Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

valis1949 TIMECODE is a groundbreaking film by director, Mike Figgis. The movie consists of four interrelated stories which are viewed simultaneously on four different quadrants of the screen. What is most surprising about the experience is that it is much easier to absorb and understand than you might think. The focal point of this wry, black comedy centers on the offices of a film studio on Sunset Boulevard. A film is being cast, an executive meeting in underway, a limo is waiting just outside, and a montage of street activity is observed. Watching the film is similar to viewing a live performance of a string quartet. As with a musical performance, your attention shifts from one player to another without ever losing the feel or direction of the piece. The actors improvised characters and story lines, evolving and building as they went along, and Figgis's role was more of a conductor than a film director. Each of the four stories was shot in a single take beginning at 11am each day, and lasting for ninety minutes. All the four stories contain interesting performances from a stellar cast, and the soundtrack was especially inventive and supportive. TIMECODE is not a great film, but it succeeds in that it demonstrates the viability of an off-beat and creative presentation.

pinokiyo 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.)

L D Man I am one that hates the modern day overuse of that word. But this ladies and gentleman is exactly that.Moreso than anything else this is on an entirely different level conceptually I've ever seen. This can be easily evidenced by the fact that there is no spawn of this movie. Someone's making blair witch project spawn right now as we speak.But its now 8 years later... no one's copying this for one reason. THEY COULDN'T IF THEY TRIED!!! Pick on Ms. Hayek all you want, but I enjoyed the acting. It just felt like I was watching people living their lives. Man that's all its about creating an reality on screen to tell your story. And this in fact wasn't that 3 act tale well all love, but equally brilliant.

Lea Cave This movie is a pretentious attempt at being "revolutionary" or whatever the hell you want to call it. Sure this was a potentially interesting idea (real time and quartered screen), but it wasn't used in a very powerful way. Being different doesn't make something good, and this movie is a prime example of that. This idea could have actually made a point or followed a story that wasn't clichéd and boring instead of some over-dramatic Hollywood crap. This movie was a confusing and bland waste of time. I never felt the need to find out how anything ended up or felt any attachment or interest in any of the characters. It was lacking in any kind of substance whatsoever, and I hope that the majority of people who consider viewing this movie spare themselves and change their minds.