Replay

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.

Two detectives assigned to watch twenty-one security camera tapes of a violent but seemingly open-and-shut jewel heist discover that seeing isn't necessarily believing in this fresh and unique film recently placed in evidence at the DC Independent Film Festival. Sounds like an open-and-shut movie? Not so. This movie has a hook: We never see the detectives. We only hear their running commentary as we watch the tapes along with them. Everything we see is as new to them as it is to us which gives the audience a chance to figure out the crime before them.

"Replay" is a movie where perspective is everything, and the film makers boldly maintain that perspective even if it means letting the movie screen go completely blue, like a home VCR, while the detectives change tapes. They replay some tapes. They slow things down. They speed things up. They sometimes pause a frame to talk about what they are seeing or make a phone call. In a sense, this is the very antithesis of a "motion picture." Yet it works, and not just in some theoretical realm. This film is spared the fate of being an esoteric art house novelty by its wicked sense of humor. The unseen detectives, played by Fisher Stevens and Michael Buscemi, are often very funny -- flailing both the innocent and the guilty, the living and the dead, with their dispassionate, black humor.

Strangely, however, this black humor is symptomatic of either the film's greatest failing or greatest success depending on your point of view. A film's success is usually predicated on the audience's emotional response to the characters, but in "Replay" it is hard to bond emotionally with the characters you see on the screen. I found my normal emotional response, even to the most horrific events, filtered through the dispassionate perspective of the detectives. Real life homicide detectives arrive at the scene of a crime after the violence. They don't see the passion, just the bloody aftermath. Nothing they can do will bring the victims back to life. Their job is to simply put the pieces together and assign blame. That's what they -- and we -- do here. We don't love the people we watch scurrying about the home and office . We don't hate them either. We just study them, hoping that they will give up their secrets. Many police procedurals let you see the world from the detective's perspective, but this film lets you experience it.

Did I solve the crime before the detectives? I'm not saying, but it ultimately doesn't matter. The journey was as entertaining as the destination.

I saw "Replay" on video at a friend's house. I hadn't been planning to watch a movie, but I came in just as it was beginning, and didn't leave my seat until the film was over.

I was watching it on a TV screen, just like the cops were. The people who saw it in the theatre liked it, and I'd love to see it that way, but it certainly works well on the small screen. I found myself talking back to the cops as they made assumptions, interpreted movements, gathering and discarding as they groped toward a solution.

I didn't find myself being as detached as one previous reviewer, though I can see the detachment theme. Surveillance films are distant by nature, but they are only a starting point here, as are the cops. What this film is about is how observers try to separate themselves from what's observed, and the successes and failures inherent in that. Through the whole film I was more and more drawn in, and the magnet was the human beings on the screen. The mundane nature of the presentation of violence only accented the human price of the crime.

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.

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.