User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 233 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 70 out of 233
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Aug 27, 2010
    10
    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.
  2. Jan 22, 2013
    9
    A perplexing and unsettling masterpiece where solving the mystery is not necessary, but can be, to acknowledge it's complexity and genius. So many things are "hidden" here-the identity of the videographer, his or her motives, and perhaps most disconcertingly, Georges' part in psychological thriller. As soon as this quietly terrifying film starts, the unease slowly begins to fester.A perplexing and unsettling masterpiece where solving the mystery is not necessary, but can be, to acknowledge it's complexity and genius. So many things are "hidden" here-the identity of the videographer, his or her motives, and perhaps most disconcertingly, Georges' part in psychological thriller. As soon as this quietly terrifying film starts, the unease slowly begins to fester.
    Georges (Daniel Auteuil), who hosts a TV literary review, receives packages containing videos of himself with his family shot secretly from his street, and alarming drawings whose meaning is obscure. He has no idea who may be sending them. Gradually, the footage on the tapes becomes more personal, suggesting that the sender has known Georges for some time. Georges feels a sense of menace hanging over him and his family but, as no direct threat has been made. 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, he continues to conceal this to his family as the walls of security he and Anne (Juliette Binoche) have built around themselves begin to crumble. Haneke's shot selection plays with us. He is meticulous about the way in which the videotapes are photographed, and he replicates their style repeatedly throughout the movie (long-range, unbroken shots made by a camera that is stationary). There are sequences where the audience is watching ordinary daily events, only to discover it's continuously shot footage of surveillance tapes. "Caché" interrogates the nature of reality by obliterating the borders between the movie and the videos within the movie. Michael Haneke doesn't play by traditional thriller rules, leaving audiences to work out whodunnit from a clue discreetly buried in the final shot. Even if you don't spot it, you'll come away satisfied. Haneke refuses to decode the scene's meaning: "About half the viewers see something and the other half don't, and it works both ways." He adds, invoking his protagonist's own mental journey, "We always fill the screen with our own experiences. Ultimately, what we see comes from inside us."
    Expand
  3. Aug 3, 2013
    7
    I found this one quite a compelling watch; albeit at a very slow pace. The way the drama is slowly drawn out is, I felt, quite hypnotic and it all added to the tension of the piece. All of the performances were excellent; particularly Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche; they portray the married couple who have hidden parts of their lives so perfectly. It’s all beautifully shot and getsI found this one quite a compelling watch; albeit at a very slow pace. The way the drama is slowly drawn out is, I felt, quite hypnotic and it all added to the tension of the piece. All of the performances were excellent; particularly Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche; they portray the married couple who have hidden parts of their lives so perfectly. It’s all beautifully shot and gets over the essence of French life very well (I speak from experience here having stayed there with a family, albeit very briefly). Yes, I guess I have to tell those that fear the subtitle that, yet again, I have chosen a film with the dreaded words at the bottom of the screen. That aside, I did enjoy this one up to a point. There are many many good things going on but it’s one of those that ends quite abruptly. This caught me off my guard and, I’m afraid, it left me feeling slightly disappointed (hence the slightly lower score that I might have given). I guess it’s definitely one the critics will indeed do) love and one that many a cinephille will also get a lot out of.

    SteelMonster’s verdict: RECOMMENDED

    My score: 7.4/10
    Expand
  4. May 1, 2014
    10
    In my not so humble opinion, Cache is the greatest mystery/thriller film ever made, and the finest of the 21st Century along with There Will Be Blood.
  5. 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.
  6. StanS.
    Aug 21, 2007
    9
    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.
  7. ShaseH.
    Jan 24, 2006
    8
    Very original story, with a realistic style and interesting cinematography.
  8. BenK.
    Jan 30, 2006
    10
    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.
