Sony Pictures Classics | Release Date: December 23, 2005
6.6
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 257 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
169
Mixed:
18
Negative:
70
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
MazD.Apr 8, 2007
I can appreciate the techniques used and the director's message is evident but films have to be entertaining and engaging which this film failed to do on both fronts. The classic example is when Georges is waiting for his wife to come I can appreciate the techniques used and the director's message is evident but films have to be entertaining and engaging which this film failed to do on both fronts. The classic example is when Georges is waiting for his wife to come to the bedroom after asking the guests to leave. Pure indulgence and a waste of film. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
EthancFeb 13, 2012
In all fairness, I ejected this film after the chicken slaughter scene. I know that was an integral and symbolic scene but the senseless torture of animals for a movie is unacceptable and I have no respect for a director who condones suchIn all fairness, I ejected this film after the chicken slaughter scene. I know that was an integral and symbolic scene but the senseless torture of animals for a movie is unacceptable and I have no respect for a director who condones such acts. I can't believe there isn't more uproar in the reviews about this particular. Also, the premise has a major flaw. If someone is stalking you with surveillance video and footage of familiar (childhood) locations and then leaving these tapes at your doorstep, why not set up a video camera yourself to see who is doing this? Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
1
CarynH.Jan 30, 2006
So bad--where to begin? How can the whole premice of a movie be a six years olds feeling of extreme guilt at being jealous of another child (totally normal). But it is a great example of horrible parenting. George doesn't like the So bad--where to begin? How can the whole premice of a movie be a six years olds feeling of extreme guilt at being jealous of another child (totally normal). But it is a great example of horrible parenting. George doesn't like the little Algerian boy so we better send him off. Oh no, Pierrot's not home yet (it was 10:15) I'll just sit here by the tv and keep working? And then they just hang out all night waiting. Wouldn't a parent be calling any and everyone the kid knows? Wouldn't teams of friends, neighbors, whoever be out looking? And then he comes back like nothing happened. So manyunrelated, unrealistic things going on in this film. (what's with all the swimming scenes?) All adds up to nothing. Are we really suppose to believe the 2 sons concocted this whole thing? And what was the point of the suicide? Maybe Majid did all the taping to lure Georges to witness his suicide? Please. No matter which scenario you use the movie only makes sense as a movie--and a bad one at that. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
FantasyFeb 2, 2006
I had heard through the grapevine that this was suppossed to be a great movie. After one hour of mind boggling nothing I walked out of the theater. Perhaps you pseudointellectual snobs want to rave about this crapola but the truth is it is I had heard through the grapevine that this was suppossed to be a great movie. After one hour of mind boggling nothing I walked out of the theater. Perhaps you pseudointellectual snobs want to rave about this crapola but the truth is it is awful. It failed at every level imaginable. I kept waiting for it to get moving but it just hung around meandering doing absolutely nothing. Not my cup of tea. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
GeorgeG.Jan 16, 2006
With better lines for Daniel Auteuil, the Georges Laurent character would have been a lot more believable, both as a charecter in situ and in terms of allegory. But what does it matter when the movie is a cheat to begin with? Aside from the With better lines for Daniel Auteuil, the Georges Laurent character would have been a lot more believable, both as a charecter in situ and in terms of allegory. But what does it matter when the movie is a cheat to begin with? Aside from the question of who delivered the tapes, there is no real mystery here, and no way to determine it. In the context of this intentional carelessness -- think of it as anger, hatred, directorial sadism toward the middle class audiences who will watch -- in this context, the gruesome and unexpected suicide of the beaten-down Algerian childhood victim Majid comes across as violent porn, straight shocking and simple. Real movies about the west and the mideast? Compare Cache to Battle of Algiers and Syriana and you just wind up seeing Haneke as a punk in his sixties. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JordiM.Jan 20, 2006
What a crap! The only thing that Haneke do in this film is a melting-pot of his old ideas. Now his brain are empty. Sorry for the fans.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
CatherineB.Jan 30, 2006
