First off, Caché is really pretty darn French.

It's made in France with renowned French actors, Daniel Auteuil (The Girl on the Bridge(Now there's a great French movie!)) and Juliette Binoche. Best film at the European Film Awards. Best director at Cannes. Comprenez-vous?

It is a creepy telling of a tale using all the tricks of the storyteller's trade, amped up with all the tricks of the filmdirector's trade. It is as they say in French: a mind-_ _ _ _! It has a unified sense of style in design, mood, and pace. The acting is solid, but the real star is the screenplay - outstandingly challenging yet playful and disturbing.

Yep - it's French alright!

I really enjoyed it.

5 out of 5.
_______________

Might be growing in my estimations since I viewed and reviewed it, but not by very much. Full review is around here somewhere. B-ish

Does Cache = pointless.

Only semi joking as I didn't get much out of it. Yes, the movie is very French and reminds me of other French movies. Maybe as I guessed early on what is going to happened that stopped me from enjoying it.

************************

One quick question, as Dolce answered abit of my longer review in the Foreign section.

As Cache seems to mean Hidden is the point of this movie, the hidden secerts in our life ( Not sure if I am right on that or I missed it )

could someone explain to me what happened in this movie? thanks.

I don't quite understand the question? What were your thoughts on it, actually? Might help me figure out what you are interested in talking about. I watched it and thought it was pretty straightforward, but several people have expressed confusion at the ending.

it put me to sleep.
i thought it was only for about ten minutes (after he visits his childhood friend), but by the time it was over i had absolutely no idea what happened, so im thinking i missed a little more than that. and i didnt really like what i know i saw, so i'd rather not make the drive all the way back to catch it again. so basically, just what happens after that visit (after they got the tape showing the visit from a different perspecitve....which was the best part of it, really...the whole taped thing that shows what happens after the fact, like the crying in this scene, etc was excellently done.) So basically: who sent the tapes, who was the boy with the blood, why did the tapes get sent, etc etc.

So I actually just saw this for the first time last night.

Yeah, I kind of hated it. Like, I get what it's trying to say, I just think it's complete bullshit given the context of the film. I don't play the pretentious card very often when it comes to movies, but I will (and rather comfortably) with this one.

kypade, I know this is an old thread so you probably don't care anymore, but...

We never find out who sent the tapes. It's speculated that it was either the guy's "childhood friend" or his son. Really, it's not important to the film though.

The boy with the blood was probably supposed to be the childhood friend (remember the guy told his parents he was coughing up blood in an attempt to get him sent away?), but again it's never explained.

The tapes are supposed to be manifestations of the main characters guilt regarding what happened with the childhood friend, which is preposterous considering the circumstances of the situation (main one being, he was SIX years old!), therefore rendering the entire heavy handed theme of the film pointless.

Juliette Binoche was fantastic, but that was about it. I thought it was rather boring and pointless.

C+

Very unique style with an interesting thriller aspect, and some shocking moments. But at the same time, the film itself can be way too interpretative and I think thats the flaw. Was it the Childhood Friend, his son, or was it in fact the couple's son? If it was, its such a plot hole, how would the son know about it to begin with? Was she having an affair? Why was Georges so willing to pay money, as its not like he did anything illegal?

If Cache means hidden, the movie's true intentions and overall enjoyment are too hidden to feel like nothing more than an interesting experience.

C+

I found this movie incredibly well constructed but absolutely infuriating.

The ending made me actually roll my eyes and then curse. I was so fucking annoyed.
I really would also like to say a big fuck you to any film-makers who think they can rise above the demand for some form of narrative closure altogether.

I mean i loved it on some levels, then detested it on others.
The performances were great. The whole thing felt very real to me.
But therein lies its problem, when films cross a line in dedication to emulating reality, they lose what makes films enjoyable. People on screen cannot entirely be interpreted by the audience, we need guiding through more techniques than Cache was willing to utilise. It's ambiguity is what killed it.

All in all i was thrilled on some levels, and it did grip me throughout, but on other levels i was vastly dissapointed, and that missed opportunity for greatness was only maybe a scene, or a few lines of dialogue away, which is what made this movie even more frustrating.



B-

The suicide was one of the most shocking scenes I have seen in recent years. Left me with my mouth open.

It reminds me of the murder scene in Benny's Video, another Haneke film. He has a great sense of visual, but he can't stretch it to any full lengh potential.

I missed this one while it was playing as part of the Haneke festival here (as well as all of his other French stuff). Made me upset. Stupid school.

The above quote betrays a certain deficit in the author's cultural fluency...

Loved it. Great little mystery/paranoia movie. As for the people complaining about the answers, keep in mind the movie is called Hidden for a reason. I'd lean towards Majid's son ftr but I expect there's not supposed to be an answer

5/10

Someone healed the é. Thank you.

A-


Caché was my first foray into Michael Haneke's filmmaking world and while this film and its style are admittedly not for everyone's taste, I liked it a lot. It is difficult to go into detail with this review without spoiling the film - a film that needs to be seen and experienced. Caché is a film that works on multiple levels. It can be seen as a meditation on guilt, scapegoating or as a tale of ever-present racism in France. It can also be seen, however, as a study on cinema and cinematic voyeurism. I loved the way he plays with the audiences, making sure you never know what you are actually watching, a tape or the actual film...or is there even a difference? It's true that at certain times the film does comes across as pretentious with long stationary camera shots in which nothing happens, but that just contributes to the film's nature and the story it is telling.

Moreover, after the very slow build-up, a certain scene in the middle of the film seems even moreso shocking. I won't spoil it here, but those who have seen the film know what I'm talking about. This scene, played in a horrendously mundane and quiet way (just like the rest of the film) is probably the single most shocking scene I have seen in any film in over a year or maybe even longer. The simplicity and raw brutality of it left my jaw hanging (literally) on my first viewing (I think I had to rewatch that for three times to overcome the shock). It doesn't feel gratuitous either. Just like this scene, the whole movie actually makes the viewer feel pretty uncomfortable. This is an uneasy, nasty and raw flick with mostly unlikeable characters...and I admired it for that. The main protagonist, played by Daniel Auteuil, has little positive features on display here, yet he does come across as a very real character thanks to Auteuil's performance. Sadly, Juliette Binoche who plays his wife doesn't get much to do in this film. It's Auteuil's tour de force.

Without any music (except for a short TV show scene) and with little camera trickery the film is still filled with a certain style through and through. At times the film seems just hyperreal. As you might have noticed, I didn't mention anything about the film's plot so far. That was for two reasons. First of all, I don't think one needs to be spoiled before seeing it by having some preconceptions (they'll likely turn out wrong anyway). Second reason is simply that the plot actually plays a more subordinate role here. One should not expect a typical Hollywood thriller in any way here. There's no climax (well, maybe it's that certain aforementioned scene, but that happens not too late into the film), there is no all-resolving and satisfying ending. It's just not that kind of a film. However, I did like Haneke's "maybe, maybe not" allusion in the film's very last scene (when the end credits are rolling). Pay close attention and you'll know what I mean. I didn't even catch it during my first viewing. It's almost like a bone he does throw to the audiences, but still leaving a large shadow of doubt over them. It's a nice touch, even though not even necessary for the film.