  9. CarynH.
    Jan 30, 2006
    1
    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 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
  10. JeffK
    Jan 4, 2006
    8
    Cache is not up to the standard Haneke set with Code Unknown, but he comes close. Why do Americans filmgoers always require an easy resolution at film's end? In Cache, it's simply not possible to do so, or if Haneke did he would ruin all that came before. It's anything but smug to leave the film unresolved. That's pretty much how life is, no? This is a strongly felt, Cache is not up to the standard Haneke set with Code Unknown, but he comes close. Why do Americans filmgoers always require an easy resolution at film's end? In Cache, it's simply not possible to do so, or if Haneke did he would ruin all that came before. It's anything but smug to leave the film unresolved. That's pretty much how life is, no? This is a strongly felt, coolly observed film about the consequences of colonialism, the reality of our true identities, the nature of relationships (between husband/wife, father/son, native/foreigner). I believe it will hold up to repeated viewing, and, I must disagree with ken s. - the opening credits are perfect in setting the very unsettling tone that Haneke skillfully maintains throughout. Another worthy film by an increasingly mature, bold and incisive filmmaker. Expand
  11. Fantasy
    Feb 2, 2006
    0
    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.
  12. LaurenceM.
    Mar 3, 2006
    10
    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. 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
  13. ScottR.
    May 2, 2006
    5
    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.
  14. 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 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
  15. Ridley666
    Oct 10, 2007
    10
    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 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
  16. JohnM.
    Jan 16, 2006
    10
    Caché is an breathtaking, exhilarating film, with the most deliciously ambiguous ending since Before Sunset (though I may even prefer the way this film ends over that one). This was, at least for me, the best film of 2005. I haven't left the theater so infused with a sense of giddiness (and unease?!) since I walked out of Mulholland Drive over four years ago.
  17. GeorgeG.
    Jan 16, 2006
    0
    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 -- 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
  18. KevinS
    Oct 18, 2006
    9
    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.
  19. JordiM.
    Jan 20, 2006
    0
    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.
  20. Maryam
    Jan 25, 2006
    10
    An incredible film - Haneke deserves to be up there with those few directors who make consistently excellent films about difficult issues.
  21. ElliottM.
    Jan 27, 2006
    10
    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.
  22. Cindy
    Jan 30, 2006
    9
    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.
  23. CatherineB.
    Jan 30, 2006
    1
    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.
  24. 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.
  25. HollisH.
    Jan 9, 2006
    10
    Wonderful movie!
  26. AlexG.
    Feb 15, 2006
    0
    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.
  27. Squish
    Feb 10, 2006
    9
    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.
  28. DavidA.
    Feb 18, 2006
    10
    [***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???
  29. CarolAnnC.
    Feb 2, 2006
    1
    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!
  30. Todd
    Feb 9, 2006
    1
    There are no words to express how truly awful this film was except for REFUND.
  31. DaveS.
    Mar 10, 2006
    10
    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.
  32. GavinM.
    Mar 10, 2006
    8
    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 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
  33. FrankO.
    Mar 24, 2006
    7
    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.
  34. DanC.
    Apr 25, 2006
    5
    A deeply disappointing and unsatisfying movie by an impressive director that should know better.
  35. Dylan
    May 25, 2006
    6
    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?
  36. Stephen
    May 7, 2006
    6
    Thoughtful and stylish, but it is a stern test of patience. Firstly, I cannot accept Haneke
  37. paulh.
    May 9, 2006
    9
    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 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
  38. PeterT.
    Jun 12, 2006
    8
    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 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
  39. JoeC.
    Jul 20, 2006
    8
    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.
  40. JasonL.
    Jul 5, 2006
    9
    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.
  41. DavidS.
    Jul 6, 2006
    7
    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
  42. MarkB.
    Jul 7, 2006
    10
    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.
  43. JohnW.
    Jul 8, 2006
    10
    Complex, fascinating film--worth repeated viewings.
  44. JoeT.
    Jul 8, 2006
    5
    too pseudo intellectual.
  45. NickM.
    Aug 2, 2006
    10
    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.
  46. MazD.
    Apr 8, 2007
    3
    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.
  47. KenO
    Jan 4, 2010
    1
    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 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
  48. GWG
    Dec 27, 2005
    10
    Great Movie! Not for those who don't like Austrian/French films though.
