45 out of 64 people found the following review helpful:

PRETENSION GONE MAD

Derek Pearson from SADDLEWORTH, 4th June, 2005

ARTHOUSE PSUEDO STYLE WITH NO SENSE OF IRONY, MIKE FIGGIS AT HIS WORST. THIS FILM HAS NO REDEEMING FEATURES, IT'S PURELY AN EXCERCISE IN DIRECTORIAL 'NAVEL GAZING'. SPLIT-SCREEN USED AS A CRUTCH TO HANG AN ENTIRE PREMISE ON, IMPOSSIBLE TO FOLLOW, IMPOSSIBLE TO LIKE, IMPOSSIBLE TO WATCH. DO YOURSELF A FAVOUR AND AVOID THIS LIKE THE PLAGUE, THIS IS 97 MINUTES OF YOUR LIFE YOU COULD DO WITHOUT WASTING ON CINEMATIC RUBBISH LIKE THIS.

Read all highest rated reviews

27 out of 45 people found the following review helpful:

Awful tripe

Michael Sowa from London, 12th December, 2003

This film was absalutely awful. The entire film is split into four differimg screens, and the audio switches between the screens seemingly randomly. There is no plot, no story, its just drivel..avoid this film.

Read all highest rated reviews

13 out of 15 people found the following review helpful:

Innovative and unique

Philip Concannon from London, 4th June, 2004

There's an awful lot going on in Mike Figgis' 'Timecode'. Around 28 actors(some well known, some not) appear on a screen quartered and running four simultaneous one-take movies. The fact that Figgis can get anything remotely coherent from this audacious experiment marks this film as a success.

The film essentially is a day in the life of the movers, shakers and back-stabbers of Hollywood. Salma Hayek, Holly Hunter, Stellen Skarsgard and Saffron Burrows are among the cast and most aquit themselves well under what must be unusual and difficult conditions. Figgis sometimes guides us through the film by turning the sound up on one screen but often lets more than one run at once. This is diconcerting and a bit overwhelming at first but it soon becomes manageable and suprisingly compelling.

The nature of the film and it's improvised style makes it something of a mixed bag. Some scenes are very funny(Julian Sands is excellent as a masseur), some carry a dramatic force while a few are mind-numbingly tedious. 'Timecode' is certainly not for all tastes but it's terrific to see a film-maker really try to push the boundaries of the digital video technology. Maddening, compelling, hilarious, confusing and often just plain weird, 'Timecode' is a unique experience.

Read all highest rated reviews

5 out of 5 people found the following review helpful:

Make time for this fim.

steven2004 from scotland, 7th February, 2004

The director claims this was originally going to be an art project/ gallery happening. It retains that cool, detached quality that the majority of conceptual art achieves, even though this was given a larger budget and transferred to Hollywood.

The soundtrack is excellent, the concept is very ambitious, and it works.

Quickly you realise that conventional filmmaking is SO unambitious. With this film you feel the boundaries are limitless, vibrant and very exciting. However, on occasions sometimes the technique is more interesting than the outcome. But worthwhile none the less.

Also the director's trumpet playing is excellent.

Read all highest rated reviews

geiger counter

A Customer from London, 17th November, 2008

this is a film i had wanted to see for some time but it seems the spilt-frame technique was the best thing about it. it seemed dated and i was not sufficiently held by the story. i was left asking why one would want to watch the four mini films at once and wished there were more earthquakes

Read all recent reviews

*** May contain spoilers ***

Timecode

A Customer from Huddersfield, 3rd November, 2008

Awful - really bad. The screen is split into four which completely spoils any attempt at watching something as you have to squint at the small corner where the main action is taking place. Turned this off after 5 minutes.

Read all recent reviews

1 out of 1 people found the following review helpful:

Ovaltine anyone?

Micthetic from from Manchester, 19th August, 2008

What a load of self indulgent tripe, an utter yawn fest. This is what happens when you let luvvies play luvvies.What amazes me is that some studio exec must've watched this and decided 'its a wrap', mind you theres a possibility that said exec might be in this film.The four screens at once was just rubbing salt into what was already a gaping wound. You could always watch this and try and feel clever about it afterwards but in the cold light of day its just a poor film, a very poor film. By the way this is the first film out of over 600 i've had that i didn't watch all the way through, on purpose. I have fallen asleep watching other films occasionally in the past but this one got an hour of my attention then i pulled the plug. It might be the case that the final hour was filled with wonderful moments ( i think not) or that they became crazed cannibals and butchered each other (wishful thinking). AVOID

Read all recent reviews

Irritating

A Customer from Cambridgeshire, 18th June, 2008

I really wanted to like this film: Mike Figgis is interesting, talented actors in it, a gay plot-line and an innovative approach. Oh Dear - I have to admit I gave up after 30 minutes!! My conclusions are: Improvisation is best left to the master - Mike Leigh; Real-time shooting only works if the action is interesting; The split-screen probably showed sufficient detail of the 4 scenes when shown in the cinema, but a lot was lost when watching it on an 'average' TV; The sound mix was so noisy that I found it very hard to differentiate the 4 plot-lines; and finally, and the real clincher, I wasn't interested in the lives of these self-centered, navel-gazing people with their addictions and comfortable lives.

Read all recent reviews