Rage

in classical Chinese painting, what gets left out of the composition is of crucial importance. potter's "rage" omits quite a few of the compositional elements we take for granted as essential in modern cinema - a bold move in a world dominated by Hollywood tropes and CGI. "rage" isn't what i'd call an experimental film, it's a film produced with an acute awareness of cinema as a super-saturated medium, in which the audience already knows all there is to be known. there are no new stories to be told; no killings which haven't been shown, no motivation which remains unexplored, no new formulas. but this literate, knowledgeable and sophisticated modern audience produces a space which can be activated by leaving things out, rather than putting things in. potter knows that all she needs to do is map out a bare structure, with sumptuous color and first rate actors, and all the rest of the work can be played out of the expectations we all bring to bear on the cinema experience. "rage" is a who-done-it, with andy warhol's "screen test" film series operating in the background, dressed with a kind of glossy-magazine-photoshopped look in which everyone's irises are a suspiciously similar sci-fi hue, and with a nice little twist in the end which implicates us, the passive viewers. i thought one of the most surprising things about the movie was the palpable "rage" expressed in other reviews on this site. we react like addicts when the sugar-candy experience of having everything laid out for our adrenal stimulation is withheld. this isn't a movie about the fashion industry, its about the modern obsession with surface, with effects, and its background theme is intensely political. it's characters are ciphers for the main players in the infotainment infiltrated everyday world, the businessmen, the celebrities, the wannabes, the innocents, the jaded old-hands, the haves and the have-nots. for those who were disappointed by this work, who weren't fascinated by watching, up close, great actors working, i sincerely hope michael bay's next SFX blockbusta isn't too far away. . .

The blue screens combine well with the characters lipstick colours , the performances at some points are really good but halfway through this movie i just couldn't wait for it to finish. I actually watched it on fast forward. For one thing you cant have a movie on people just talking in front of the camera. Its just hard to believe that this were done by a teenager. And those questions that coming straight from a fashion experts mouth were really hard to buy. Coming from the same person that made "Orlando" i was deeply disappointed since i was expecting much more. The aesthetic result is quite good but nothing more than that. This is one of my favourite worst movies ever. This is a film experiment but it just doenst work. Leave it for film schools or even museums but i wouldn't recommend this as entertainment

I just cannot understand why this film has been made. Why did such esteemed and brilliant actors contribute to this film! The film is only just over 1hr 30 minutes but felt like hours. There is nothing I cannot say that is good about this film. It was not at all interesting in my opinion.

Sally Potter's "Rage" is a very unconventional picture in so many ways to I was attracted and impressed with the concept put together of having a story with a talented group of actors and how to make they perform in solitary close-ups and in monologues that actually makes a full play where they are all connected despite never appearing on the same shot. I was curious by the whole thing and it becomes of the most interesting film experiences of recent years, and it also goes for the plot of what she wanted to tell us: to deal with the crazed and glamourous world of fashion - something you don't see these days (with the notable exception of "Ready to Wear" and I'll go back to present a harsh comparison of both).

The story and concept presented: it revolves a huge fashion where a group of characters from all walks of life are directly or indirectly involved with. An all-star cast were well-chosen by Potter: Dianne Wiest, Jude Law, Eddie Izzard, Bob Balaban, John Leguizamo, Steve Buscemi, Patrick J. Adams, Riz Ahmed, Adriana Barraza, David Oyelowo, Judi Dench and a few more are part of this unusual art project and they play characters as distinct as a rebel photographer, a tough security guard, a diva-like drag model, an organizer of the event, a delivery guy, a fashion agent and many others, each with their individual characteristics that can go from being nice people or really arrogant figures or they can change their ways as the events pass by - and they do pass by which revolves a tragic incident and each react in unexpected ways reaching out to the point of despair, fear, or simply rage.

Like said before, they don't interact with each other, they simply look at the camera in great looking close-up shots or sometimes moving around frantically, and as for background each actor/character has a colour design behind them, no props or almost anything is used. So, they're all alone delivering their monologues interacting with an invisible blogger who's covering the fashion show and the tragedy.

