|
Directed by: Michael Winterbottom Starring: Tim Robbins, Samantha Mortan I've been waiting for someone to do a review on this, because I'm not a very good writer, but I guess I'll give it a shot. It starts off introducing Tim Robbins as a man who can read people's minds because he has a virus that was put in him by his company to solve crimes. He's called out to do a case on someone smuggling pappels (pieces of paper that let you leave to the outside world). He then tells the owner of the factory that some guy was doing it instead of the true villian, Samantha Mortan. Some how after glancing at her he, "falls in love" and lies for her so she can get off, and their romance begins from there. I felt this movie could've been so much better, but the plot was boring and complicated. There were no subplots, at all either. It was just Tim and Samantha falling in love, then Tim leaving back to his home. Shortly after he's called back out to solve the crime but can't find Samantha. This is because Samantha got pregnant and violated Code 46. Code 46 means that the DNA of Tim and Samantha we're too similar so they terminated the baby and her memory of Tim. Shortly after, they meet again. Tim is kind've heart broken she can't remember him so he tries to leave but his pappel is no longer valid. So, he seeks Samanthas help in gathering a new papel to leave the city, but they end up falling in love again. I just felt the movie was very boring, and a waste of time. If it had more suspense or more subplots it could've been a lot better. That was my sorry rear end review, so if anyone else can write a better one- Please do  RATING: 3.0 PROS: Tim Robbins, Sci Fi futuristic society CONS: BORING, dragged on a lot, didn't explain too much ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0345061/
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2004 10:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
Code 46 is so foreign and so benign, even for a sci-fi movie. It's really enamoured with it's premise, and thinks that Dystopian Movie Future #4619 is way more engrossing than a non-synthetic character. It also smashes in your skull with its generic "omnipresent world government\law stifles the human spirit because corporations blah blah blah george dubya bush" message. The movie doesn't work because it thinks its ideas are hot poo poo and it doesn't waste any time assuming we're the toilet seat at Bonanza. The characters slip all the wonderful gadgetry and norms and values of the time into their "everyday" conversation as tactfully as a retard masturbates. Almost every line hints at another premise that hack writer Frank Boyce thought was so fresh and innovatory that he just had to include it--and rather than off-handedly allude to them, why not just make the afterthought characters hack up contrived banter about "personality viruses" and other assorted geek poo poo? It saved him the time of having to observe a real human conversation. Robbins and Morton have no loving chemistry, and I could let that slide if this movie had some anchor beyond their fumbling romance. But director\moron Michael Winterbottom doesn't seem to grasp that lack of emotional resonance doesn't compliment lack of functional storytelling too well. gently caress me with a spoon here, Winterbottom, but just what the hell are we supposed to see in this movie? Neat gagdets? His vision of the future is sort of like our world under the fish-eye lens of a corporate omniculture where humans wander around aimless and passive. That premise probably sounds provoking to some nouveau hippie screenwriter, but on the screen it sure is loving boring. Winterbottom is a loving hack, too. He noticably steals scenes from other lovely Morton films. She and grandpa Robbins dance in a rave scene lifted from Morvern Callar, and then they gently caress like Morton and the henpecked husband in In America. Christ, that's like plotting a bank heist to roll a hobo. Code 46 is a lovely movie and a decent sedative. One.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2004 06:35
|
|
|
I totally agree with you guys, this film is terrible. It tries so hard to be intellectual it's sickening, a total waste of time. The only good thing about it was some of the instrumental music used in the opening sequences. Is it just me or did you guys too see the "references" to Lost in Translation?  *
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2004 15:46
|
|
|
Somewhat interesting. Nice atmosphere. However if you disliked Lost in Translation you will HATE this movie. It lacks a plot, it lacks characters, its essentially a really uninteresting version of A Handmaidens Tale without the feminist overtones. I would also critique the fact that it played with the Oedipus metaphor, without actually following through. They have the mother, they have the sphinx, but he never kills the sphinx, he has no real catharsis, and the whole Oedipus bit is more or less dropped as soon as they really throw it at you. However it really did have great atmosphere. Good music, excellent cinematography, and of course Tim Robbins, who I have always liked. And in truth, I enjoyed it if only for that. Voting 3
