Replay

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.

I caught this movie last night at DCIFF. I found it very original and intriguing. You basically see about 4 different scenes, but they are replayed from different angles and the writing brings out something new in each scene each time. The plot is strong and the acting is well also.

I couldn't help thinking while watching the movie that it reminded me of a cross between Momento and Mystery Science Theater 3000. The detectives commentary on the video tapes they were watching was very funny.

Overall, this is a very good and very well done movie.

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 stumbled upon this one at the Annapolis Film Festival (who knew?) on a weekend out in "flyover country." But I'm glad I did.

The film "Replay" takes you on a mysterious ride using an intriguing new filmmaking trick: the viewer only sees tapes from a security system and listens in as detectives watch the tapes and try to figure out a crime, or if a crime has taken place at all. In other words, the audience participates with the detectives while they do their work. Very cool.

The interest builds quickly as the viewer gets used to this new way of presenting a story, and it draws the audience in even deeper. As you watch the security tapes and listen to the detectives, you follow the many plot twists and possibilities that they discover. I thought we (the detectives and I) had it figured out at least three times, only to be fooled again.

Because you never see the detectives, you might miss some of the wry comedy built-in to the script. But again, that only pulls you closer to the team as you get to know your "partners." You're forced to search for clues just like the detectives, and since you become part of the process, you're pulling for them. You feel frustrated like they do when the plot goes in another direction. The ending had me (and the detectives) totally surprised.

I'd love to see it again just to find more stuff I missed!

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.