This movie for me failed at every level and did not address any of the central themes with any conviction at all. I have given it 1 point purely as Binoche is a fine actress although this did not give her any challenges at all. very disappointing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AlexG.Feb 15, 2006
I went to see this movie last night and I just could not wait to get out the cinema. Although the main character's performance was OK, the film is excruciatindly slow and I left feeling I completely wasted two hours of my life. I went to see this movie last night and I just could not wait to get out the cinema. Although the main character's performance was OK, the film is excruciatindly slow and I left feeling I completely wasted two hours of my life. Definitely one to miss. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
CarolAnnC.Feb 2, 2006
Tedious is the only word or thought that comes to mind. I waited anxiously for someone to have a interesting conversion so that l would be able to understand the true feelings of the characters It never came. Boring unrelated scenes that did Tedious is the only word or thought that comes to mind. I waited anxiously for someone to have a interesting conversion so that l would be able to understand the true feelings of the characters It never came. Boring unrelated scenes that did not flow.I stayed for the entire movie only because l couldn't believe how truly boring it was. Enough said, TEDIOUS! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
ToddFeb 9, 2006
There are no words to express how truly awful this film was except for REFUND.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
KenOJan 4, 2010
Love the comments from the "feelm" snobs about how great this was. Pretentious, boring, slow...does France have a surplus of video stock? That's the only explanation for the multiple minutes-long scenes of *nothing* happening. I figure Love the comments from the "feelm" snobs about how great this was. Pretentious, boring, slow...does France have a surplus of video stock? That's the only explanation for the multiple minutes-long scenes of *nothing* happening. I figure the actors and crew were having lunch, someone left the camera on, and when they got back Haneke shrugged his shoulders and said "print it". And the slasher scene---sure, everyone knows that Friday the 13th and Halloween part 25 are the epitome of artistic cinema, but this? Looked more like Monty Python's Black Knight. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
RonC.Oct 12, 2006
Thank god for fast forward controls on a DVD player. This is slow beyond compare. Thankfully you can use the 2x fast forward and still read the subtitles.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JacquesT.Nov 30, 2006
Extremely annoying, pretentious film which does a good job of maintaining your interest and gives no payoff to the mystery. On the level of the mystery it offers nothing but a half-baked, nonsensical "answer" at the very end, which you only Extremely annoying, pretentious film which does a good job of maintaining your interest and gives no payoff to the mystery. On the level of the mystery it offers nothing but a half-baked, nonsensical "answer" at the very end, which you only get if you happen to spot it. The film makes sense to me only if interpreted as a dream of the protagonaist, evidence for which is scattered through the film. If so, however, I can only say "so what?". As for the much-touted political aspect of the film, are we to really care about what one 6-year old French kid did to a 6-year old Algerian kid in 1960? Does this somehow stand for what the French did as a whole to Algerians? Are we to then take the French state at the time as a 6-year old? Pointlessly pretentious. All fluff and no stuff. Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
fjuann.Dec 24, 2006
Don't waste your time watching it. I've slept several times while watching it so boring it is. Annoying to the extreme with the long static shots, you can't help thinking that the critics that gave good marks are just Don't waste your time watching it. I've slept several times while watching it so boring it is. Annoying to the extreme with the long static shots, you can't help thinking that the critics that gave good marks are just prettending to be smart and cool. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
EdT.Jan 29, 2006
I wasted two hours of my life on this movie. The director never made me care about any of the characters and that is a major flaw.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
EthanP.Oct 5, 2006
Any of us could fall prey to the "terror" in the film, and the resulting footage and emotionless fallout would be just as boring. (But at least a hidden camera in any of our lives might happen to catch a rerun of Survivor in the background.) Any of us could fall prey to the "terror" in the film, and the resulting footage and emotionless fallout would be just as boring. (But at least a hidden camera in any of our lives might happen to catch a rerun of Survivor in the background.) "A seemingly well adjusted man in a well ordered universe is brought to the brink..." of taking a couple Ambien and going to sleep. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
