 10 years (ironically Hawke and Leonard also appear together on screen more than a decade after their last film 'Dead Poet's Society') and have a private conversation that turns from the common catching up to unravelling secrets.
The entire movie is pretty much a conversation but it is a layered film with layered characters. The writing is brilliant. The editing it very tight. As the events unfold with clever twists, it becomes an intense human drama and a thrilling experience for the audience. While we are provided with sufficient background information on Amy and Jon, Vince remains somewhat of a mystery. His intentions remain for the viewer to interpret as there are hints that point in different directions. The hand-held camera mostly acts as hidden camera that lures the viewer to look into a private moment of these three character's lives. The swirling camera actually acts like a person itself, who's just sitting there while no one is aware of its presence. Once Linklater builds the tension, he sustains it and keeps the viewer engaged right through the end.
Being a conversational piece, it relies strongly on acting. The performances are solid. Ethan Hawke does a fine job of the (drug-induced) hyper but manipulative Vince. His character may be a bit ambiguous but he plays the part to the T. Robert Sean Leonard is adequate but in some places he seems a little lost. However, after Uma Thurman's entry, he is remarkable. Uma Thurman looks sensational with simple makeup. This is one actress who can look very plain when needed and supersexy when required. Her acting is excellent as she puts the pieces together while cleverly blindfolding the audience allowing them to figure out what happened.
While some people may feel confused at the end, it is very thought-provoking movie as one would try to figure out the puzzle. On the whole, 'Tape' takes us into a different territory that only a few Hollywood films have done. It has some great performances, good direction, brilliant writing and will very likely keep you glued to the screen.
The entire movie is pretty much a conversation but it is a layered film with layered characters. The writing is brilliant. The editing it very tight. As the events unfold with clever twists, it becomes an intense human drama and a thrilling experience for the audience. While we are provided with sufficient background information on Amy and Jon, Vince remains somewhat of a mystery. His intentions remain for the viewer to interpret as there are hints that point in different directions. The hand-held camera mostly acts as hidden camera that lures the viewer to look into a private moment of these three character's lives. The swirling camera actually acts like a person itself, who's just sitting there while no one is aware of its presence. Once Linklater builds the tension, he sustains it and keeps the viewer engaged right through the end.
Being a conversational piece, it relies strongly on acting. The performances are solid. Ethan Hawke does a fine job of the (drug-induced) hyper but manipulative Vince. His character may be a bit ambiguous but he plays the part to the T. Robert Sean Leonard is adequate but in some places he seems a little lost. However, after Uma Thurman's entry, he is remarkable. Uma Thurman looks sensational with simple makeup. This is one actress who can look very plain when needed and supersexy when required. Her acting is excellent as she puts the pieces together while cleverly blindfolding the audience allowing them to figure out what happened.
While some people may feel confused at the end, it is very thought-provoking movie as one would try to figure out the puzzle. On the whole, 'Tape' takes us into a different territory that only a few Hollywood films have done. It has some great performances, good direction, brilliant writing and will very likely keep you glued to the screen.
One of the best one location films out there.
mariabowman-6675619 August 2018
Tape is a good "movie in a single location" movie which focuses on dialogue to hold our sway. It's filmed in real time and the acting is solid from all involved- Ethan Hawke especially. Many critics have compared it to a play and it feels so. Richard Linklater is both an auteur and a risk taker- similar to Steven Soderberg and this is another film where he showcases his talent.
VERY underrated!
EthanTV2117 April 2018
I don't understand all of the negative reviews users have given this hidden gem. This film was great! I was thoroughly entertained by "Tape" and the movie kept my attention the whole way through. The three characters presented in this film all have a purpose and compose themselves in a manner that provides an insight to the type of person they really are. Hawke, Leonard, and Thurman are the ones to thank for this as they all brought their A game. If you get the chance, give this movie a watch!
I'm too high to be high and mighty.
lastliberal15 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Writer/Director Richard Linklater (Dazed and Confused, Before Sunrise, Before Sunset) gives us an interesting film that only has three characters, but has enough emotion for a whole room full of people.
Vince (Ethan Hawke) is p*ssed that he never got to make love to Amy (Uma Thurman) before she dumped him in High School. He finds out that Jon (Robert Sean Leonard) and Amy did get together on the last night and then he goes off to pursue his life. He feels hurt and sets Jon up to admit that he raped Amy, only Amy doesn't want to remember it that way and gets her revenge on Vince.
