Metascore
83

Universal acclaim - based on 37 Critics What's this?

User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 229 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: ,
  • Summary: Georges (Auteuil), a television talk show host, and his wife Anne (Binoche), are living the perfect life of modern comfort and security. One day, their idyll is disrupted in the form of a mysterious videotape that appears on their doorstep. On it they are being filmed by a hidden camera from across the street with no clues as to who shot it, or why. As more tapes arrive containing images that are disturbingly intimate and increasingly personal, Georges launches in to an investigation of his own as to who is behind this. As he does so, secrets from his past are revealed, and the walls of security he and Anne have built around themselves begin to crumble. (Sony Pictures Classics)
    Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 37
  2. Negative: 1 out of 37
  1. 100
    A perplexing and disturbing film of great effect.
  2. The picture moves with stealth, enjoying its own thriller-ness as hints are laid and mislaid. There's a sense that Hitchcock is hovering in the background and cheering for Auteuil, who musters all his French superstardom to play a man having his mask of blandness torn off.
  3. Haneke echoes the theme of Hitchcock's "Rear Window": Moviemaking is basically an act of voyeurism. We secretly examine people's lives in every movie. But in this one, there is a hidden camera, a movie within the movie as it were, forcing us to observe a character along side a mysterious stranger.
  4. This is the most Hitchcockian of Haneke's films. A seemingly well-adjusted man in a well ordered universe is brought to the brink.
  5. 80
    The eerily timely subject of Haneke's film is France's unwilling encounter with the disenfranchised minorities it has tried to sweep under the rug. As one who giggled through his widely admired, irredeemably silly "The Piano Teacher," I wasn't prepared to be easily won over by Caché, but it turns out to be his most human and affecting movie to date.
  6. Demanding, quietly breathtaking film.
  7. In the important things, in all the ways that really count, Caché is a handsome fraud.

See all 37 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 67 out of 121
  2. Negative: 45 out of 121
  1. Nov 17, 2010
    10
    Beautiful film. Long, silent shots set a perfect tone and built the tension for the more shocking and passionate scenes. Best of 2005 and one of the best of the decade. Expand
  2. PhilM.
    Jan 30, 2006
    10
    A refreshing breath of French Air. A view of French racism that in these Post-Katrina days we can see is different from and even more unconcious than our own. Expand
  3. JohnO.
    Apr 15, 2007
    9
    It toys with you for hours, perhaps days after its conclusion. Fantastic stuff!!
  4. S.Fondue
    May 6, 2006
    7
    Hmmmm.... I liked the slow pace of the film, a nice change from the usually Hollywood fare. Lots of people probably got bored by the slow scenes but I found it quite hypnotic and I enjoy slow-paced films generally, I'm used to Jim Jarmusch and stuff like that so it's no big deal for me to wait a while for a scene to unfold. I can wait. The violence was great, one scene had the whole theater in audible shock. Yay for violence in films. Acting was excellent all-round, Juliete Binoche in particular was amazing. Some annoying things though: I don't need a film to tell me that racism is bad, and that white people in Europe have done bad stuff to minorities. I already knew all that stuff. Believe it or not. So when the film started getting 'political' I felt a bit cheated because I was expecting a more traditional thriller. I guess the director's trying to subvert our expectations, which is all very well and good, but I can't pretend to be thrilled by biting into an apple and tasting a pear if I don't like pears. Plus - when the ending came I missed what it was I was supposed to be looking at because there's so much detail in the scene, it's hard to know where to look. I mean, yay for not spoonfeeding us Mr. Haneke, but I wish I had the freedom of the actors in the film did to 'rewind' things so I could rewind that last scene and play it again.... I'd go see it a second time just to see that bit but it costs money to go to the cinema... at least for me... fortunately enough people posted spoilers in this website thingy here so I kinda know what I missed now.... but I still would've liked to have seen it with my own eyes... I guess there's a certain irony in a bunch of rich people whining about how they didn't understand a movie when people in other parts of the world have real problems, and that's probably part of what the director's point is. Okay, so you didn't understand the film, not a big deal really. You could be in some foreign country getting blown up or something, hey, so be happy that you're in a westernised country and you have the internet and you can read this text right now and some soldier isn't trying to shoot your feet off. The key scene in the filmat least in my opinion is not the ending, but the bit in the middle where the two parents think their kid is missing and they're... doing something or other on some room, I can't remember, and in the background the TV is showing images of the Middle East and all the violence over there. And that's exactly what the world's problems are to the two main characters - background. They don't even notice the TV. It was at that point where I understood the true aims of the movie. And then I started to feel a bit cheated because if I knew it had a political subtext I wouldn't have bothered going.... Smug, maybe. I guess the director's using smugness to wake us up to our own smugness. But I already knew I was smug before this movie came along, it's telling me nothing new. But I tell you what, during that aforementioned scene I was mesmerised by the TV and didn't even pay attention to the main characters. I'm fascinated by people in other countries getting shot at, I find it very scary. I'm lucky to live where I do. Maybe I'm not so smug after all... This film is good, you should see it. And if you didn't like it, well... the film probably doesn't like you, either. I can see why the critics liked it while the public remain very polarised about it. You're not really supposed to 'enjoy' this film, just like you're not supposed to enjoy getting beaten up by some guy down at the pub, but if you think carefully about why you got beaten up, you might learn something. "Hidden" (Cache) isn't a film for everyone, but it makes you think, (especially after the film is over) and in a world of chumps, that can't be all bad. Unless you don't like thinking. And we all like thinking, don't we? Expand
  5. TomO.
    Feb 25, 2006
    4
    Slow paced and opaque. Subtitles in white font are occasionally illegible.
  6. kens.
    Dec 27, 2005
    2
    When I saw the torturously slow title credits roll I should have left right there. That was the first clue. Then the initial video was again confusing and revealed only too slowly. The middle of the film had me curious as to the perpretator and I had some sympathy for the two victims. But my concern was mostly for Juliet Binoche's character only, mainly due to her fine acting. Auteil's character, a tight, pinched and boring personality had me mostly turned off. Some nice shots of how upper middle class French people live. Big blood scene woke me up a bit, but it was really mor like a bucket of ice water. Pretty crude. I missed the final clue in the last scene and had to hear it from another person in the audience after I was mercifully released by the bogus clue for an ending. The characters in the movie are supposed to be the victims, not the viewers. This is the most self indulgent movie that I have seen since the Brown Bunny. The critics completely led me astray on this one. Expand
  7. shawn
    Dec 27, 2005
    0
    I simply cannot believe how many reviewers are liking this ridiculous waste of film. An unoriginal idea (David Lynch already did this) with shots held far too long for no apparent reason. When Tarchovsky does it, it works. When Haneke does it, it's akward, almost clumsy. What I also do not understand is why no one seems at all bothered by the slaughter of an animal onscreen. Are we supposed to be impressed by this lame attempt to get under our skin? Slasher films ran their course some time ago. Perhaps someone should tell Europe that the 80's are over. And I don't even know where to begin with all the comments comparing this hack to Hitchcock. Cache reminded me far too much of a student film that needs about 100 minutes edited out of it. Expand

See all 121 User Reviews

Trailers