HoratioS.Feb 6, 2006
"Cache" is a tedious, hamfisted slab of political art disguised as a "thriller." I have seen equally sadistic films that exist better as statements than as entertainment -- but never one that has received so much duping press.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
GregG.Apr 10, 2006
I could not believe I wasted two hours plus parking, driving, etc., on a film rated so high by the Intelligent "critics' and so low by those of us "slobs". Binoche is beautiful, but putting on the pounds in creased linens, the husband I could not believe I wasted two hours plus parking, driving, etc., on a film rated so high by the Intelligent "critics' and so low by those of us "slobs". Binoche is beautiful, but putting on the pounds in creased linens, the husband never changes his clotehs, the boy is like a teen age American, but the movie is a waste of talent. Sure, discuss it, call a meeting, but at the end say so what! What a sad expose of the critics and their choices. Give me the public reviews everytime now. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
[Anonymous]Apr 16, 2006
Boring and inexplicable. Some interesting directorial and photographic techniques, and some hints about exploring secrets in relationships. The subtitles are very good translations. Overall, a poorly executed film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RichardD.May 28, 2006
I would call a thriller a movie that keeps me on the edge of my seat, not slumped asleep in it. I would call it a tragedy in every sense of the word. I give it a score of 1 for the dog joke.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
DougM.Jun 29, 2006
Very slow paced film with characters that don't imbue any sympathy. Takes an intimate understanding of French history and the Angolian conflict to draw any real meaning. Overall a boring assemblage of small sparks of Very slow paced film with characters that don't imbue any sympathy. Takes an intimate understanding of French history and the Angolian conflict to draw any real meaning. Overall a boring assemblage of small sparks of interest/possibility that never really comes to fruition. You'll find yourself reading the dialogue more than paying attention to the characters. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JimH.Jul 16, 2006
I have no idea how such an uninteresting non-thriller could get so many good reviews. An infuriating movie for many reasons.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JamesH.Aug 25, 2006
I'm giving it a "1" only because I enjoyed watching some of the locations in the movie; kinda reminded me of visiting Paris/France. I almost gave up after 2 minutes of watching the same scene right at the beginning. WHY didn't I I'm giving it a "1" only because I enjoyed watching some of the locations in the movie; kinda reminded me of visiting Paris/France. I almost gave up after 2 minutes of watching the same scene right at the beginning. WHY didn't I trust my instincts? I get REALLY annoyed by filmakers who test the patience of their audience, and this movie does from the 1st to the last frame. And that isn't meant in a positive way. Involving your audience by making a movie well is one thing; slapping together a seemingly improvised 2 hour film and allowing critics to faun over it as "challenging" is not only lazy, but very telling of the personalities of the critics. I will treat any of the "fauners" with a HUGE grain of salt. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
DavidFDec 23, 2005
Truly ironic that this pompous film that flagellates the middle classes for being smug is so smug itself. The absence of any meaningful resolution to a so-called thriller represents the height of smugness--daring you, in the way bad French Truly ironic that this pompous film that flagellates the middle classes for being smug is so smug itself. The absence of any meaningful resolution to a so-called thriller represents the height of smugness--daring you, in the way bad French films sometimes do, to declare that the emperor has no clothes. Well, he doesn't. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
shawnDec 27, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
kens.Dec 27, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
DavidK.Jan 15, 2006
Some lovely lingering shots, but the filmmaker toys with the audience too much. I agree with the reviewer who called the filmmaker smug. The final "clue" is that the sons knew/know each other. But that does not resolve anything. Fine, life Some lovely lingering shots, but the filmmaker toys with the audience too much. I agree with the reviewer who called the filmmaker smug. The final "clue" is that the sons knew/know each other. But that does not resolve anything. Fine, life is a mystery. Why anyone would recommend this is, too. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ZocSOct 22, 2006
Typical navel gazing fare. Clearly much loved by those pride themselves on their, oh so deep knowledge of the Algerian (not Angolian [sic] or Albanian) question. To those of us who have grown up amongst it - trite and fiendishly irritating ending.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
