Amazon.com

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'sconsidering leaving him; the producer is having an affair with an aspiringactress (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 adrug-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 ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Ignore the plot to enjoy the film's technique.
In the mind of director Mike Figgis, a vision has been born. That vision is "Time Code," a film that is not one, but four different stories going on at the same time, all seen in an innovative method of filmmaking using handheld cameras and a screen that shows four pictures at once. Never has anything quite like this been done before; it's one of the most impressive movie-making ventures I've seen in a long time.

It's only too bad that Figgis pays more attention to his style than to the substance behind the four cameras. The movie is divided into separate storylines, some weaving into the other, though none of it ever has any emotional impact when the last frame rolls.

The overall plot begins with Emma (Saffron Burrows), the wife of movie producer Alex Green (Stellan Skarsgard), and while she contemplates leaving him, he is having an affair with aspiring actress Rose (Salma Hayek). Rose is involved in a rocky relationship with wealthy lesbian Lauren (Jeanne Tripplehorn), whose jealousy and suspicion drives her to place a bug in Rose's purse so she can monitor her actions during Rose's audition. As all this goes on, Alex's partners and employees are busying expressing their concerns to one another about his instability.

The interaction of each plot line allows for some very unique filmmaking touches, some of which are very impressive. The cameras are constantly rolling, and throughout the course of the film, characters will find themselves in several differing screens, something interesting to see happen. One scene that sticks out in the mind is the scene in which Rose and Alex meet behind the screen in the studio's screening room. Their interaction goes from two different screens to one; it's completely inspired.

Yet, any emotional feeling or understanding of the events at hand is diminished due to the constant grappling with trying to watch four screens at once. Some characters walk on screen and off so quickly that there is little knowledge as to why they are there, while our interest in one story tends to take away from all others. Figgis attempts to draw our attention to one story at a time by using the sound as a focal point (one screen will be clear while all others are almost completely muted), but it hardly works.

The film is interesting enough to watch it for its splendid four-screen division, though the plot seems to be muddled and misunderstood as we try to concentrate on one thing at a time. Still, "Time Code" is a movie that will go down in history due to its introduction of a dazzling new technique.

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...

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.

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.

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. ... Read more

Description

Miramax Home Entertainment presents SPANISH FLY, a delightfully funny and sexy film in the tradition of "Under The Tuscan Sun." In thisromantic comedy, an insecure American author travels to Spain to research the "machismo" myth of Spanish men. When her own lack of experience with relationships becomes a roadblock to her research, she realizes she is in over her head. As she meets more subjects for her study, her academic research becomes more like a column from "Sex And The City" as the hilarious comedy grows even more delicious. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Long before Sex and the City, Henry Jaglom (Déjà Vu) directed this chatty exposé on women and body image. Sure, there's some talk about men and relationships, but the film's upper-class California females spend most of their time discussing weight and dieting (with stops along the way for plastic surgery, bulimia, and abortion). The occasion is a multiple-birthday party for Kate (Mary Crosby), who is turning 30, Helene (Lisa Richards), who is turning 40, and Sadie (Marlena Giovi), who is turning 50. Subtitled A Very Serious Comedy about Women and Food, Eating plays like a low-budget cross between The Decline of the American Empire and The Anniversary Party. As with the rest of Jaglom's oeuvre, the tone is as self-conscious as Woody Allen, the approach as loose as John Cassavetes. If it doesn't quite hit those heights, Eating provides--if you'll pardon the pun--plenty of food for thought. --Kathleen C. Fennessy ... Read more

Reviews (3)

4 1/2 stars: What Women Think About Food
This low budget, thoroughly entertaining look at a group of women gathering for a luncheon party is a rare critique of how women have come to be obsessed with food. Quasi-documentary in form, actresses in this film seems to teeter between acting and reality. Certainly many lines are blurred, and the result is fascinating.

While something of a "chick flick", men will come away from this film with plenty to think about. Whole film is a real conversation-starter, highly amusing and never gets too heavy. Excellent and very unique in subject matter. Amazing how seldom we see people eating and enjoying their food in movies, yet it is such an important part of our lives. Hollywood sense of beauty is blasted between the lines.

Only aspect I objected to was the lack of polish in the production itself. It could have been visually smoother in parts. But Jaglom films always look like this, I suppose. Still a winner.

don't offer these women a cherry pie!
One has to wonder about Henry Jaglom's mother, when he dedicates a film about women suffering from eating disorders to her. This is one of Jaglom's more successful efforts since there is some dramatic conflict amongst the cinema verite talkfest that is his trademark. One might even mistake this film as a documentary with all the to-the-camera discourse. Otherwise his camera is thankfully still, aided by the excuse of a Frenchwoman making a documentary at an exclusively female (and enormously populated) birthday party. Maybe it's a very "L.A." thing but it's shocking how so many beautiful women have food issues, and the association they make with food and sex, and food and love, makes for a compelling (for Jaglom) social study. He begins uncertainly, as the women gather. Jaglom gets a little carried away with cross-cutting, and there is a definite lesbian subtext which turns out to be misleading. But as the film develops our initial judgment of the women presented, as shallow and stupid gives way to depths of feeling and marvel at the openness and emotional accessibility of the female species. As the eldest of the group and the mother of Helene (Lisa Richards), who resides in the house where the celebrations occur, Frances Bergen represents the voice of reason and the sounding board for the confessions. Jaglom cleverly maintains our empathy for her, aided by Bergen's wonderful naturalness, even when her reaction to news of an infidelity defines the survival strategies of women of her generation. In spite of the heaviness of the subject, there is much humour to be found, partly from the women's own insight into their behaviour, and also from the idea of having Helene seek out the mistress under the guise of mingling. Richards' performance improves considerably after she stops pecking. As her predatory best friend, Gwen Welles adds some amusing spite to the proceedings. Her demonstration of the use of a present of anger-releasing padded poles gets a big laugh. It's no surprise to learn of Welles' bulimia since she looks anorexic, and she is about the only one who doesn't seem to think they are "fat". When the birthday cake is cut, no-one wants to eat it. Since the cast is so large some actors get lost in the mosaic, but mention should be made of Toni Basil in Carmen Miranda get-up as an actress quitting her agent ("If Michael Jackson can fire his father ..."); Aloma Ichinose who has a great riff about smoking; and Mary Crosby looking like a fawn and being very I-shot-JR in a bathroom confrontation. I particularly liked the line "I'm looking for a man who can excite me as much as a baked potato".

