|
Showing all 19 reviews...
|
|
 |
Subtle, clever, low-keyed and wonderfully acted, this clear-eyed view of ethnic relations in Europe today had just the right touch of suspense interwoven with stark realism. A hint, also, of what the future will hold.
9/10
31.10.2006 -
sesw@ - age: 50+
Good character playing leaves you with a sense for an unfinished scenario into the future and the real motives.
7/10
5.8.2006 -
y_segev@ - age: 50+
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
I'm sorry. Yes it was nominated for best foreign film but couldn't be nominated because it was Austrian and the language was french. But it was still a little boring for my tastes and I was really waiting for something interesting to happen and they always lead up to it, but nothing ever happened. The only exciting and scary part was when that guy got his throat slit. I was yawining the whole way through and so were my supposed 'artsy film loving experts'.
4/10
15.6.2006 -
krista,schriver@ - age: 18-25
Poussetiflette - thanks for that considered response to this film. Terrific. Well worth seeing - and discussing.
10/10
22.5.2006 -
dgfcuk@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
Taut thriller that gives nothing away. The audience is left searching for answers as the characters in the film have their smug sense of security stripped away, bit by bit.
9/10
4.5.2006 -
cbrazier@ - age: 50+
I saw this film for a second time: believe me it is only a waste and confusing if all you can handle is Terry Springers episodes. The film is intellectual, riveting, moving, and proves various points using a wide range of technical and verbal skills. In this film your analytical skills will be put to the test!!
9/10
25.4.2006 -
angberr@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
Ok - perhaps there is relevance in some of this movie to something, but I have no clue, absolutely none, to what - as a casual viewer, expecting an entertaining film, I just thought this movie was terrible. What ( and don't pull any psycho babble junk) is this movie getting at. If its main objective is to frustrate, confuse, and bore the viewer, than it succeeds very well. I feel like the director is trying to get me to decipher something, think really hard about the film, absorb in the silences abundant throughout the film - but by about minute 20 I just don't care. It's like looking at installation art pieces - briefly intriguing, incredibly confusing, and ultimately boring, useless and a waste of my well earned money!
1/10
23.4.2006 -
stsoo_ka@ - age: 26-35
I am stilling talking about and thinking about and arguing about this film 48 hours later. Like a dish you have never tasted before in a restaurant, it makes you crave for a reprise. This film left me scratching my head when I left the theater but as my mind peeled back the layers there was more and more and more to see, frustrate and, with thought, enjoy. Daniel Auteuil is an amazing actor. I couldn't take my eyes off his performance. It was flawless. Juliette Binoche I could look at all day, beautiful to the eye without make-up and a truly fine actress as well. The scene on loyalty between her and Auteuil is well worth the price of admission alone. The rest is gravy and there is as much gravy as you have the energy and desire to consume. See this film! This makes Brokeback Mountain look Meatballs 3!
10/10
16.3.2006 -
richerj@ - age: 50+
Reading the comments here I figured out that bad critics were made only by people who could not understand the story (and the end) Your mind have to be in shape to watch this movie. Scenes are very slow. If you are in the mood for a no brainer this is not for you. [...]
7/10
12.3.2006 -
charlfrance@ - age: 36-49
This movie is overrated. It would help if there was a proper script and a proper ending... don't fault me (or other audience members) if I prefer a "hollywood" ending, where some things are at least resolved. This french flick is too obscure and trying too hard to be artsy. It could've held together much more if the writing and storytelling was more cohesive.
3/10
19.2.2006 -
hypeitup@ - age: 26-35
The one thing that you can always depend on is the french cinema to ignore the hollywood line of things and make a film that is suspensful, stunning & supple. This is not a fast paced, action packed monstrosity; as an american director would have made it, and we are richer for that. Watch this film if you want something that will make you think and feel.
