User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 229 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 70 out of 229

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. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Feb 13, 2012
    3
    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 youIn 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
  5. Apr 7, 2011
    2
    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
  6. Feb 6, 2011
    0
    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?
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
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.