Sounds simple enough, but there is so much in this battle among the three that it was just too fascinating to turn away from. I generally can't just watch 86 minutes of talk, with little or no action, but this had me so intrigues and fascinated that I just couldn't quit.
Uma Thurman had the smallest, but most powerful role in the film. When she was on screen, it was like you were waiting for an explosion and, when it happened, ever so slowly and sweetly, it took your breath away. But, like an earthquake, there was an aftershock that was so sweet.
Vince (Ethan Hawke) is p*ssed that he never got to make love to Amy (Uma Thurman) before she dumped him in High School. He finds out that Jon (Robert Sean Leonard) and Amy did get together on the last night and then he goes off to pursue his life. He feels hurt and sets Jon up to admit that he raped Amy, only Amy doesn't want to remember it that way and gets her revenge on Vince.
Sounds simple enough, but there is so much in this battle among the three that it was just too fascinating to turn away from. I generally can't just watch 86 minutes of talk, with little or no action, but this had me so intrigues and fascinated that I just couldn't quit.
Uma Thurman had the smallest, but most powerful role in the film. When she was on screen, it was like you were waiting for an explosion and, when it happened, ever so slowly and sweetly, it took your breath away. But, like an earthquake, there was an aftershock that was so sweet.
Wow, you could knock me over with a feather
robert-temple-122 March 2008
What an amazing experience this is! Stephen Belber's screenplay, based on his play, is magic, pure magic. Richard Linklater, with his daring direction, has done the impossible and made a totally compelling film with only three characters in a single dreary motel room. How does one do that? How would you ever get funding for such a crazy project? This is just about as extreme a cinematic risk as it is possible to take. But they more than pulled it off, they triumphed. And by 'they' I include the three spell-binding actors: Ethan Hawke, Robert Sean Leonard, and Uma Thurman. What a showcase of acting genius this film is! It is impossible to fault any of the three in even the slightest flicker of a facial muscle, or the slightest whisper of dialogue. One wonders whether they may possibly have rehearsed for six months and all lived together day and night to do this. Were they in fact cooped up in that motel room for the duration of the shooting? I would believe it. This film goes beyond honesty, it goes beyond revelation, it goes beyond nakedness and baring of an actor's soul, it is an X-ray film, or even a gamma-ray film, where every organ can be seen, and every pulsation or heartbeat viewed through the transparency of the shimmering and aetherial forms which they all have. One wonders whether Belber may have lived through this. Can he possibly have imagined it? Could anyone? Uma Thurman meets these two fellows for the first time in ten years, since high school. They inflict their traumas on her, and she inflicts hers on them. This is mutual laceration which is as brilliant as that found in Edward Albee's 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?', which may have inspired Belber. Thurman's character has pride, and does not wish to be dragged into the open admission of a past indignity, whereas Hawke's character is driven obsessively to expose it, ostensibly in her interests, but really in his own. Leonard's character is in a way the hapless victim of both, although he was the perpetrator and the original guilty party. The psychological dynamics of all this are as complex as a NATO war game. We are on the edge of our seats every second, or we are if we are interested in human nature. This is spectacle without concession. This is raw, seriously raw. Everything is ripped away here. This is what might happen at the Day of Judgement. There is nothing left to hide.
Unsatisfying
gkmt5026 May 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I try to like Independent movies, I really do. I mean, at least I do *watch* them, giving them half a chance. This movie left me wishing my hubby would have found something else to rent.
The acting in this isn't bad, with Ethan Hawke as my personal favorite. However, I am sick and tired of movies with interesting or edgy ideas, and fairly good actors, getting acclaim when the dialogue is such crap. It seems filmmakers want to pull off the whole Pulp Fiction type of dialogue, but that's a rare talent. Few actors or writers could hold your attention for five minutes talking about a foot massage. Anyway, back to TAPE.
SPOILERS
When we first meet Ethan Hawke's character, we're not sure what to think. He's in a dumpy motel room. Soon, his "best buddy" comes over to greet him, thanks him for coming to town to see the premiere of his new movie.
Soon, the "big movie guy" starts cracking on his loser buddy, who is *only* a fireman, oh and a drug dealer. Mr. Loser gets all defensive, and then eventually the conversation steers to a former mutual love interest. Blah blah blah. Gradually Mr. Loser gets Mr. Big Guy to admit that he date-raped the mutual love interest 10 years ago.
