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 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

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

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 care about whatever they are metaphors for. So what's the point?

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.

Michael Haneke's "Cache" is absolutely flooring - in the long span of cinematic "mystery," it has been since the days of Hitchcock that a film has reveled so much in the very aura that its own genre demands.

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

First class motion. It glides, fantastic space. Thought the direction was wonderful, fully enjoyed this little gem of a flick.

Don't everyone forget the metaphor for french/algerian relations - ie the parents were going to care for Majid like a child but then rejected him to suffer, also the younger generation is fed up with the world their parents made for them and are willing to work together even against their own parents.

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

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.

Absolutely thought provoking. the issues that this film brought up are essentially what you will end up thinking about for days and the question of who was behind the tapes will become irrelevant.

This movie goes far beyond entertainment alone. Its powerful shots at critical points of the film tie everything together and force the audience to ponder about the motives which might have driven the characters to act the way they did. Great movie.

I find it interesting that Michael Haneke's "Cache (Hidden)" won the Best Director award for Haneke at the 2005 Cannes Film Festival and that it received an 83/100 on Metacritic, putting it in the category of "UNIVERSAL ACCLAIM" and that it received an 88% out of 100 on Rotten Tomatoes with only 15 out of 121 reviews rating it "rotten." Surely the awards and the opinions of the handpicked jury members of the Cannes Film Festival and all the opinions of the countless credible and legitimate scholars of film crumble in the face of Dustin C's and fjuan n's and Maz D's towering infallible authority. These three erudite individuals clearly have something to teach all those countless lowly credible and legitimate scholars of film. In fact, Dustin C, fjuan n, and Maz D should each teach a course titled "How to Understand and Decipher Complex and Sophisticated Meditations on Bourgeois Discontent and Alienation, Racial and Class Privilege, and the Importance of Boundary Transgression Narratives" at Harvard. They clearly know so much about these subjects. Or maybe they should just keep their infantile mouth shut.… Expand

My take is that Majiid's son set up the surveillance probably without his father's knowledge. The long shot towards the end of young Majiid being forcibly taken from the Laurent home iis extremely sad.

That Cache plods along for nearly three hours reflects the dread that an excellent film with an existentialist theme requires. In his complex role as Georges, Daniel Auteuil -- in his magnificently understated manner -- becomes a postmodern Raskolnikov. (Without giving away the surprising ending scenes, all I will say is: Those reviewers who really believe that Georges did not accept personal responsibility were not paying attention to one of those ending scenes.) Like Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment, there's a political subtext to Cache. Unlike Dostoyevsky's classic, Cache is a morality tale that unfolds to bone-tingling effect before an omnipresent, metaphysical hidden camera.… Expand

The movie had a good point, but that was about it. I thought the acting was horrible. The responses to the video "threats" and the drawings was not realistic. I think that this movie could be remade into a 30 minute movie if you take out all the really drawn out parts of silence.

The film is interesting and well done technically. That being said, I would go into it knowing that you will leave unsatisfied. When I realized that the movie wasn't going anywhere (about 1/3rd of the way in,) I kept giving it the benefit of the doubt. I think that was a a mistake. I wouldn't say it was overwhelmingly "creepy" like some critics. More: overwhelmingly frustrating. It gave me blue balls without even enticing me all that well.… Expand

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

I loved this movie. It keeps you thinking. You're on your toes the whole film.

It toys with you for hours, perhaps days after its conclusion. Fantastic stuff!!

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.

People who rated this movie lower than 5 are just too dumb to watch such superior movie. I like the comment from someone here about Jeniffer Aniston. Those people who didn't get this movie might rate Aniston's movies as EXCELLENT.

This is a great movie. The tension is wonderfully measured and the story is good. It does kind of plogd along now and then and there was on plot hole. Other then those two items, I found this movie very entertaining. The non-resolution to the tapes and pictures is good because the movie isn't about the tapes and pictures per se. It is about what the tapes and drawing do to the people involved.… Expand

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.

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.… Expand

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.