9/10
15.2.2006 -
ashakydd@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Caché has no ending, because the story it tells has never been officially recognized or resolved. France has still not acknowledged the casualties of October 17th 1961. In the film, the identity of the videotaper is irrelevant. If anything the videos are projections of a collective unconscious, one gradually coming back in bits in pieces. In a way, these videos are the product of Georges own mind, they force him to own up to his historical responsibility: there are no small actors of history. Georges' avoidance of responsibility is initially understandable: his was the immature reaction of a 6 year old, who ruined the life of an immigrant boy rather than share the affections of his parents. He was a child, the act was committed at an age when moral accountability does not apply (had he been 7 years old... ) and the memory of the lies he tells is repressed. France's involvement with Algeria is much like the Laurent family with Majid, a boy they'd hoped to adopt but subsequently abandoned. Time has passed, those responsible have
well
not passed (Maurice Papon is unfortunately still alive), France has matured, and bygones must be bygones. Yet the guilt haunts Georges somehow, and, as the typical self-involved Frenchman that he is, he sees only the plight of his personal condition and hunts his own victim down (a victim hes decidedly turned into his tormentor) and blindly lets escalate a non-confrontational situation with Majid rather than offer something of an acknowledgment, a genuine compensation or an apology. Now, after a macabre chapter of History, in the convalescing period it may be decided that in order to recover and rebuild, one must forget, temporarily. This is reasonable. In 1962, the Evian Accords granted Algeria its independence from France. In the 8 years leading up to 62, the two countries were at war with one another. Stories such as October 17th had to be ignored for the acting parties to move on with the peace negotiations. But what happens when 40 years later, history repeats itself as a result of permanently denying the facts and thus perverting the lessons of our history: subsequent generations barely know what happened and certainly are not willing to shoulder any of the guilt for crimes committed by a Vth republic still in its infancy. In short, the film examines, in quasi-Jungian terms, the relationship between oneself and ones countrys history and questions how much of your nations collective history informs your personal consciousness and how much of your countrys responsibility, in its recent or earlier history, are you willing to accept as also your own..
8/10
31.1.2006 -
poussetiflette@ - age: 18-25
This is admitedly a difficult film, but I can't remember the last time a film affected me so greatly both psychologically and emotionally. The film's mystery is only superficial so be prepared to deal with unanswered questions and conflicting messages. Attempting to answer those questions however is what brings out all the power of the themes of guilt and repression both on a personal and societal level.
10/10
30.1.2006 -
xdanx@ - age: 26-35
Aside from a couple of startlingly violent episodes and a rather crafty ending, there is little to say about this film. None of the characters, whether the main ones or the minor ones, are very likeable. They are either negligent or untrustworthy or both. Perhaps that is the intent of the film, supposedly a comment on European society. In short, I felt that the talents of Juliette Binoche and Daniel Auteuil were wasted on this film.
6/10
29.1.2006 -
codogno@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Haneke's movies often has these neverending still scenes that doesn't do anything for me. Yes the acting by Binoche and Auteuil is phenomenal nd the rest of the cast is very well directed. For those who say this movie shows how France ignores or shrugs it's past are wrong, it's only a point of view, a dark and negative movie that doesn't help to change anything. It could have been shot in any other european country. The suicide scene is absolutely amazing, It looks genuine, how did they do that? And yes, like the other reviews, I was unhappy with the ending, which does give you an indication of who was doing all this, but what do you expect from Haneke and Cannes?
6/10
29.1.2006 -
alaintonnerre@ - age: 36-49
This film is highly over-rated. If a static camera is enough to envince "paranoia" and a smug talkshow host can represent your average frenchman, all directed by an Austrian, then its clearly crisis time for French cinema. Juliet Binoche deserves better than to play a housewife and Daniel Autiel should be allowed to express his wary ironic side more. And we all deserve more than these vague meditations. Write a script, [...]
5/10
28.1.2006 -
movement@ - age: 26-35
Those seeking an explanation for the riots of last year would do well to start here. The stalker is the filmmaker himself and represents the nagging conscience of old, white France. I for one was ignorant of the events of 17 October 1961, and it seems that not all of French society is prepared to face up to some brutal history. Not a "good romp", then, and arguably overblown and too long. The ending, almost an afterthought, could perhaps have been better executed; look closely and you'll see the two sons gesticulating - not in anger, but in exasperation at their elders. The message is very simple: hope lies with the children. Haneke has constructed a devastating psychological portrait of the guilty and paranoid but can only hint at hope for a better future.
7/10
25.1.2006 -
timothy,adkins@ - age: 26-35
The movie is good. Nice pace, good story, very good acting and suspence is building up. But it lacks one important thing... there is NO ending - open for you only to decide... I felt cheated. This is not even an open ending, there is NONE!
7/10
21.1.2006 -
helena,carlson@ - age: 26-35
At the beginning of the movie, they advertise that it won the 2005 Cannes festival, so I was expecting great things. I had also read a few reviews, and the content sounded very appealing to me. The film is well done, the subject matter interesting and current, and the acting was excellent. However, the abrupt ending leaves a lot to be guessed by the audience. This I found disappointing because after 2 hours of intrigue and suspense, keeping us captivated, the sudden ending leaves us with all kinds of unanswered questions.
7/10
19.1.2006 -
mmartirene@ - age: 36-49
|
