Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

Cortechba Overrated

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

zicteban Movie's director plays much too much with viewers suggesting illogical events or matters just in order to get them lost. Besides, the main character's reactions can be seen as too caricatural and even unbelievable. The end opens up other dimensions in the understanding of the story which, once again, is merely another trick to make people think about a movie which is simply irrelevant most of the times. Sorry to say it, but suiciding because of a childhood trauma, although having built one's own life and being a father, is at the minimum extremely depressing and absurd if not completely impossible in reality.

The apple man Recently I've seen Cache, by Michael Haneke. (2005), and I must say that I was fascinated by this film. The scenery of the film is extremely simple and repetitive. The most interesting is in Haneke's way of positioning his camera, and the duration of his plans too. Not only does its staging allow the viewer to appreciate the dialogues between the characters at the maximum, but the editing constantly keeps the latter in suspense. Hidden is the story of Georges and Anne, a couple from the Parisian banner who is sent envelopes containing anonymous cassettes. The contents of the tapes are their own house filmed by an unknown person from Georges's childhood. The couple tries to find the identity of the person who sends the cassettes...but things get complicated. The scenery of the film may be very simple, but one notices the choice of filming in high definition. Normally, a film of the same format as Caché would be filmed in an old-school way, but it is interesting to see that high definition elevates the visual of the film to a higher level. Does this choice of image quality have anything to do with the narration? I don't think so but maybe Haneke had an idea. As is the case for many of the film sequences for that matter. Moreover, the level of violence in the movie is incredibly high. We see long sequences without any action, then without warning, we see the head of an animal to be cut free by the axe or a man to cut his throat. This inequality in the bloody sequences of the film is very interesting. The spectator is constantly thirsty to know who sends these tapes, and who also sends these macabre drawings. But Haneke reveals very little in the film, and that is precisely one of the interesting aspects of the plot. One is constantly absorbed by this type of narration which cleverly shows the psychological state of Georges throughout the film and the hell that he's going through. He sups a man who apparently had a past with him and the other does not know what he is talking about when he talks to him about the tapes. And this is all we know, Haneke gives free rein to any interpretation of the spectator and I believe that this was precisely his goal.

SnoopyStyle Georges Laurent (Daniel Auteuil) hosts a TV literary show with wife Anne (Juliette Binoche) and son. They start receiving videotapes of surveillance shot by a mysterious stranger from the streets. They are wrapped with disturbing childlike drawings. Georges starts feeling the stress of the unusual stalking. The surveillance gets more personal pushing him to the edge. He suspects orphan Majid who stayed with Georges' family when he was a child.Daniel Auteuil is utterly brilliant. I love his paranoia and his guilt. It's a great performance. My only complaint is the videotape footage. The movie spends too much time watching nothing. It slows down the movie whenever that happens. It's an interesting film technique the first time around but nothing happens. I just get antsy for the film to get going.

deepa pathak Though labeled as a thriller, mystery, drama.... this is no ordinary thriller. No trash talk, not a hustle, bombs or guns. Something very impalpable starts creeping up silently and a subtle parallel movie starts unfolding before you. Viewers actually realize it much later. This movie is a guilt trip not of any individual but of every individual. Individual guilt turns collective and emerges with the memory of the year 1961, of large massacre of Algerian demonstrators and distortion of their their bodies. In so called free country no newspaper uttered a word about it. This denial and guilt at the foundation of western prosperity, fear, hatred, anger, suppression, alienation ...all manifest when people thought they have erased it, made it invisible and forgotten. It compels viewers to think about it in their own terms. To watch how this guilt builds mistrust and makes one behave in a very odd and unusual way with the most trusted ones is truly galvanic. The director gently pushes viewer to identify themselves with the action in response to this ever prevailing guilt and startles them. Like a fully grown tree's roots spread deep and wide, having the ability to support life in each of it's thinnest twig, the movie blows life into many possible reasons of logic, each bleak reason just as strong as the one already built. Eventually the bleak reason becomes stronger as the other dim reasons start to appear. We keep adding more logical explanations and ask deeper questions. We end up carrying home many unanswered questions, unsolved mysteries, unjustified judgments and conclusions, to interrogate ourselves;Which is exactly what the directed must have wanted...please correct me if I am wrong.In short, No answers but more questions !!Director Miachel Haneke has so skillfully crafted the movie that we put ourselves on trial and at the same time become our own judges. All the actors with even the smallest role have done a superb job.