  49. RonC.
    Oct 12, 2006
    3
    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.
  50. JacquesT.
    Nov 30, 2006
    3
    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 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
  51. AaronS.
    Jan 14, 2006
    10
    Haneke's best film yet. An absolutely spellbinding thriller that masterfully combines the personal with the political. Binoche and especially Auteuil are wonderful as the intellectual couple at the center of the film. Engimatic, provocative and chilling. Pay really close attention to the last shot of the film, it points the whole movie to an entirely different direction depending on Haneke's best film yet. An absolutely spellbinding thriller that masterfully combines the personal with the political. Binoche and especially Auteuil are wonderful as the intellectual couple at the center of the film. Engimatic, provocative and chilling. Pay really close attention to the last shot of the film, it points the whole movie to an entirely different direction depending on your interpretation. Excellent film. Expand
  52. GeorgeM.
    Jan 16, 2006
    9
    Outstanding study in film technique with a (not so) open ended story. The cliffhanger is a doozy and the violence is unexpected and powerful. It is not a movie for the casual thriller fan seeking a creaking door mystery and requires a good deal of patience. It will be rewarded.
  53. HoldenC.
    Nov 8, 2006
    7
    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 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
  54. fjuann.
    Dec 24, 2006
    0
    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.
  55. BillV.
    Dec 26, 2006
    8
    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 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
  56. LucasK
    Oct 26, 2006
    4
    Alright, if a very original idea and detail of the story, but I gotta say, TOO FRIGGIN SLOW!!!
  57. Sheila
    Jan 26, 2006
    10
    I couldn't take my eyes off the screen--even during my third viewing of the film.
  58. EdT.
    Jan 29, 2006
    1
    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.
  59. AndreaD.
    Jan 31, 2006
    10
    Great film. Weaves the personal and the political into a seamless whole - and the past and the present (including the US invasion of Iraq).
  60. EthanP.
    Oct 5, 2006
    1
    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.
  61. KenG.
    Feb 16, 2006
    5
    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 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
  62. ClaudeC.
    Feb 22, 2006
    10
    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 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
  63. Drew
    Feb 24, 2006
    9
    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, 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
  64. TomO.
    Feb 25, 2006
    4
    Slow paced and opaque. Subtitles in white font are occasionally illegible.
  65. HoratioS.
    Feb 6, 2006
    3
    "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.
  66. H.CarltonE.
    Feb 8, 2006
    7
    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" 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
  67. GregG.
    Apr 10, 2006
    3
    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 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
  68. [Anonymous]
    Apr 16, 2006
    2
    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.
  69. RichardD.
    May 28, 2006
    1
    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.
  70. DougM.
    Jun 29, 2006
    2
    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.
  71. DanB.
    Jul 1, 2006
    6
    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 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
  72. JimH.
    Jul 16, 2006
    1
    I have no idea how such an uninteresting non-thriller could get so many good reviews. An infuriating movie for many reasons.
  73. MichaelL.
    Jul 16, 2006
    5
    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 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
  74. JamesH.
    Aug 25, 2006
    1
    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 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
  75. MartinS.
    Aug 27, 2006
    7
    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.
  76. JoeAverage
    Sep 22, 2006
    9
    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. 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
  77. TedB.
    Sep 25, 2006
    9
    Fascinating; keeps one on the edge of their seat with a substantial aftertaste; thought provoking.
  78. JosephL.
    Nov 1, 2007
    8
    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.
  79. ManiM.
    Nov 3, 2007
    10
    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.
  80. AvaB.
    Aug 20, 2007
    10
    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 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
  81. MichaelG.
    Aug 9, 2007
    4
    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. 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
  82. sarahsarah
    Jun 15, 2009
    8
    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.
  83. SimonT.
    Jun 18, 2009
    9
    First class motion. It glides, fantastic space. Thought the direction was wonderful, fully enjoyed this little gem of a flick.
