Just perfect...

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Michael Haneke is very clearly a talented and intelligent filmmaker--and if the first two movies I've seen by him are any indication, I don't think I like his movies very much. That, of course, does not mean that they are bad by any definition, but it does show that his movies are not necessarily for everyone. I for one believe that a filmmaker capable of making an audience uncomfortable while keeping their attention is a gifted filmmaker indeed, and Haneke does that well with me. So, without further ado: Code: Unknown is an ensemble film of characters lives that intermingle and run across each other in Paris. Unlike such films as 21 Grams, Crash, et al, however, Code: Unknown is more of a statement on character's lack of identity than their interdigitated roles surrounding a social setting. Here, one can hardly call what is on screen as "social", even while relationships unravel, parties are held, and films-within-the-film are made. If you want to see the most utterly alone characters in all of cinema, look here.The other movie by Haneke I've seen is The Seventh Continent, and these two movies are made in basically the exact same structure: immense long takes with black leader in between to separate them. The only exception to that rule is when Juliette Binoche's character is acting in a movie, at which point cuts occur, signifying that movies are ultimately fake.Therein is probably one of the most difficult things about Haneke as a filmmaker: he strong-arms rather than invites. Long takes are typically used to make the audience to sit and look at the image on the screen for longer than they are normally accustomed to, but with Haneke I feel like he's taking that concept to the extreme (probably purposefully, which is why I don't criticize him for it) and basically forcing you into a specific perspective, which he will not change. If Bazin is right and there's a world outside of the frame, Haneke locks you away from it. And the only window he lets you have is to the world's darkest, most impersonal facets.There's quite a long tradition of this in cinema, however. John Cassavetes is probably the most famous filmmaker operating in this mode, as he was known to purposefully cut out all the parts of his films that other people found enjoyable. Haneke certainly has something to say and certainly knows exactly how to say it. Just be forewarned that this movie is not meant to be enjoyable.Otherwise, I really like his exploration of miscommunication and the ways in which the characters set themselves up to never be able to express themselves truly. If the movie weren't so insistent in tone, perhaps the emotional drive behind it would have more reverberation in my own viewing of the movie, but instead the disciplinary shooting causes me to be intellectually resistant to his particular world-view.--PolarisDiB

I am French and I must say this is a rather disappointing movie. It starts well with an interesting event in which 5 persons are involved. Then we follow each of them in their own thread of life, switching from one to the other without any connection. This kind of scheme usually leads to some interesting plot where destinies cross each other. But not there. It just goes nowhere. And then it's real, real slow. I usually am an admirer of movies where you get the time to think, to observe an interesting scene. But not here. In this film many scenes linger on without any reason at all. It feels like we are just put on hold! What a bore.

...because on the DVD case, one critic stated that this film was "one of the top 5 films of the year". Considering how dull and uninvolving the film was, then it was a poor year indeed. Now this isn't to say it's a horrible film--just one that is difficult to connect with or care about in any deep way. The film appears to be about interpersonal communication and it seems to take the approach that people are disconnected by actually making the film itself disconnected and disjoint. Yeah, whatever. All I know is that I couldn't wait for the film to end and it's one of the duller French films I've ever seen.As for the story itself, it's a bunch of segments involving people who occasionally intersect with those in other segments (such as the one involving the awfully selfish teen and the well-meaning Malian man). The problem is that there were no segues--just cuts to the next unconnected vignette. Additionally, the lack of emotion in most of these segments made the whole experience tedious. I really wish the films' makers had taken some of the better sequences and just hashed them out more instead of making a film that overall just doesn't satisfy.FYI--As an American who is rather fluent in sign language, I was surprised how very difficult it was to understand what the deaf kids signed in the film. This was especially surprising since American Sign Language is directly descended from the French. Non-signers might feel put off that SOME of the signing in the film was not captioned and most would have no idea what the kids were saying at the end of the film. However, it was really amazing and catchy to hear their drum corps--it had an infectious energy.

Both have similar themes. They both deal with the psychological and communicative dysfunctions particular to our modern, multicultural world. Both films also deal with the suffering we create through our behavior toward one another by way of our assumptions, beliefs, and prejudices. Stylistically, however, these two films have little in common. Whereas "Crash" plays like a pilot for a TV series, weaving its characters and their stories together in support of its themes (holding our hands throughout and taking us where it wants us to go), "Code Unknown" is a puzzle in fragments that we must assemble ourselves from the information we are given. Whereas "Crash" connects too many improbable conversations and events with possible ones in order to hit us over the heads and wrench our hearts with its message, "Code Unknown" entrusts us with cinematic clues and metaphors that we must use to construct our own understanding. In "Crash" everyone tells us everything they feel and think thereby limiting the possibilities of what we are allowed to imagine. To the contrary, "Code Unknown" invites us to rely our own abilities (as perceivers) to discover what truths there are."Crash" has a few brilliant scenes, but once we have seen it there is nothing left to experience, wonder about, or really discuss. The show is over, and now we know everything about it (just as with every Hollywood film) . "Code Unknown" (like all works of art) is made up of one brilliant scene after another, but more importantly it entreats us to reflect, as well as interpret. It also invites us into conversation about it, even asks us to return and discover again.... your cinewest correspondent