Mr. Loser pulls out a tape and shows off the fact he has evidence of the indescretion. Mr. Loser says the girl (rape victim) is on the way over, and Mr. Big Guy ought to apologize to her.
Uma arrives. More boring conversation, blah blah blah.
The funniest part about the whole movie in my opinion is when Uma's character tricks Mr. Loser to flush a ton of drugs down the toilet.
END SPOILERS
Having good actors in a good story with poor dialogue is just as bad as having poor actors in a multi-million dollar production of the same lame story we always see. At least the latter might make me laugh. For instance, Black Knight. Not going to win awards, but still entertaining. To me anyway :o)
Speaking of laughs, this subject matter is nothing to laugh at, yet I found myself laughing in a couple (inappropriate) spots.
One more thing; I had to listen to the movie a lot, rather than watch it, because the constant swinging back and forth between the characters faces while they gave one or two word replies in conversation was dizzying. Ick. Ok, that's not "artsy," it's sickening.
The acting in this isn't bad, with Ethan Hawke as my personal favorite. However, I am sick and tired of movies with interesting or edgy ideas, and fairly good actors, getting acclaim when the dialogue is such crap. It seems filmmakers want to pull off the whole Pulp Fiction type of dialogue, but that's a rare talent. Few actors or writers could hold your attention for five minutes talking about a foot massage. Anyway, back to TAPE.
SPOILERS
When we first meet Ethan Hawke's character, we're not sure what to think. He's in a dumpy motel room. Soon, his "best buddy" comes over to greet him, thanks him for coming to town to see the premiere of his new movie.
Soon, the "big movie guy" starts cracking on his loser buddy, who is *only* a fireman, oh and a drug dealer. Mr. Loser gets all defensive, and then eventually the conversation steers to a former mutual love interest. Blah blah blah. Gradually Mr. Loser gets Mr. Big Guy to admit that he date-raped the mutual love interest 10 years ago.
Mr. Loser pulls out a tape and shows off the fact he has evidence of the indescretion. Mr. Loser says the girl (rape victim) is on the way over, and Mr. Big Guy ought to apologize to her.
Uma arrives. More boring conversation, blah blah blah.
The funniest part about the whole movie in my opinion is when Uma's character tricks Mr. Loser to flush a ton of drugs down the toilet.
END SPOILERS
Having good actors in a good story with poor dialogue is just as bad as having poor actors in a multi-million dollar production of the same lame story we always see. At least the latter might make me laugh. For instance, Black Knight. Not going to win awards, but still entertaining. To me anyway :o)
Speaking of laughs, this subject matter is nothing to laugh at, yet I found myself laughing in a couple (inappropriate) spots.
One more thing; I had to listen to the movie a lot, rather than watch it, because the constant swinging back and forth between the characters faces while they gave one or two word replies in conversation was dizzying. Ick. Ok, that's not "artsy," it's sickening.
Inspiration to low budget production
mehdyalnawfel-169-50253514 October 2018
Unfortunately a misfire
zetes20 April 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Richard Linklater's Tape has a heck of a lot going for it. Well, it has one big thing going for it: the script is excellent. Unfortunately, there are a few huge misjudgements that kill the project for the most part.
First, all three performers overplay their parts to the extreme. Ethan Hawke is the worst - he hasn't given a bad performance for several years now, but this stops that streak. Robert Sean Leonard and Uma Thurman also overplay. This is the biggest mood killer that the film has to face, and it would have survived it, barely, if it weren't for a few more problems.
Second, the film is too jokey. This is a weighty subject here, and Linklater and his actors actually go for laughs. *SPOILERS* Okay, I know that the reality of the rape is questioned, so that's not exactly what I'm talking about when I accuse Tape of being too jokey. But when three friends get together to unveil dark, hidden secrets, the film should take itself a lot more seriously than it does. *END SPOILERS*
I'm only 23, for Christ's sake, but I have to mutter this under my breath: "damn kids today with their Nin-tendos and their MTV!" Sorry, but 90% of everyone under the age of 30 in this modern society of ours needs their damn ass kicked. If a film aimed at this demographic, whether an independent, a foreign, or a Hollywood film, doesn't have at least one joke per minute, the audience will get restless. This is only serving to make every person in every theater find ever moment of every film absolutely hilarious. This guy was making my damn ears bleed with his annoyingly high-pitched laughter. Imagine this: Leonard speaks the line "I pinned her arms down and then I stuck my d*ck in" "HAR HAR HAR HAR" from that guy. No one else laughed at that line, thank God. But there were a lot of very serious moments completely drowned in laughter. Women were laughing too at some of the more painful date rape material. Jesus Christ, people! I'm not saying that films should be humorless, but, well, maybe I am saying that. Tape, anyhow, should be a lot less humorous. What movies like this are doing is training the less intelligent people, that is, 99% of society, to think every goddamn thing is funny. It's not. Tape should be painful, but instead it tries to be clever.