A lot of people seemingly aren't seeing the big picture, and that's fine. They should be applauded for seeing a subtitled film in the first place. Unfortunately, some of their reactions suggest it'll be their last. Loved the film. Talked about it for hours afterward. Got the metaphor. Worked well. Don't believe the reviewers here who state you need to know Modern French history to understand the allergory. It works with any history. Us Australians and our Aboriginals. You Americans and your Natives. Same idea. Not identical, of course, but a whole lot of wrong done by our ancestors that's not been addressed yet, by this generation or anyone... Two major problems with this film. 1. I didn't care about any of the characters. Big mistake. If I don't have anyone to like, then why am I watching it? I don't watch reality TV for the same reason. They're all idiots. I don't want to watch idiots. Here, the best we have is the wife, played excellently by Juilette Binoche, but mostly for her I felt pity. But that's small potatoes compared to the next point. The main point. 2.It's marketed as a mystery. And when you watch the first act, you're watching a mystery. And people, when you get into the 2nd act, it's still a mystery. However when you settle into the final third it seems the director changed his mind and went, 'Yeah, that whole mystery thing is less interesting than this big drama thing I got going on." And thus there is zero resolution to the mystery. Now, I don't mind open ended films. Love them in fact. Mullholland Drive was amazing. Left the theatre not knowing what the hell just happened, but knew I loved it. BUT, we were given enough clues to work it out later, which I did, it took five straight hours of discussion, but I got it. Point is, you're given the clues. It's not tied up into a pretty bow, but if you're into it enough, you can figure it out. In this, you're given squat. Remember, I'm talking about the mystery of who is leaving the tapes, not the whole "What the film is really about" thing. (Yes, I saw the two kids talking in the final shot, very clever.) You are not given clues as to who is leaving the tapes. In the end, the tapes don't matter. Ah, the tapes were a Macguffin. They were a catalyst for the drama, not important really at all. THEN WHY IS IT A MYSTERY?! Folks, if you write a mystery, you've gotta give the audience something. At the end of this film I felt very unsatisfied. Like I'd listened to a joke but never got told the punch-line. And if the punchline wasn't important, then it shouldn't be called a joke, rather, 'a descriptive story.' This goes further back than films can reach. This goes back to storytelling. There are many unwritten rules that a story teller must remember when spinning a yarn. Hanke has broken two of them with this film. However, all that being said, I was AFFECTED by the film, and I love it when that happens.… Expand

Alright, if a very original idea and detail of the story, but I gotta say, TOO FRIGGIN SLOW!!!

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.

Best movie of the year (I know that is not saying much this year). Terrifying, creepy, torturous to watch but absolutely brilliant and thought provoking.

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.

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.

Fascinating; keeps one on the edge of their seat with a substantial aftertaste; thought provoking.

I have to be one of those that really like this film (funny, how polarizing it is, isn't it?) I admit to only possessing a hodge-podge understanding of French colonialism of Algeria and the immigrant Algerian-French community, but a well crafted take on universal themes of 'responsibility', 'guilty', 'heredity' and other Big Ideas. Wonderfully portrayed. Had I known and seen it in the theatre, I would have missed the rich abundance of visual cues (not to mention the ending!). Hurrah for DVDs.… Expand

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!

I found the story intriguing it was just the telling that I found incredibly dry. I never thought I'd say this but an American remake would probably be a much better movie.

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

Mick LaSalle has it all wrong. Cache is the furthest movie from a fraud that I have seen in several years. The movie has not been affected by either politics or poltics: simply, this movie is a masterpiece.

the washington post got it bang on. the movie ends perfectly, the final scene and it's 'revelation' (in the bottom left) are designed to provide potential answers and further questions. this works excellently as a film studying the domestic situation of the family being subjected to torment. it works best however as an allegory. brilliantly in fact. [***SPOILERS***] the movie ends after the real answer has been given - laurent's crime. by ending here haneke suggests that he wants france to confront it's past regarding algeria and admit and come to terms with it. if the movie had continued to reveal what you expect haneke to reveal it's intent would have been lost within standard mystery fare. the acting is also brilliant, and it is creepy and menacing at times. admittedly, to fully understand and appreciate the film i had to do a little research, but this doesn't detract from it at all. if i understood the france/algeria history prior to viewing the movie, i think i would have grasped it. if possible, read about this first before viewing. this is one of very few movies that i have been thinking about a lot since i watched it, this is definately a good thing.… Expand

Too bad this movie was marketed as some sort of murder mystery, for the mystery is merely a device to get you to look at what is hidden. If you approach the movie this way (without expecting a decisive Hollywood ending), you'll be in for a real treat. Wonderful, wonderful stuff here.

