Timecode (2000)

Timecode divides the screen into four parts and follows, in four uninterrupted shots, a series of overlapping stories. There's the wife (Saffron Burrows) of a movie producer (Stellan Skarskård) who's considering leaving him; the producer is having an affair with an aspiring actress (Salma Hayek); and the actress is the lover of a wealthy woman (Jeanne Tripplehorn), who jealously plants a bug in the actress's purse when the actress pretends to go to an audition. Meanwhile, the producer's partners and employees (Holly Hunter, Xander Berkeley, Steven Weber, and others) are trying to cope with the producer's increasing instability. There's a drug-dealing security guard; a dim massage therapist; a temperamental director who can't find the right actress; and assorted other Hollywood types who float in and out of the action. Earthquakes and aftershocks shake things up, a lot of cocaine is snorted, and there's some sex and some violence, all improvised by the actors around a story set up by the director, Mike Figgis (Leaving Las Vegas).

The emotional effect of any story is muted by the constant distraction of trying to take in four screens at once, though at times the stories resonate off each other nicely. It's an interesting experiment, made possible by the portability and longer takes of digital cameras; anyone interested in how digital technology has affected filmmaking will want to see this novel film. --Bret Fetzer Amazon.com

Watch it four times, and it might make sense

Timecode is a behind-the-scenes look at Hollywood life - the business, the politics, the jealously, and even the drugs, sex, and rock `n' roll. Salma Hayek plays Rose, an aspiring actress who will do anything to get an audition - even if it means cheating on her jealous lover (Jeanne Tripplehorn) with a male film exec (Stellan Skarsgard).

But I said that Timecode is unique, right? Well, it is. It had no script - just a story, four digital videocams, and a bunch of actors who could improvise their way through 90 minutes of filming. The four cameras shot non-stop - no cuts, just one take. The entire film was shot 15 times - and the final one was released. No editing was required because viewers see the footage from all four cameras - simultaneously. The screen is divided into four quarters, and it's up to the viewer to decide which one to watch. Believe me - it's not exactly an easy task. Though you're often given audio hints (the sound of one quarter will dominate for a while), you'll still keep jumping from quarter to quarter, trying to figure out what's going on - and what you've missed. It's definitely not a movie to watch if you're not completely alert. It is, however, very interesting. And while I wouldn't say that this is one of my favorite movies, it's still an interesting experience. If you're looking for something out of the ordinary, it's worth checking out.

If you happen to pick up a copy of the DVD, you'll find all kinds of goodies. The special features include the entire Version 1 of the film (and yes, it really is different) and an audio option that allows you to choose which dialogue you want to listen to. Perhaps, then, if you watch the entire movie four times, you'll be able to make sense of it all... May 27, 2003

Clever, but also a bit narcissistic

Whatever. I mean, I appreciate the experimental nature of the film -- the screen split into four separate-but-interlocking screens, each shot in a continuously-running tracking shot, filmed on digital video. The "action" shifts from scene to improvised scene, and gradually we figure out how each of the characters know each other. Still... did the story really have to be set in (yawn) Hollywood? Can't modern filmmakers think of something else to make movies about? Couldn't the actors improv their way through somebody else's life, for once? Regardless, this is one of the better uses of DVD technology I've seen -- they kept the audio tracks intact on each camera's footage, so after you soak up the edited version of the film, you can go back and see (hear, actually...) what they had to work with... Rarely do we get such a clear-cut chance to get into the headspace of the director and editor, so that at least was kind of cool. December 12, 2002

brilliant execution, lame story

Timecode is quite simply a well-executed but failed experiment.
The concept is brilliant, but it is not supported at all by a good plot. What we have is basically mindless hipster dross; jet-set stereotypes stabbing each other in the back with their cell phones, and not much else. And yet, I was entertained by the film on a technical level. Certainly worth a look, but I would love to see this idea done again, even by Figgis, with a more engrossing story. October 2, 2002

Blah

When I rented this, I was under the impression it was a good movie. Well, I was wrong. True, the four-screen idea is innovative and couldn't have been easy to do, so I'll give Mike Figgis credit for that. In addition, the movie was shot in continuous takes, so the actors involved have proved that they have the chops to pull off something like this. And in case you're wondering if you can follow four stories at once, the volume is usually muted for three of the screens, so it's obvious which one you're really supposed to focus on at any given time. On the minus side, any time actors are given the chance to improvise their dialogue, the viewer learns anew that we really do need screenwriters, and this movie is no exception. Most importantly, this movie doesn't have ANY interestng stories or characters. Movies need those things! So, if you're interested in the techniques Figgis used, by all means check this out. But don't expect to be entertained. August 5, 2002

Innovative, but more of an experiment than a movie

"Time Code" was directed by Mike Figgis, best known for "Leaving Las Vegas." I'm not a fan of his work, but was intrigued by the concept of this movie - it was filmed in one 90-minute take and is told via four cameras shown in different quadrants of the screen. The movie was filmed 15 different times over a period of a few weeks, with the 15th take being the theatrical release. The story (such as it is) concerns 20+ people in Los Angeles who are connected in one way or another to a small indie film studio. The soundtrack is emphasized in certain quadrants at any given time to show you where to direct your attention. I was concerned that the movie would be difficult to follow, especially on a TV, but it was actually fairly easy to watch it and understand what was transpiring.

The technique is innovative and daring, and one cannot help but admire its audacity. It was also interesting seeing how the different stories overlapped. However, there are simply too many weak points for the movie to ultimately succeed. First, the acting and script was largely improvised, and it shows. Selma Hayek has one of the largest roles, and she is simply not up to the challenge. Holly Hunter also comes off poorly with her tentative stuttering character. Second, the plot (which was loosely structured by Figgis) is not very interesting. If this same script was shot in a conventional manner, it would not be worth the price of admission. Third, the concept of the four quadrants is interesting, but most of the time little is happening in any given quadrant. For example, the upper left quadrant, features mostly Jeanne Tripplehorn and she spends a huge portion of the movie sitting in the backseat of a limo or pacing the sidewalk in front of the studio. It just isn't very entertaining.

The DVD includes several interesting features. For example, the full first take of the movie is included. Also, you can remix the soundtrack to hear what is going on in the other quadrants. Overall, I have mixed feelings about "Timecode." I'm glad I saw it and hope that other directors will be inspired by its unusual and daring techniques. However, it was ultimately boring and pretentious. April 7, 2002

More reviews at Amazon.com ...