ThewisekingJan 29, 2006
Ignore the critics and avoid this unrelenting, pretentious, preachy, obvious bore. It takes a full 30 minutes for this film to even begin. What unravels during the next hour and a half is far from a "thriller" as you can possibly get. The Ignore the critics and avoid this unrelenting, pretentious, preachy, obvious bore. It takes a full 30 minutes for this film to even begin. What unravels during the next hour and a half is far from a "thriller" as you can possibly get. The obious, preachy, letfy guilt inspired subtext and symbolism is the sort of thiing which will appeal to your sophomore social studies teacher, but not anyone else. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
SAllenJan 29, 2006
Don't waste ANY time on this contrived turd of a movie. Those praising it sound like the pseudo-intellectual pricks in college who majored in English, smoked pipes, and wore turtlenecks. YES, we all saw the deliberately placed clues and Don't waste ANY time on this contrived turd of a movie. Those praising it sound like the pseudo-intellectual pricks in college who majored in English, smoked pipes, and wore turtlenecks. YES, we all saw the deliberately placed clues and metaphors...BUT we all ENDURED an incredibly crappy mule ride and ending. This pretentious, monotonous film deserves to be "Hidden"...where no one ever again will find it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
PamJ.Feb 11, 2006
The most mysterious thing about this film is that the plot was so much more predictable than anticipated. The only reason I saw the film was because the LA. Weekly said it was so great. It was a bunch of cliches masquerading as an artsy The most mysterious thing about this film is that the plot was so much more predictable than anticipated. The only reason I saw the film was because the LA. Weekly said it was so great. It was a bunch of cliches masquerading as an artsy film. Acting was good, but I gave it a zero because I'll never recoup those two and some most boring hours of my life. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
PenelopeL.Feb 11, 2006
A Woody Allen movie without the humor or Match Point twist. A bunch of rich white folks feeling guilty.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
LindseyD.Feb 12, 2006
The longest most painful 2 hours ever, i wanted to cry and if i wasnt in the centre of the row i would have left!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
PatS.Feb 13, 2006
My husband and I heard this movie was good so we went and it was the most boring movie ever except for one brief shocker. When the movie was over we looked at each other and went huh? We were told to watch the crowd at the end of the movie. My husband and I heard this movie was good so we went and it was the most boring movie ever except for one brief shocker. When the movie was over we looked at each other and went huh? We were told to watch the crowd at the end of the movie. We did and all we saw was the 2 sons. What did this all mean? HELP? This has driven us crazy all weekend. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
HanselH.Feb 25, 2006
Lamest movie ever. As interesting as a surveillance video in French.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
StuartMar 12, 2006
slow moving, sub-titled, and just plain boring, save for 10 minutes worth
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
nonoMay 26, 2006
I watched this film with a native French speaker just to make sure the clues werent in the actual language. I watched it at Cinema Paradiso in Nothbridge Perth. What a let down. I love alternative films but they have to have something going I watched this film with a native French speaker just to make sure the clues werent in the actual language. I watched it at Cinema Paradiso in Nothbridge Perth. What a let down. I love alternative films but they have to have something going for them -this had nothing. Metallic acting,poot cinematography,cheap stunts to shock the audience. At the end of the film, the entire audience was asking each other "What was all that about". How can a film disappoint so many people and all at the same time? So sorry I wasted my time and Icant remeber a film I've ever had to say that about except "Atarnarjuat.Last of the Eskimo Runners" which was filmed entirely in the Arctic watching snow melt!!! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MaxL.Sep 17, 2006
Beware - This movie is just a fraud! There is No Drama, No Suspense, certainly No Thrill! Too bad it cannot be rated negatively I would give it a - 10. Let's create a new category "Wasted Time", then it would get the 1st prize! 2 hours Beware - This movie is just a fraud! There is No Drama, No Suspense, certainly No Thrill! Too bad it cannot be rated negatively I would give it a - 10. Let's create a new category "Wasted Time", then it would get the 1st prize! 2 hours wasted. Any critics and papers that gave a positive review should be taken to court for misleading the public! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