I think the value of this film is that it encapsulates all that is intriguing and infuriating about French intellectual thought of the past thirty years. There is a deep intellectual pomposity - and, worse, - dishonesty, that permeates all of Deconstruction (starting with the fact that we're supposed to call it "Deconstruction" instead of "Deconstructionist".) If you are "hip" or "with it" you know that reality is a series of "narratives" that have no objective basis; all knowledge is fragmentary; and that anything vaguely American - like linear thought - is Very Bad. And yes, the French treated the Algerians badly and are closet racists, but that is really window dressing here. In fact, maybe some of the recent racial friction is caused by the lack of directness embodied by this film! The French want to pretend they believe in relative values and a subjective view of reality, but then why do they so emphatically defend the French language, culture, wine and cheese from foreign influence? I want to make it clear that I love slow, poetic films if their intent is to be dreamlike - Mulholland Drive is an excellent example of the genre. But this was simply a whodunit with the answers left out.… Expand

I have no idea how such an uninteresting non-thriller could get so many good reviews. An infuriating movie for many reasons.

too pseudo intellectual.

Complex, fascinating film--worth repeated viewings.

Top notch. Not hollywood, which seems to offend people on this sight but you americans don't live in the real world which gives credit to those of you who can look outside with an open mind.

Unfortunately this film left me feeling slightly intellectually inadequate. I have been forced to search for reviews and editorial just to make sure I did actually understand what the film was saying and if indeed I should have stayed in the cinema for a final scene after the credits had rolled. It would seem all but the egotistical pseudo-highbrow

This film restored my faith in intelligent and artistic movie-making. For those of you complaining that it was "boring" or "had no ending," perhaps something starring Jennifer Aniston would be more your speed.

It's fine throughout. Despite its very slow pace, it keeps a sense of creeping suspense. [***SPOILERS***] Unfortunately the end didn't really pay off. I think it might make more sense to someone who knows French history better, and their colonial experience with Algeria... at one point there is also a news clip in the background, given some fair prominence in the scene -- it talks about the Iraq war, and also has some footage about Gaza. It's hard for me to say how or why the film tries to tie that into this. Anyway. Really fine performances from the actors. But a let down at the end that leaves things way too unresolved.… Expand

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.

Thanks to all the former commenters and I don't have a lot more to add you'll be pleased to know. The film had a great atmosphere of mystery and foreboding although the guilt theme seemed a little obvious. However perhaps its about France's guilt about the little problems they've been having recently with their Maghrebian citizens. I liked the way we never quite knew whether what we were experiencing as real life would turn out simply to be part of a narrative by an omniscient author, presenting our life on video - even though it's also yet another example of a film director casting himself as God! The acting was satisfyingly understated, not Hollywood hysterics. Get it out on video - before someone leaves it on your doorstep.… Expand

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.

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

i understnd that this movie has many underlying meanings, many of which relating to the racism in france etc. but it still does annoy me that i left the film not exactly knowing what happened, if the the two sons stnading in the stairs are talking does that portray that it is the people of the future who are requried to mend the wrong doings of the past? can some one help me?

Ranks alongside the most important movies of this century so far by a director who is pushing his theories & techniques like a knife straight into the gut of those who fear depth liking all to be surface & superficial.Will be remembered for many years to come-an examination of European culture/history & sensibilities as it stands today:throws up more questions as it answers-as it was intended to do and bursts the bubbles of those who think theyre clever.look at this movie with both eyes open.The perforances are up there with the best i've ever seen as well-you basically forget they are 'acting'. Especially for those who take cinema seriously.… Expand

Thoughtful and stylish, but it is a stern test of patience. Firstly, I cannot accept Haneke

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

It had me but I did not get the ending. I understand that the whole film would feel much better if you knew about the french / albanian history. I didn't know either and it left me feeling stupid. I dont need to have everything wrapped up in a nice litle package but let me know what Happend please.