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2004 08:33
|
|
|
Long story short: Lost in Translation OF THE FUTURE!!! Let's face it, if the movie wasn't set in a "Blade Runner meets Bauhaus" world and was written as a conventional romance, it would never, ever, have seen the light of day. Sci-fi fans are so starved for decent, non-OMG RIDDICKS BLOWS poo poo UP-type fare, it seems, that something like Code 46 can end up being produced and distributed fairly widely. I didn't really care for either of the main characters, and their inane ramblings had me baffled and annoyed in equal parts. Subplots are set up and promptly dropped, most notably the vendor operating outside the entrance to the city and the quasi-Oedipus thing mentioned in the post above me, which quite literally brought up and dismissed in a single line. Don't even get me started on the rape scene that isn't a rape scene; I don't think I've ever seen more revolting onscreen coitus, and judging by the awkward shuffling in the theatre, I wasn't alone. It's not a total loss, though. The electroncia soundtrack works nicely, and it's interesting to see more and more films shot on digital video, obvious as it may have been here. However, that's not enough to balance out the film's flaws; other recent films of this ilk, such as Wonderful Days, GITS 2: Innocence, and Casshern suffer from the same impulsive intellectual masturbation, but at least they have eye candy to compensate for it; Code 46's grainy digital video shots of modern day Shanghai aren't nearly enough to salvage it. All in all, Code 46 isn't so much disapointing for what it is, but rather for what it could have been; the premise is interesting and the first act's setup has potential, but it really doesn't go anywhere or do anything particularily interesting. Half an idea and a third of a movie just isn't enough to make me care about it. (As a sidenote, why do all movies set in the "near future" need to be filmed almost exclusively in Ikea showrooms? I mean, that's the way it's probably going to turn out, but let's use our imagination, people!) RATING: 1.5 Dijkstracula fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Oct 29, 2004 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2004 00:57
|
|
|
Voting 4 on the merits that this movie set a goal and accomplished it, doing an acceptable job. I awarded a bonus point for beautiful cinematography and a wonderful soundtrack.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2005 23:41
|
|
|
Voted 4, I really enjoyed this film. I was expecting more sci-fi, but was pleasantly surprised to find a near future world very closely related to our own. The camera work was often voyeuristic and added a touch to the surveillance angle. In truth the sci-fi plays only one critical role in the film: erasing the characters' memories. A lot of the unexplained terminology and ideas left me confused, however. The reason I dug the flick was the relationship between the characters. When watching them I could recall the feelings that they were feeling, because I had been through those exact same moments; it was eerie. The whole first date vibe was great, really reminded me of that new relationship smell. I remember the feelings as she narrates them: from not being able to imagine not having met that one person, and the fear implicit in that loss, to the final realization of that fear at the end of the movie. This progression is the core of the film and what made it enjoyable to me.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2005 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
Voted 4, I enjoyed watching it but the intermittent bursts of intellectual masturbation do get somewhat annoying. I liked the sci-fi scenario presented love story. Although I do have some gripes, it was overall an entertaining movie. I thought the consentual rape scene was amusing in an odd sort of way. Lastly, I'm somewhat impartial to the way the story is presented: stuff happens and you are supposed to figure out the explanation. While it does treat you more intelligently than most movies, I was still confused at times. Gripes: The attempt to incorporate the premise "in the future, all languages get mixed and stuff" is horribly executed and took me a little bit of time to figure why an arab-looking woman was using french phrases in an airport in China. Additionally, the accents are horribly done to the point it really gets annoying to hear them exchanging horribly pronounced phrases such as "low sientow [lo siento]" over and over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2005 09:35
|
|
