One of my all time favorites.

Awesome Movie

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

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.

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.

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.

My Rating: *** out of ****.Like the first reviewer, I also saw Replay at the Annapolis Film Festival. There were a number of short films before it; some of them were good and others weren't. Nevertheless, Replay is a solid film that is definitely worth a look.The way Replay is presented is an interesting and unique way. Its the story of two detectives investigating a murder case through a series of security tapes. However, Replay shows the detectives point of views when they are watching the tapes. This gets the audience involved in solving the case with the detectives.There is no doubt that the success of the film comes from the filmmakers. Its a nearly flawless edited film, Sean Murphy(the editor) clearly knew what he was doing. The screenwriters bring some witty comedy into the investigation. The director of the film (I cant remember the name) does an excellent job.Since Replay is always focused on the security tapes, we never get a glimpse of what the two detectives look like. However, the actors are given dialogue to act with and they give personalities to their characters. Even the supporting characters like their boss and the secretary display personalities.Replay does have a flaw and unfortunately its not a small one. There is a scene in the investigation I dont think should have been shown. The scene kind of made the movie predictable in who the guilty one was. Thats the only mistake the filmmakers make, if it were not for that Replay would have received a higher rating. However, it is an entertaining and interesting film.