A deeply disappointing and unsatisfying movie by an impressive director that should know better.

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.

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

I'm equally dismayed by reviewers who (a) tried to make this all about racial politics or (b) somehow managed to miss the clue in the final scene. That said, to me the clue was far from an answer, and you won't love the movie if you prefer an understandable ending. However, it's engrossing, and Auteuil and Binoche are brilliant as always.

I enjoyed this movie but its slow pace wore on me; overrated by the critics, I enjoyed the lead characters of Binoche and Auteuil. Only those viewers who enjoy french flicks should watch this.

my wife and I went to see this film, and while we enjoyed it, felt left hanging at the end . . . way too ambiguous and disappointing.[***SPOILERS***] then we got home and thought about the significance of the two sons meeting in the final scene . . . and bang, we got it. Brilliant! A truly spectacular film that makes you use your brain!

slow moving, sub-titled, and just plain boring, save for 10 minutes worth

This is only a "thriller" in the sense that the filmaker, through the filmaking technique, creates a sense of total disorientation. We are never sure if what we are watching is real or filmed, and as the film develops, and introduces scenes of shock into the sedate pacing, we begin to fear the jolt of violence. It is also only a "political" movie in terms of an allegory of public (elected) figures, hiding their complicity in the creation of "terror" - even from their own "people" - hoping that it will go away. (Compare that with the simple documentary, self-inflicted bloodyness of the "oppressed" character in a desperate scene implying a futile "cry for help"/"wake up call".) With the aftermath of this pivotal scene, it could be argued that there is even the (politicized) hint that George (W?) perhaps did not witness a "suicide" but was more proactive in exacting revenge - under the guise of protecting his family - and continues to protect his family by keeping the truth hidden. [One wonders if this incident was also secretly taped....] I agree with many of the negative reviews, that the critics perhaps built this movie up to be more gripping than the average viewer would agree. Its more helpful to depict it as a very adult subject which is filmed in a very cold, adult way. And the thrill in watching it involves the viewer slowing themselves to the pace of the movie, and allowing themselves to merely watch it, coldly, from a distance, much like a voyeur, and leave the intellectualizing and second-guessing for your own subconscious to evaluate at a later date.… Expand

This movie plays directly on the emotions, and will stick with you long after you leave the theatre. American movies, even the good ones, generally feel the need to resolve everything. With Cache the pleasure is in the mystery -- those who appreciate it will leave the theatre looking over their shoulders.

Maybe it's only surprising to me because I don't read many film reviews, but I'm disappointed by how much the professional critics seem to have missed in this film. One of the themes of this film is that the meaning of events or of the characters' lives is often "hidden" in plain sight, played out in the margins of what otherwise seem like long, boring, straight shots. This film, with its restrained direction and unresolved mysteries, is a great antidote to hollywood movies.… Expand

Slow paced and opaque. Subtitles in white font are occasionally illegible.

Lamest movie ever. As interesting as a surveillance video in French.

The interesting thing to me about the "user" reviews for this movie is how polarized they are, and how reminiscent that is of the current political climate in America. It can't be coincidence. I know that people often call movies "critical darlings" and say that they aren't amde with "normal people" in mind, but I feel this conflict is more about people having opposing mindsets, and that a certain mindset will mostly enjoy this movie and be patient with it, and another mostly will not. Anyway, I am in the camp that enjoyed it...its vagueness, its deliberate pacing, its allegory, its lack of sympathetic characters. I felt like someone had put itching powder on me for two hours watching it, and that is an accomplishment in itself. Maybe you have to suspend disbelief a bit to enjoy the movie, but what the hell...is that so bad? Movies can be of all sorts of different natures, and one like this is not bad because it is a departure from formula. I loved the stretches of inactivity, because it was an opportunity to THINK...like real life gives. No music...how cool. Heavy handed? Not really...there weren't repeated images of the Algerian conflict thrown around. Most was left for you to fill in. The issue was with how the people were. Someone once said that creating something that all people feel strongly about, whether good or bad, is great art. In the case of "Cache", I have to agree.… Expand