It's far too bad, too, because the film contains a ton of great ideas. Perhaps in 20 years, after this execrable era is over and done with, someone will remake Tape into a much better film. As it stands, it's okay, but quite unsuccessful.
First, all three performers overplay their parts to the extreme. Ethan Hawke is the worst - he hasn't given a bad performance for several years now, but this stops that streak. Robert Sean Leonard and Uma Thurman also overplay. This is the biggest mood killer that the film has to face, and it would have survived it, barely, if it weren't for a few more problems.
Second, the film is too jokey. This is a weighty subject here, and Linklater and his actors actually go for laughs. *SPOILERS* Okay, I know that the reality of the rape is questioned, so that's not exactly what I'm talking about when I accuse Tape of being too jokey. But when three friends get together to unveil dark, hidden secrets, the film should take itself a lot more seriously than it does. *END SPOILERS*
I'm only 23, for Christ's sake, but I have to mutter this under my breath: "damn kids today with their Nin-tendos and their MTV!" Sorry, but 90% of everyone under the age of 30 in this modern society of ours needs their damn ass kicked. If a film aimed at this demographic, whether an independent, a foreign, or a Hollywood film, doesn't have at least one joke per minute, the audience will get restless. This is only serving to make every person in every theater find ever moment of every film absolutely hilarious. This guy was making my damn ears bleed with his annoyingly high-pitched laughter. Imagine this: Leonard speaks the line "I pinned her arms down and then I stuck my d*ck in" "HAR HAR HAR HAR" from that guy. No one else laughed at that line, thank God. But there were a lot of very serious moments completely drowned in laughter. Women were laughing too at some of the more painful date rape material. Jesus Christ, people! I'm not saying that films should be humorless, but, well, maybe I am saying that. Tape, anyhow, should be a lot less humorous. What movies like this are doing is training the less intelligent people, that is, 99% of society, to think every goddamn thing is funny. It's not. Tape should be painful, but instead it tries to be clever.
It's far too bad, too, because the film contains a ton of great ideas. Perhaps in 20 years, after this execrable era is over and done with, someone will remake Tape into a much better film. As it stands, it's okay, but quite unsuccessful.
Catching and Better than I expected.
olcare16 April 2023
Warning: Spoilers
When I first started watching the movie, I noticed its technical shortcomings and the directing was a bit lacking. But the rest of the movie was good enough to make up for its shortcomings.
Although I didn't like the camera angles and the shots, the acting was pretty good except for the first 10 minutes. Everyone conveyed their character well, which satisfied me.
The movie was really good in terms of questioning me. It made me think while questioning something. This was the film's strongest aspect, and it did justice to being a one-location film.
Despite its technical shortcomings, the film paid off with good acting, a solid adaptation, well-written dialogues (though some were a bit too long), and most impressively, its gripping quality.
In addition, the fact that the film was finished without being fully explained and that it reflected the personal interpretation of each character to us in a very dosed manner made us very happy, and in this way, the questioning of the film increased to a very high level.
I think it's one of the best low budget movies I've ever seen. It's really underrated and I'm surprised so few people watch it. I would definitely recommend. Whatever the rating, feel free to watch; I think you will not regret.
Although I didn't like the camera angles and the shots, the acting was pretty good except for the first 10 minutes. Everyone conveyed their character well, which satisfied me.
The movie was really good in terms of questioning me. It made me think while questioning something. This was the film's strongest aspect, and it did justice to being a one-location film.
Despite its technical shortcomings, the film paid off with good acting, a solid adaptation, well-written dialogues (though some were a bit too long), and most impressively, its gripping quality.
