I've always been intrigued by films that either play itself out in real time, like John Badham's Nick of Time starring Johnny Depp, or films that contain moments of one continuous take, such as the spiraling opening of Brian De Palma's Snake Eyes, or fight action sequences in Tom Yum Goong, and of course, plenty of art house fare that employs the still camera. I can imagine the kind of logistical nightmare the production team has to go through in ensuring a meticulous delivery, otherwise it'll be back from the top all over again.Which was why one of the first films I've decided to have a look at during this year's Hong Kong International Film Festival, was an indie slasher film Cut, which is done in one continuous take for the entire film from start to end. Little can be said of the storyline, but the premise and delivery technique was flawless, that you can't help but to constantly deal with the nagging thought of how things were done, and especially how the stunt team and camera crew got to get out of each other's way constantly.Then thanks to this month's SFS Talkies, I learn of an earlier film, done some 10 years ago by Mike Figgis of Leaving Las Vegas fame, that made Cut look like child's play, and everything else that I had experienced thus far look like a walk in the park. Why? Four simultaneous cameras all shot in synchronization, done in 1 continuous take each, following a myriad of characters in and around a film casting location for the most parts, with characters interacting with one another, and the cameras following different characters when they criss- cross.It's a brilliant technical nightmare. Half the time I was keeping my eyes peeled if a camera crew was found to be in the gunsights of another, but this was not the case. You can imagine the kind of meticulous planning during pre-production to have everything and everyone in sync, and challenging even that preparatory work with a few narrative events like earthquakes to literally shake things up. And having to film everything 15 times in 2 weeks in order to either take the best one (no splicing, no editing here) just boggles the mind, and surely it's an exercise in the technical sense rather than one focused on telling a story in straightforward sense.The story isn't much to behold, granted it was all improvisational based on how the actors decide to get around to the pre-determined markers to get to the end. I suppose it is this freedom that attracted a cast list that happens to be remarkably strong, with an ensemble to include Saffron Burrows, Salma Hayek, Holly Hunter, Kyle MacLachlan, Leslie Mann, Alessandro Nivola, Julian Sands, Sellan Skarsgard and Jeanne Tripplehorn, besides a whole host of others. Characters range from the intense to the comical (Sands' masseuse, Nivola's keyboardist and Hayek's mediocre actress wannabe), which is a good thing to keep the interest and spirits up as the narrative just sprawls all over the place, and what more having 4 scenes simultaneously up on screen.Which provides the viewer with quite the experience in a snapshot of existentialism, and life in general. We see things from our POV in real time at any one time, but we're well aware that during the same time frame, life around us revolves, whether we're participating actively or otherwise. The film provides a curious look at scenes before and after something pivotal, and like our attention span, we can choose to focus on those that interest us and ignore the rest. We have to, we have no choice, given limited cognitive abilities. But here, we're presented with a choice to see everything almost in focus, and at times two or more sections will amalgamate from different angles, especially with some milestone scenes.I was a little apprehensive before the film about how I was able to follow the narrative given that I can't possible filter 4 different audio tracks as much as I like to, but again here's where the director makes decisions to assist us. Certain scenes were played out in an extended format, such as a quiet drive, which allows us to take our attention off a particular quadrant for a while. Or some where characters just laze around in quiet contemplation. Or have to suffer a frustrating wait, such as those involving Tripplehorn. For areas that Figgis wants our attention on, the audio will drift in, and sometimes it's balanced on different speakers, so watch this with a proper sound system set up!For sure this is a film that demands more than one viewing, which allows those amongst us intrigued enough to just focus on one particular quadrant for the entire film, before moving onto another, if one is hardcore enough to do that. And with Everything But The Girl's Single in the soundtrack, I'm sold.