This was , by far, one of the best films I have ever seen. It not only had me spellbound but it made me think for days to follow. It isn't about who filmed or who didn't film the family's home but much more about the GUILT felt (or that SHOULD be felt) for the mistreatment of Algerians. The man felt guilt and whether or not this was ALL in his head, the guilt was real. I think Americans, overall, aren't intelligent enough to understand the racism in it or the sophistication it requires to "get" it! If you want a film you can understand then I suggest you see a Disney movie or watch the umpteens of bad sitcoms on today's television sets. But don't come in here and rate a movie for which you weren't armed/equipped to understand. But then again: typical American reaction and display of stupidity and foolishness.… Expand

[***SPOILER***] The film was riveting. But questions remain: why such a violent action (suicide) to rupture the life of Georges and his family when just the existence of the videos would have been sufficient??? What does the meeting of the two sons at the final credits portend???

A deeply engrossing discourse on racism. Chillingly prescient considering recent unrest in France. Those who try to connect the dots by trying to "work out" who the stalker is are asking the wrong questions. This film is richly metaporical and falling into the literal trap should be avoided. Lacanians will have a field day speculating on the impossible gaze of the other that haunts this truly beautiful film.… Expand

A great film that REQUIRES THOUGHT. Unfortunately most people (including those on this site [Ed: take it easy, cowboy!]) are either too stupid or just plain lazy to put the effort into true art such as this film. Sorry, most films are the equivalent of a candy bar and some, like this one, are steaks...

A true "critic's film", meaning it's a movie critics love to gush over to show how "smart and deep" they are, but if you're not a professional critic, you probably won't be nearly as impressed. Movie doesn't work as a thriller, because there's no real suspense, or edge, You see the actors going through emotions, but those emotions never really come through the screen. Movie doesn't work as a study on the effects this kind of thing can have on a marriage, because you don't get the feeling that their marriage was a particularily happy marriage even before this stuff starts. (In fact Auetail basically admits this to his mother in their scene together) And movie doesn't work as a study of guilt, because the dark secret that has "haunted" Auetail all these years simply doesn't seem that bad. He told a lie when he was 6. First of all couldn't they have made it when he was 12, when he could have been seen as more responsible for his actions. Second of all the lie itself doesn't seem that terrible. The parents overreated to it, which means the blame should have been on the parents, not the kid. I came out of this thinking the 6-year old Auetail wronged the poor chicken, alot more then he wronged the other boy. Overall, movie is the cinema personifaction of that old question "what's the sound of one-hand clapping?"… Expand

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.

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.

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!

A Woody Allen movie without the humor or Match Point twist. A bunch of rich white folks feeling guilty.

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.

It's a truly great movie with many open ended questions. I never considered it a "thriller" and find the repetition of this term in many of the film's slatings, indicative of it's crirtics' attitudes to films as a whole.

There are no words to express how truly awful this film was except for REFUND.

I haven't read every review, but many viewers seem puzzled and disappointed that the identity of the mysterious video-maker is never revealed. It seemed quite obvious to me that the person who made the videos is Michael Haneke. It is literally true, of course, but it also makes perfect sense in the film, which is one of those interesting movies coming out of Europe ("Reconstruction" is another) in which the film-maker, with his own agenda, effects the "lives" of the characters.… Expand

"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.

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.

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!

Great film. Weaves the personal and the political into a seamless whole - and the past and the present (including the US invasion of Iraq).

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.

Great film...very French in that the ending is ambiguous. The first movie I've been to in long time where I didn't hear anyone talking during the film and you could have heard a pin drop in the theatre. Some shockingly violent scenes (one made the whole theatre gasp). Good acting, good directing, good movie.

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.

A film more about the viewer than what appears onscreen. We must know, we demand to know what it all means but the are no satisfying answers.

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

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

Held my interest for 2 hours! And I want to see it again.

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

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.

This movie is simply outstanding. The grip Haneke maintains on his audience is very tight and the movie builds to a level of unbearable tension... Also, it's a little peculiar that the metascore dropped 3 points from one negative review out of SF.

I couldn't take my eyes off the screen--even during my third viewing of the film.