Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Catherina If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

tedg I've been thinking a lot about what makes a movie good, or better, what makes it likable. It seems there are all sorts of paths into likability. The emotional engagement, the world that surrounds it, the titillation, the challenge. Sometimes it is not the movie itself at all, but the memory of it. Or. Or the idea of it. Mel Gibson's Jesus movie was a success based on the idea of the thing. All the movie itself had to do was support that idea. So-called puzzle movies fit this. Now here's the interesting question. "Irreversible" and "Memento" were powerfully engaging. ("Irreversible" is a puzzle movie much deeper than the other.) Do we like these because they used the puzzle to trick us into engaging? Or is it the other way around?Do we like "Timecode" because it requires investment and we make it, or because the idea of the thing is so cool we get the thrill from ideasurfing?This movie is an odd one. It just barely misses. I'm tempted to think that with a different voice-over tone and script it would be a cult hit. It seems to have already gone through some re-engineering. I've seen the DVD version and it sounds as if the original version was a bit more risky and to my taste.What you have here is what I call a completely folded film. A simple folded case would be a movie that has a movie within it and the two reinforce each other in some way. In this case, all we see, 100 per cent, is the movie within, literally many (I didn't count 21) surveillance cameras filming one short sequence: a robbery and four deaths.We hear but never see two detectives and occasional buddies watching these and teasing out the hidden solution. There's only one red herring and it isn't a very complex mystery. The adjustment for the DVD seems to have made the solution easier, and that's a shame.It is a very, very cool idea, though, cool enough for me to value it worth watching. The idea is the thing here. The movie, well it has some deficiencies. But among them surely isn't the editing.You know, bad editing is something that kills a movie without the viewer knowing why. On the other hand, it can be a silent goddess charming you into the thing. The poor quality of the video, the uninspired voice-over, the simple mystery. All these things are largely overlooked because of the way the engaging camera angles, the obvious voyeurism, and the clever editing draw us in."Snake Eyes" may be the coolest of this type. This could be the "Cube" of this genre.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

hausrathman Two detectives, heard but never seen, assigned to watch a stack of surveillance tapes from a failed jewel robbery discover that a more insidious crime in this ground-breaking independent thriller directed by Lee Bonner. Because of its limited perspective -- we only see the images the two detectives themselves are watching -- 'Replay' began like a bold cinematic stunt, but the mystery quickly hooked me. Soon, I felt as much a participant in the mystery as Fisher Stevens and Michael Buscemi, who played the two detectives. Fortunately, for those in the audience with me, I refrained from offering my advice aloud to the detectives. I really enjoyed this movie. It's great to see someone try something new and succeed.

pheyrman I saw "Replay" on video at a friend's house. I hadn't been planning to watch a movie, but I came in just as it was beginning, and didn't leave my seat until the film was over.I was watching it on a TV screen, just like the cops were. The people who saw it in the theatre liked it, and I'd love to see it that way, but it certainly works well on the small screen. I found myself talking back to the cops as they made assumptions, interpreted movements, gathering and discarding as they groped toward a solution.I didn't find myself being as detached as one previous reviewer, though I can see the detachment theme. Surveillance films are distant by nature, but they are only a starting point here, as are the cops. What this film is about is how observers try to separate themselves from what's observed, and the successes and failures inherent in that. Through the whole film I was more and more drawn in, and the magnet was the human beings on the screen. The mundane nature of the presentation of violence only accented the human price of the crime.

rehaxton I caught this movie last night at DCIFF. I found it very original and intriguing. You basically see about 4 different scenes, but they are replayed from different angles and the writing brings out something new in each scene each time. The plot is strong and the acting is well also.I couldn't help thinking while watching the movie that it reminded me of a cross between Momento and Mystery Science Theater 3000. The detectives commentary on the video tapes they were watching was very funny.Overall, this is a very good and very well done movie.