In addition, the fact that the film was finished without being fully explained and that it reflected the personal interpretation of each character to us in a very dosed manner made us very happy, and in this way, the questioning of the film increased to a very high level.
I think it's one of the best low budget movies I've ever seen. It's really underrated and I'm surprised so few people watch it. I would definitely recommend. Whatever the rating, feel free to watch; I think you will not regret.
Above average, thoughtful drama - clear stage origins
r-meier30 August 2003
This was clearly an "actor's movie", with only three roles, all involving subtly changing emotions throughout. There is strong language and an adult theme about a date rape that may or may not have occurred ten years ago, though no sex or violence is actually depicted. All the action occurs in a single hotel room during a single evening. The action consists mostly of talk between characters, yet it kept my interest throughout.
Though it's not one of my favorites, I did enjoy the movie. Ethan Hawke is a fascinating actor to watch, appearing here as a very unlikeable character. Hawke's character, Vince, was unkempt and slovenly, and a Puck-ish troublemaker, yet Hawke managed to let us see glimmers of the charmer Vince once was, which helped a little in explaining why the other two characters would continue to allow themselves to be manipulated by him. Robert Sean Leonard was, I thought, less successful in his role. I found it hard to understand why he continued to pay any attention to Vince, why he didn't just walk away when Vince became offensive. Uma Thurman did NOT look like an assistant district attorney -- even one "off duty." I thought she moved too quickly between emotions, without letting us in on the process. That may be the fault of the script.
I would recommend this to serious theatre buffs or serious Ethan Hawke fans. Too talky for action-movie addicts.
Though it's not one of my favorites, I did enjoy the movie. Ethan Hawke is a fascinating actor to watch, appearing here as a very unlikeable character. Hawke's character, Vince, was unkempt and slovenly, and a Puck-ish troublemaker, yet Hawke managed to let us see glimmers of the charmer Vince once was, which helped a little in explaining why the other two characters would continue to allow themselves to be manipulated by him. Robert Sean Leonard was, I thought, less successful in his role. I found it hard to understand why he continued to pay any attention to Vince, why he didn't just walk away when Vince became offensive. Uma Thurman did NOT look like an assistant district attorney -- even one "off duty." I thought she moved too quickly between emotions, without letting us in on the process. That may be the fault of the script.
I would recommend this to serious theatre buffs or serious Ethan Hawke fans. Too talky for action-movie addicts.
Erase "Tape"
celr11 May 2003
Pretentious and claustrophobic. A sort of "Waiting for Godot" in the form of "No Exit."
Two guys, who are supposed to be old friends, but who obviously hate each other, are seemingly trapped in a motel room. At least no explanation is given for them being there and why they stay. One is an impulsive, narcissistic jerk and the other a nattering young busybody. They get on each other's nerves like you wouldn't believe, but for some reason which defies all sense of psychological reality, they stay together in that awful motel room.
Other reviewers have spoken of the "writing," but the dialog in this flick sounds more like bored actors trying to ad-lib rather than something that somebody actually wrote. They start repeating themselves, "What do you mean, you slept with her?" "I slept with her." "How did you sleep with her?" "What do you mean HOW did I sleep with her?""How did you sleep with her? What did you DO?""Why do you want to know that?" "Just tell me how did you sleep with her?" You get the drift. It's like that for the whole movie. I was waiting for one of the characters to kill the other, but no such luck. A girl shows up. Maybe she'll kill them. I won't give away the ending. Maybe it never ends....
Two guys, who are supposed to be old friends, but who obviously hate each other, are seemingly trapped in a motel room. At least no explanation is given for them being there and why they stay. One is an impulsive, narcissistic jerk and the other a nattering young busybody. They get on each other's nerves like you wouldn't believe, but for some reason which defies all sense of psychological reality, they stay together in that awful motel room.
Other reviewers have spoken of the "writing," but the dialog in this flick sounds more like bored actors trying to ad-lib rather than something that somebody actually wrote. They start repeating themselves, "What do you mean, you slept with her?" "I slept with her." "How did you sleep with her?" "What do you mean HOW did I sleep with her?""How did you sleep with her? What did you DO?""Why do you want to know that?" "Just tell me how did you sleep with her?" You get the drift. It's like that for the whole movie. I was waiting for one of the characters to kill the other, but no such luck. A girl shows up. Maybe she'll kill them. I won't give away the ending. Maybe it never ends....
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
