The story is fairly dull, and the characters often unappealing but it is the technique which matters here. It is very complicated and was filmed 15 times, and Figgis chose the best version for release. I most enjoyed realising when characters moved f... (read more) The story is fairly dull, and the characters often unappealing but it is the technique which matters here. It is very complicated and was filmed 15 times, and Figgis chose the best version for release. I most enjoyed realising when characters moved from one quarter of the screen to another or briefly appeared in two points of view. The planning needed to execute that impresses me more than some effects shot in a blockbuster. There are some amusing characters too. The film clearly doesn't take itself seriously. Sands is good as a masseur, and the guy doing the pitch with his keyboard is funny too. I think this was a worthwhile experiment.

Very interesting and unique film making technique. Crappy story.

What a bore. "Timecode" is interesting for the first 10 minutes because the film acts as a new way to experience a story. It's also interesting for 5 minutes near the end when an artist pitches her idea for a film that is not unlike the exact descr... (read more) What a bore. "Timecode" is interesting for the first 10 minutes because the film acts as a new way to experience a story. It's also interesting for 5 minutes near the end when an artist pitches her idea for a film that is not unlike the exact description of "Timecode" itself. In it, she spouts off perplexing theoretical comments on the advent of digital video into the cinematic realm. But really, that time is only intriguing to a small few who actually find that subject matter worthwhile. So for the other hour and 18 minutes?

It's awful. A truly narrative failure in cinema, captured all in real time on digital video.

A quite intriguing experiment from director Mike Figgis, after dabbling in the mainstream, he decided to try something different altogether. He was going to tell a story, with the screen split into four, and the sound would come in and out of each se... (read more) A quite intriguing experiment from director Mike Figgis, after dabbling in the mainstream, he decided to try something different altogether. He was going to tell a story, with the screen split into four, and the sound would come in and out of each segment at the appropriate moments. It's an interesting experiment, but it could have benefitted from a better plot. It's set in the filmmaking world, and the action takes place in and around a production office in downtown Los Angeles. It has wealthy lesbian Lauren (Jeanne Tripplehorn) eavesdroping via a hidden microphone on her lover Rose (Salma Hayek) and her clandestine tryst with movie producer Alex Green (Stellan Skarsgård), who has been listening to different pitches throughout the day with his creative team, including arty director Lester Moore (Richard Edson), agent Bunny Drysdale (Kyle MacLachlan) and executive Renee Fishbine (Holly Hunter). Filmed all in four takes as one on November 19, 1999, it is a good experiment, and it does work, but the viewer will be left with a bit of a headache trying to make sense of who's going where and all. It's plot isn't really strong enough, yet there is something that brings them all together in the end.

Interesting concept, boring story