Offbeat look at women and their eating habits
This movie is hilarious and sad at the same time. Henry Jaglom assembled an enormous cast of recognizable but mostly unknown actresses in this examination of Southern California women and their eating habits. There are three sympathetic characters in this film: (1) the lovely French protagonist played by Nelly Alard, who has come to Los Angeles to do a documentary on eating, finding perfect fodder in the many attendees of a party thrown to celebrate the birthdays of three different women; (2) the mother of the birthday girl whose home is the setting for this potentially disastrous gathering (played with aplomb by Candice Bergen's own mother); and (3) Mary Crosby who is refreshing as the kind and balanced best friend of the birthday girl/host. Everyone else seems to be out-of-her-mind neurotic when it comes to food. I watched this movie in total fascination because I personally don't know any women like these but know who they are (that makes no sense unless you've seen this film). Dare I say it - most of these women are snotty, superficial and whiny, but totally representative of a certain type of woman indigenous to wealth and So Cal. Just view it and you'll see what I mean. We discover everyone's passionate responses to food through the eyes of the film maker, as she interviews each woman throughout the long afternoon. One of the funniest and most definitive scenes in EATING shows three birthday cakes on the table, and one bedeviled slice being passed around as all the women refuse it. The humor in EATING is in recognizing the eating habits/problems that so many women will be able to relate to. It is also the saddest thing about this movie. That, and how nasty and self centered most of these women are. Although there are no men in this film, I recommend anyone, male or female, watch it. Short of a documentary (and I've never seen one on this subject), this film is curious, funny and educational. Jaglom presents a huge cast whose characters are so engaging, you don't seem to lose track of or interest in them. ... Read more

Amazon.com

For over three decades, Henry Jaglom has been traveling a cinematic path unlike any other director's:his noodling, searching, utterly un-commercial pictures (with dialogue largely improvised) are as personal as novels. Venice/Venice is vintage Jaglom, which will spell pleasure for his many fans and exasperation for nonbelievers. Jaglom plays a movie director visiting the Venice Film Festival--with footage captured during one of his visits there--whose romantic fling contrasts with his home life back in Venice, California. Jaglom's needy persona, and his unseemly tendency to linger over close-ups of his own teddy bear face, become tiresome here (he's wisely put others center-stage in subsequent films). But for all the dorm-room philosophizing, there is something dreamlike that emerges from this film as it nears its end. All the self-indulgent nattering does lead to something personal, and though the journey is something annoying, at least it's an authentic journey. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (4)

"Happily Ever After" in a nutshell
Wow - this is the first Henry Jaglom movie that I have seen, but you can bet I'll be seeing more. His interviews with the women and how the movies influenced their perceptions of how relationships "should be" was incredible. In almost every single interview segment, I had a little, "yup, that sounds right" experience. Yes, the romance was wonderful, as was the duality of the Venice, Italy life with the Venice, California life. And I had my own "wouldn't it be wonderful to be floating around on a canal in Venice" point of view. So I was doing exactly what he shows us the movies do! ;) Anyway, a wonderful film, I plan to buy it, and replay it whenever I feel the urge to run after that "perfect man who will sweep me away and solve all my problems."

sometimes even self-absorbed dilletantes hit home runs : )
the only other jagfilms i've seen are hamptons & babyfever,neither of which are NEARLY so good. dualities (man/woman,movies/life, italy/l.a. etc.) resonated through this one poetically,accompanied as they were by that exQUISite music which i pray is released someday (both the score and the marshall barer/david colin ross song halfway thru)! a woman i showed this to remarked, "henry's a jerk, but he's a cool jerk." to which i'd add, "his flick may be bull#$@$, but it's marvelous, transporting bull@#$$." btw, v/v's washed-out light & color palette makes it ideal viewing on a sunny winter afternoon :) vt

Jaglom 101
This film allows the first time Jaglom viewer access to some of the director's best work, w/o the guessing usually involved in exporing an artist for the firsts time. A must for anyone serious about film.

the man has the consistency and essence of vomit
I just saw this movie and would only buy the book if 80 million dollars was at stake. I am a woman, an attractive and intelligent woman and I am completely alienated from his "vision". He portrays only the Cathy Guisewite view of womankind and all woman should chase him down and put wasabi on his oily, phony, grotesquely malformed testicles. I have never been so repulsed by another human.I imagine htis review is not suitable in that I did not suffer it in book form but I feel the need to warn the inoccent. ... Read more