Sadly Over-hyped

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

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

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.

21 EYES (2003) **1/2 Rebecca Mader, Chance Kelly, Nestor Serrano, (voices of : Fisher Stevens, Michael Buscemi, Shae D'Lynn) Gimmicky yet affective heist drama with a unique spin: telling the crime thu the eyes of 2 off-screen police detectives attempting to piece together the jigsaw puzzle of a diamond heist where an inside job looks to be the m.o. A few clever twists and turns and the back and forth banter by world-wearily sarcastic Stevens and Buscemi boosts the otherwise predictable yet compelling screenplay by Sean Murphy and director Lee Bonner suggests a blend of Bogart flicks with a dash of Tarantino wisdom of honor among thieves.

As a native of Baltimore, I had to go see a film which was made locally. One of the local second run theaters was featuring this film. I went in not really knowing what to expect, but was pleasantly surprised. Note, if you plan to see the film, make sure to get to the showing ahead of time, as the film gets off with a bang right from the start.What I enjoyed about this film's mystery, was the approach of solving the crime from watching the security tapes. I couldn't say if there were 21 cameras involved, but certainly we see the crime go down from every imaginable angle. As two detectives are watching the tapes, things start off kind of slow, but as the night wears on, the intensity surrounding the viewing of the tapes builds and builds. In the audience, I was finding myself trying to figure things out right along with them.I can't finish this commentary without mentioning the humor. Most of the joke lines went by before I realized they were funny. Then when it struck me, the film had already moved on and I had to focus back to the plot. It may be worth watching again, just to make sure I catch all the humor.

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.