Sounds boring, right? Totally. Yet Ms. Potter manages to create a film/play where the actors performance and characters speaks great volumes with their own personas that the movie is anything but boring, exhausting or pretentious. You feel the action, the humor, the drama and the intensity of all so you're hooked through the whole experience. And as for the story and it meanders it's an honest view of the fashion world and all the parties involved going from models, managers, photographers, and the people from behind the scenes. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity; and there's the crudeness between those who have against those who have not, the unfair treatment workers have, the arrogance displayed by people who want to grow in such scenario by hurting people's feelings and backstabbing each other is a common place (but truth be told those issues goes on other working places as well). A dog-eat-dog world where even a death is view as something worthy of admiration and fascination rather than the sadness of the act.

You don't get to see what happens except for the static play format so a lot of what happens you have to exercise the power of imagination. And that's where I get my criticism against Altman's "Ready to Wear". That movie had a spectacular ensemble, it was filmed in Paris during the Fashion Week, it had cameos for many supermodels of the 1990's, and you the visual and the lux speaking great volumes. Was it a good movie? Absolutely not. That was a comedy of errors that had no balls to criticise the fashion world or something say good about it, so it goes all too crazed to appeal to all audiences yet it didn't get anything worthy of view. It was revolting in so many levels that it's beyond belief. "Rage" on the other hand, with the similtarity of an all-star cast takes the same environment without actually showing it yet there's magic, intelligence and creativity. I simply loved, specially the performances of practically everybody (Wiest, Law, Izzard, Ahmed and Buscemi are my favorite) - except for an unfamiliar face who got a nasty role and it didn't feel he was a professional actor, he was way over the top.

More than entertainment, movies are an artistic experience that reflect the times we live on. It must have a speech, a message, an intent even if it's just make us laugh or cry, to feel frightened or in pain. It must hit through your head and your heart, and if possible to make you connect with the world in a different way, see the world in a different light and cause a positive reaction on you to the point you can change your actions, reflect on what you're doing and with luck, you are transformed. Only a handful of films can aspire to that, and maybe I'm seeing a lot more in "Rage" than what people can actually find - and it's low rating is a proof of that. But trust me, I felt connected with it, I've seen a technique that I hadn't seen before and the concept worked. It's not a masterpiece, there are some flaws in it but it got real close of a spetacle to the senses, and since it got close I have nothing but admiration for it. 8/10.

I greatly enjoyed this film and have no idea why all of the IMDb reviewers seemed so bitterly scorned by this production. I found so much of this movie to be funny, sad, or at least entertaining. I thought the writing felt honest and sharp, and i found the acting to be superb, because IT FELT LIKE I WAS WATCHING REAL HUMAN BEINGS. Everyone else who commented seemed to have a problem with the performances but i thought they felt authentic. I think we could probably all agree that some people working in the fashion industry might on occasion behave in a way that is a little over dramatic. So when the characters in this film are portrayed behaving in an overly dramatic way, as many of them are, it makes complete sense to me. I thought this was a really unique (I'm saying this because I haven't seen any other movie shot with only actors sitting infront of blue screens) way to tell a story and I was really glad I picked it up. A fellow reviewer complained that Rage was plot-less, but it felt as ambiguous as something a teenager might put together but still had cohesive elements strong enough to leave you, or at least me, with a sense of what transpired off camera, which I believe was the aim of the director. I mean, so it is rather beyond the scope of possibility that some teenage black kid got to interview all of these people, repeatedly, and did so while they were not trying to be interviewed. But I think the statement that, "Rage shows how ugly and downright wrong it is to allow the production, fiancé and distribution of 'anything goes' cinema," is a horrible and self indulgent criticism of a artistic work you didn't like. There are a lot of things down right wrong in this world; creative expression typically isn't one of them. And also that isn't how you spell finance.