My god... I'm warning you. This "movie" is absolute GARBAGE and SERIOUSLY a waste of time! I wouldn't even call it a movie. I had to watch this for a class so I didn't really have a choice. I wanted to turn it off so badly. I want my 97 minutes of life back! At least I didn't have to pay a dime for this mess. But then again, time is money... I should be reimbursed $100 for seeing this movie. The gimmick "movie" never gets any better. Trust me.Sure, the idea sounds interesting (take four cameras and shoot simultaneously without cuts), and it was an ambitious attempt, I'll give that, but honestly, the end result is sooooooooooooooooo HORRIBLE. It's like a really bad student film.This experiment just shows why movies need cuts, directing actors (even the big stars were horrible in most of the scenes), a real script with a real story, and most importantly, using a freaking boom mic (obviously they didn't use one because it would get in the shots). It is extremely boring and horribly shot.You can tell which scene the director wants you to focus on by the audio level; the audio gain becomes louder for the one that should be focused on by the audience and the rest become less. The director cheats because while one scene that is being focused, the rest is just obviously dragging time doing absolutely nothing. For example, Jeanne Tripplehorn (Water World, Sliding Doors), I think she was supposed to be Hayak's lesbian agent or something... all she basically does is sit in her Limo 95% of the film(sometimes she gets out of it) wearing headphones to spy on Hayak. Wow. What a great part for her! I guess she accepted the role so she could make out with Salma Hayek.That reminds me... what is up with the random lesbian scenes? Everyone seems to be lesbians and making out constantly like a porno flick. It's a pathetic device to keep the simple minded audience to keep watching. That's probably the only reason some people voted high. And of course they just have to have drugs in a movie... LAME.And they also randomly throw in THREE pointless huge earthquakes within a few minutes from each other in this movie, just because they want to show off that the scenes are all connected (we'd probably forget they're all supposed to be connected if it wasn't for that gimmick effect). But so what? Obviously someone in the crew is just queuing all the cameraman with a countdown (probably with an earpiece) and then they all just shake the camera.This movie literally is like a cheap student film. I'm not kidding.Blair Witch Project cost less to make and was also experimental, but it actually was well-made and intriguing (they even had better acting!) and that's why it succeeded, even to the mass market, as well as the style repeated years later like Cloverfield.The climax for the Blair Witch was worth it and was actually the best part of movie. For this movie, the ending is just as bad as the entire movie, especially the acting. It really falls apart. It actually turned into more of a comedy; the security guard doesn't do anything, and neither does the front desk lady or whoever it was, saying "You can't go in there" but they don't do a damn thing! Worst security ever. I mean, come on. There was absolutely nothing close to being real about this movie. People are so oblivious and obviously only acting on 'que' than anything close to being natural. Oh, and did I mention it turns into a porno flick every so often.The gunshot just sounds horribly cheap. Hayak's reaction and everyone else to the gunshot is laughable. And out of nowhere, what is up with the girl, who was giving the pitch, all of a sudden just filming the dead body? -- And the lady in complete white, that was sitting outside with the security guard (why was he just chilling outside?!), seems like she was some sick person from an institute, just joins the scene as if she's some medical assistant but does absolutely nothing to help the guy. This movie was just so annoying, laughable and a complete mess.I'd bet the cast weren't that impressed with the final result than they first heard about the idea and getting on-board. That Stellan guy probably accepted the role because he could do Salma Hayek and 'improvise' whatever sexual moves he could think of and get away with it.If you pay close attention, the four cameras aren't really even synced exactly. For example, in one shot you see Hayak enter the conference room earlier than the other camera angle for a couple seconds off. That may be picky, but that's bad editing if you ask me, especially when the whole point of this experiment is to show that's actually totally synced.1/10. (1 just for trying something new. -9 for the end results.)

I have always wondered if there was a film where it is basically one long take with no written lines, no cuts and no editing at all, and this experimental film drama from director Mike Figgis (Leaving Las Vegas) is exactly what I was looking for, in terms of freshness. The film consists of four frames simultaneously showing four different stories in real time, and once or twice meeting each other, and to help you know which of the four frames to look at there is a good use of sound cuts and bridges, and a little bit of music (by Figgis). The action all seems to lead to or from a (TV/film) studio where many members of cast and crew are going/come from, and the actors of course improvise every single line, and when they are not talking you concentrate on the frame that has sound. Starring Terminator 2's Xander Berkeley as Evan Wantz, Pirates of the Caribbean's Stellan Skarsgård as Alex Green, Golden Brooks as Onyx Richardson, Saffron Burrows as Emma, Super Mario Bros' Richard Edson as Lester Moore, Salma Hayek as Rose, Holly Hunter as Renee Fishbine, Executive; Danny Huston (son of John, and half-brother of Angelica) as Randy, Kyle MacLachlan as Bunny Drysdale, George of the Jungle's Leslie Mann as Cherine, Jurassic Park III's Alessandro Nivola as Joey Z, Ana's Assistant; Basic Instinct's Jeanne Tripplehorn as Lauren Hathaway and Dracula: Dead and Loving It's Steven Weber as Darren Fetzer. Apparently 15 takes of continuous filming were made over two weeks, the actors changed their clothes in each one so that they could not cheat in editing, and the actors were responsible for their own costume, hair and make-up. It may strain our eyes a little, and it may take you a few seconds to realise the frame you are supposed to be focusing at a particular time, but a very original and refreshing way of film-making. Very good!

This movie is a pretentious attempt at being "revolutionary" or whatever the hell you want to call it. Sure this was a potentially interesting idea (real time and quartered screen), but it wasn't used in a very powerful way. Being different doesn't make something good, and this movie is a prime example of that. This idea could have actually made a point or followed a story that wasn't clichéd and boring instead of some over-dramatic Hollywood crap. This movie was a confusing and bland waste of time. I never felt the need to find out how anything ended up or felt any attachment or interest in any of the characters. It was lacking in any kind of substance whatsoever, and I hope that the majority of people who consider viewing this movie spare themselves and change their minds.