  84. BrendanM
    Dec 15, 2005
    9
    Very good, and very French.
  85. DavidF
    Dec 23, 2005
    3
    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.
  86. 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 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
  87. 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. 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
  88. D.J.Kyosti
    Dec 28, 2005
    9
    David F. should probably stick to films like TITANIC and KING KING so that he doesn't have to think too much. CACHE is an incredible, audacious film that is as beautiful to watch as its subject is difficult. This film concerns issues that are perhaps not so hidden following the recent Paris riots, and in our own country, Hurricane Katrina. And even if you don't know who made David F. should probably stick to films like TITANIC and KING KING so that he doesn't have to think too much. CACHE is an incredible, audacious film that is as beautiful to watch as its subject is difficult. This film concerns issues that are perhaps not so hidden following the recent Paris riots, and in our own country, Hurricane Katrina. And even if you don't know who made those videos -- and does it even matter? -- it is still a nice little suspsense story. Expand
  89. Chris
    Jan 14, 2006
    10
    It's sad to see such negative reviews for a wonderful film. I question what it is these viewers are missing. Most notably, I feel they lack any sense of patience, and are more tuned in to the fast-cut (albeit formulaic) mold that hollywood and its parade of product placing sequels have to offer. Yes, it is french. Yes, it is surprisingly violent (including the slaughter of a live It's sad to see such negative reviews for a wonderful film. I question what it is these viewers are missing. Most notably, I feel they lack any sense of patience, and are more tuned in to the fast-cut (albeit formulaic) mold that hollywood and its parade of product placing sequels have to offer. Yes, it is french. Yes, it is surprisingly violent (including the slaughter of a live animal. And yes, it is slow. But all of these are well earned. Come on viewers, did we not feel the same for Oldboy regarding animal cruelty--it worked...or maybe I'm asking the wrong crowd here. Sadly, to discuss the longevity of shots ruins one of the most dynamic tools of the movie. Let me just say the line between viewer and participant is drastically blurred by them. Finally, this is an allegory. The films is NOT about tapes. It is about the politics of a nation that currently faces racial conflicts so intense that they must be looked in on, viewed from a hidden camera where the reality of the situation can be seen in its raw form. Sure, this liberal message comes off heavy, but the pure tension, and potential optimism the final shot offers (If you don't notice what's happening in the shot you aren't paying attention) is inspiring. Not only on a political level, but as proof that intelligent film is still being made. Do yourself a favor and watch this stunning film. Don't be afraid to pay attention, and become engage. Sidenote: You might want to check up on your modern french history, especially the algerian conflict before viewing. Expand
  90. DavidK.
    Jan 15, 2006
    3
    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.
  91. ZocS
    Oct 22, 2006
    2
    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.
  92. GaborA.
    Jan 24, 2006
    8
    An experience. Cache is not some mind bogglig masterpiece but after it was over all i wanted to do was see it again. Also for every ambiguity and shortcoming theres an equally rock solid counterpart.
  93. Thewiseking
    Jan 29, 2006
    3
    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 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
  94. Linda
    Jan 29, 2006
    10
    Held my interest for 2 hours! And I want to see it again.
  95. SAllen
    Jan 29, 2006
    0
    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 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
  96. PamJ.
    Feb 11, 2006
    0
    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.
  97. PenelopeL.
    Feb 11, 2006
    0
    A Woody Allen movie without the humor or Match Point twist. A bunch of rich white folks feeling guilty.
  98. LindseyD.
    Feb 12, 2006
    0
    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!
  99. PatS.
    Feb 13, 2006
    1
    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.
  100. EricJ.
    Feb 16, 2006
    9
    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...
Metascore
83

Universal acclaim - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 37
  2. Negative: 1 out of 37
  1. This brilliant if unpleasant puzzle without a solution about surveillance and various kinds of denial finds writer-director Michael Haneke near the top of his game, though it's not a game everyone will want to play.
  2. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    100
    This brilliantly disturbing movie is constructed with surgical precision. Haneke lets no one off the hook least of all the viewer.
  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.