Review of Timecode (2000) by Nick S — 04 Nov 2008

Sorry, but this just really wasn't my cup of tea at all. Technically speaking the filmmaking process is of the highest standard. The camera choreography, the discipline of the cast and the improvisation, the way the story intertwines, the standard really is top draw.

However, the story leaves a lot to be desired. I found it impossible, literally impossible, to give any care in the world to any character in the film. Perhaps that's what Mike Figgis was going for, but in doing so it completely backfires because of the multi-screen, long take approach.

If you watch a take for roughly 100 minutes you at least want to care about someone in the frame surely? Also, those random earthquakes...seriously? They were barely even addressed apart from a few casual shouts of "Everyone ok?!" They added nothing to the film.

It did make for an interesting take on the film business, even giving a nod to it's own pretentiousness. But this assest was barely touched upon after that quirk, and I think they could have touched a bit more on that.

Yes, technically it's brilliantly made, but it's what happens in FRONT of the camera that counts. Am I being too cynical? Perhaps. But with all due respect to Mike Figgis, the public don't give a damn about the technical struggles that may have gone on because of the way he shot the film, they are interested in what's going on in front of the camera and this story simply does not hold any interesting qualities about it at all.

For effort, techincal achievement and commitment? Absolute full marks. But for the actual film and story itself? Not so much.