CraigCNov 20, 2007
Unlike the movie, I'll be brief. It's a pretentious waste of time. I kept the DVD fast forward pressed through the interminable slow shots where nothing happens, and it STILL bored me. My condolences to those who suffered through Unlike the movie, I'll be brief. It's a pretentious waste of time. I kept the DVD fast forward pressed through the interminable slow shots where nothing happens, and it STILL bored me. My condolences to those who suffered through this in the theatre. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
DustinCJul 26, 2007
why is my only question. why after spending 2 and a half hours of this drek would anyone try to convince anyone else to watch it. i was duped. i advice you not to listen to the so-called "critics on this one who rant and rave over its why is my only question. why after spending 2 and a half hours of this drek would anyone try to convince anyone else to watch it. i was duped. i advice you not to listen to the so-called "critics on this one who rant and rave over its meaningfulness. this is the only movie that when the credits started rolling i felt truly jipped. everything that made this movie interesting completely died and i was left feeling like 3 hours of my life had been literally stolen from me. shame on you, France. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
EdRMay 25, 2008
It seems that anyone criticizing this film will be immediately dismissed as an idiot, or someone who only watches and/or understands Hollywood dreck, but this is just the same kind of dull snobbery that presumably leads to people claiming to It seems that anyone criticizing this film will be immediately dismissed as an idiot, or someone who only watches and/or understands Hollywood dreck, but this is just the same kind of dull snobbery that presumably leads to people claiming to like a film like 'Caché'. It's an abysmal film, a clearly signposted "mystery" in which a dull, unlikable character wanders around disinterestedly heading towards a silly, thudding conclusion. Haneke's attempts to imitate the graceful, leisurely pace of directors like Tarkovsky are merely flat and self-important, the film's ploddingly obvious plot of interest only to those betting on how long it will go on for. A psychological thriller with no thrills and no psychology, which expects us to care about tedious, underwritten characters and, in failing to portray them in anything but the most heavy-handed, uninteresting terms, criminally wastes Auteuil and Binoche, two of the most talented actors of the last twenty years. The allegorical story about the relationship between France and Algeria ostensibly provides some depth, but that does not mean that the film is any less of an interminable cop-out. On as objective a level as is possible - it's dire. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
GeorgeKDec 21, 2005
Bogus, largely dull, silly "thriller". What the hell were they thinking? If you blink during the long slow dull final shot, you miss whatever "meaning" is supposedly there.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JeffP.Nov 25, 2006
This had to be the dullest, most pretentious thriller I've ever seen. Great lead performances are smothered by the director's static, "penetrating" style, which basically consists of letting his camera run endlessly with almost This had to be the dullest, most pretentious thriller I've ever seen. Great lead performances are smothered by the director's static, "penetrating" style, which basically consists of letting his camera run endlessly with almost nothing going on. In scene after scene. And we never even learn who was leaving the tapes. What an absolute sham. I want the two hours of my life back. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
killerfistyFeb 6, 2011
Emperor's new clothes. According to the other reviews here, this film was over 2 hours long. It felt like twice that. Pretentious, vacuous and pseudo-intellectual. If you don't care about the characters, then, by extension, you won't careEmperor's new clothes. According to the other reviews here, this film was over 2 hours long. It felt like twice that. Pretentious, vacuous and pseudo-intellectual. If you don't care about the characters, then, by extension, you won't care about whatever they are metaphors for. So what's the point? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
CineAlohaApr 7, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Sort of a spoiler. At 10:09, while we are looking at a surveillance shot pf the house, we see a full camera shadow as the husband drives by in his car. Normally just a minor technical flaw, in the context of this movie, about "hidden" cameras watching the family, this really blows up the whole premise of the movie for me. And yes, it is the camera shadow. The first assistant left the dumb side follow focus knob on; you can see its shadow just below the matte box.

I don't think anyone has ever pointed this out before; I saw this flaw six years ago, and I'm claiming it now!
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews