User Reviews (37)

Add a Review

  • akingofcomedy30 October 2010
    Warning: Spoilers
    So it's obviously a concept film, and on face value it could've been a good one.

    Instead though, it is a convoluted and clearly manufactured patchwork of pointlessness. I read the first third of a novel years back that was entirely told through various forms of correspondence such as faxes, emails, police reports and newspaper clippings. Sound interesting at first, but after about seventy pages I realized it wasn't clever just based on that idea alone. That's exactly how I felt here.

    No real characters, no real build to tension - and bam, it's over leaving far too much unresolved, and failing to effectively make a point. There are next to no happy moments caught on these cameras, only dreadful scenarios that, I suppose, we were expected to voyeuristic all enjoy.

    And the icing on this distasteful cake is that it suffers by failing to pass the Blair Witch test. I was dumbfounded that anyone would believe BWP was actual footage. If you know the first thing about cameras (or the rules of evidence) you would immediately know it was fiction. Except with Blair Witch it was done so well you could suspend that disbelief. Not here - the footage looks so mechanically blocked and timed for each shot that it becomes a distraction.

    My favorite example of this was footage from a school parking lot where something really unfortunate happens. It's a good thing they had five different camera angles pointed at that one particular parking space. I just wish they'd have turned one of those many lens toward the script.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I expected some commentary on the intrusiveness of surveillance cameras or on our voyeuristic culture, but the movie is very much NOT that. It uses the STYLE of surveillance cameras, which is a clever idea, but the film simply exploits our voyeuristic tendencies rather than commenting on them. The movie is so raunchy, the camera style just feels like an excuse to portray various people in inappropriate sexual situations while trying to call it "art." There are no characters to root for or sympathize with, and very little plot development beyond people behaving badly. Strangest of all, in the end, all the characters' (mostly) minor transgressions are punished, but the real criminal gets off scot free. It's incredibly cynical, on top of being vulgar. Despite it's original concept, based on the exploitive execution, I cannot recommend it.
  • Didn't think from synopsis I would be into this, but was hooked in the first 10 minutes. Really engaging and fascinating how the format draws you in. Good, solid entertainment. Very well executed.

    The lack of traditional camera-work and the ugliness that inherently comes with this "security cam" type footage was a big issue for me before I even started watching it, but once into it I forgot it entirely. The great thing about it is that not only is it fun and enthralling, but it gets your thinking about the whole concept of voyeurism and how often we're being watched. Check this out for something different but refreshing. Definitely recommend it.
  • I really like this movie. Taking the conceit of ubiquitous surveillance cameras and crafting a movie is a great idea and nicely executed.

    Remember CRASH. Those were "real life' stories of urban life. Rifkin goes one step further to create "real life" scenarios from surveillance footage. Or seemingly surveillance footage shot on a Sony Cine Alta camera. From sexual charged females caught in a dressing room to a body locked in a car trunk, this is a tour de force of human behavior often caught in the eyes of a security camera.

    I thought it was very real at first and was delighted to find it was scripted. And the actors did a great job of being "candid". The stockroom scenes are a seduction delight. The car with the body it in reminded me of the parking lot scenes in Fargo.

    Now with Paranormal, we may be entering a Security Camera era of filmmaking. In fact this style of filmmaking reminds me of the mies en scene filmmaking style in the early 1900's, and shows what is happening in front of the camera is more important that what is happening with the camera.

    Viewers may went to watch David Holtzman's Diary, by Jim McBride make in the 60's.
  • I recently moved to Los Angeles and had the unique opportunity of attending an advanced screening for "Look.". After the film, I had the pleasure of speaking with writer/director Adam Rifkin. He was humble and kind to me, even though I was simply an admirer of his film. We spoke for a good thirty minutes, and I felt it was appropriate and necessary to share my sincere thoughts on the film.

    If it has ever bothered you that our daily existence on modern Earth is documented by security cameras at nearly second, then "Look" will offer a alarming glance into the lives of people going about their days without the slightest idea that they are being caught on tape. Shot entirely from the perspective of security cameras, "Look" offers a disturbing and at times hysterical view into the lives of ordinary individuals that are hurled into the path of extraordinary circumstances. It is difficult without hyperbole to give compliment to the innovative film-making that is "Look" by writer/director Adam Rifkin. From the shocking opening sequence, to the eloquent concluding montage, the security camera footage is seamlessly blended together into an engaging film. The dialogue is so natural and candid that you often forget you are watching actors execute the fictional story. The sharp screenplay was complimented by flawless and daring performances from the cast in the film. Every actor was successful at being true to the circumstances they were thrust into, and delivered their lines in a manner which seemed to disregard the presence of cameras in the production. "Look" is a breath of fresh air in the sense that you can go to the theatre and witness something entirely original, and be engaged from start to finish. One gets the sense that there is not an extraneous second in all of the footage; hence boredom is not likely while watching the film. Perhaps the most impressive attribute of the film is the tasteful blend of comedy and nail biting drama. It is refreshing to go to the movies and be able to laugh and cry (within the same film) and leave with the sensation that you have learned something.

    After watching the film, one is left with the sensation that the abundant presence of security cameras today is downright disturbing. Aside from that aspect of the picture, the stories of the characters are enough to hold the audience's attention (if not hit close to home) from start to finish. The story centers on a confused husband, a gas station attendant, a high school teacher being relentlessly seduced by one of his students, a hedonistic department store manager, and an office worker who is being tormented by his coworkers. The fates of the characters are interconnected in a mystifying way, and only the audience has knowledge of this mysterious link. It is difficult to give description of the plot because it gives so much away that needs to be experienced and not simply described. I hope that my enthusiasm is enough to convince the reader that the plot and character dynamics are about as close to authentic and original as one can hope for in a movie. I simply don't want to give anything away.

    "Look" is one of those rare films where you will leave the theatre having been simultaneously entertained, shocked, appalled, and enlightened. What more could one hope for out of a movie-going experience? There were times during the film that evoked a feeling of an eerie and hollow terror; an awesome compliment to the director who managed to take that type of desolation and marry it so effortlessly with comedy. There is no school that can teach a director to do that. It comes from experience. It comes from brushing up close and personal with the harsh realities of a universe that can make you laugh wild in one moment and the next moment take from you everything that you hold dear. That is the law of the land, and the director unquestionably knows this universal decree. Additionally, the interconnectedness of man is illuminated through the relationships of the characters. They are all related, and none of them know just how. It is this dynamic of the film that sends those shivers up your spine, and is the reason that many of us movie lovers still go to the theatre. Hence, the film exists on many levels as a very sophisticated and existential look into the nature of our day to day lives, and what happens when ordinary people must face intense conflict. At the same time, you can lower your high brow, and expect to laugh and have a good time. I could not be more thrilled about this film. What a treat to see that someone is actually straying from the Hollywood norm and doing something entirely innovative and engaging. It is proof that there is still magic in the movies, and I take my hat off to writer/director Adam Rifkin. Do yourself a favor and see this movie.
  • No one could do this movie justice in a review- you just have to watch it. However, for those wanting bitesize details of what it's about they can read the next paragraph and skip the rest.

    ---The story follows a number of characters over two days as they go about their lives, lives which are caught on CCTV. They include a student and a teacher, two killers on the run, a store clerk and his mate, a womanising department store employee and a bullied insurance clerk. There's sex, lies, adultery, violence, abduction and death. By the end of the movie the paths of most of these often unrelated characters have crossed in the 3 main locations- a mall, a school, and a convenience store.---

    After reading the other reviews I was still very much in the dark about this movie. At the time of writing this review some 45 people had given it zero while 36 gave it ten. The zero count was high enough not to be ignored whilst the ten count was low enough to be fake ratings by people involved with the movie, so I was a bit iffy about it. However it was the passion of the other reviewers that convinced me to give it a go.

    After watching Look I can only assume that those giving it zero must be the type of moviegoers who lap up the shallow dross that Hollywood more often than not peddles out to the sleeping herds. So if you are one of those brain-dead masses then you probably won't think much of this movie.

    BUT if you are more discerning, enjoy thought provoking material and sometimes despair at the apparent crumbling of western societal values you should find this to be as stunning, riveting and sickly voyeuristic as I did.

    For me this film is a modern classic. It's a winding, weaving, surprising, intersecting story of vice, and of people sadly lacking in moral fibre. It lays bare the darkness that is within all of us. Because we view the film entirely through CCTV, it's unbiased, free of moral judgements and shows only pure truth.

    Overall? A Stunning tour de force spewing forth the moral decay that is eating away at western civilisation.
  • ThreeThumbsUp10 October 2010
    Warning: Spoilers
    Look tries to be groundbreaking and unique, but instead it falls on its face. There is no message or thought-provoking material. The entire sequence of events (I don't even think you could call it a plot) is occupied with unsettling and disgusting garbage.

    The acting varies from just OK to downright awful. I wanted the conversations to feel a little more organic and authentic because they looked like they were coming straight out of real life surveillance footage, but they didn't.

    This "film" takes on some pretty powerful material, but doesn't do anything with it. It's vulgar, raunchy and exploitive. It depicts rape, sex, masturbation, nudity, murder and child abduction simply to depict rape, sex, masturbation, nudity, murder and child abduction. And worst of all, the most monstrous criminal (pedophile) of all gets away with snatching a little girl from a mall and somehow the writer thought it would be funny to make light of the situation in the final scene too. What a joke
  • It's funny because I don't think the acting in this is very good MOST of the time...but I'm not sure the movie would be any better if it was. The storytelling and the "cinematography" is amazing.

    The terrible way that it starts led me to believe I was going to watch a pretty bad B movie and I even started thinking about what else I could do when I couldn't take it anymore...

    Then it started to turn into a compelling drama and then a thriller and the whole time I couldn't stop thinking: OMG - there are cameras EVERYWHERE! EEP! I really enjoy that some things don't resolve - that's how life is, right there.

    Personally, I think that the way it suspends between reality and fiction - constantly pulling the viewer back and forth between the two - is just amazing. Very nice work.
  • In New York City there is a TV channel that plays nothing but traffic camera footage all day. I enjoy watching this channel and keeping tabs on the humans of New York and their automobiles. However, I have often longed for the elements of sound and story to be added to this channel. Fortunately, Look was made and now after seeing it my longing has been sated.

    I have found after exposing humans to this film that shooting an entire movie primarily with surveillance cameras opens up many of the voyeuristic pleasure centers in their brains. This despite the fact that the humans are watching this with the knowledge that this is a work of fiction.

    This film leaves you wanting more. I do not know if that is a good thing or if wanting more should leave you feeling dirty. Perhaps it is both and perhaps that is a good thing. I do not know, allow me some time to consult Martha Stewart on this matter and I will get back to you.

    See this film humans.
  • This movie is basically several stories woven together, with the technical constraint of only using footage from any security cameras that would have seen them. It's an interesting approach, but beyond that I found the actual stories lacking.

    This wouldn't be so bad if the packaging didn't make it out as a movie that showed why security cameras were bad; ironically, almost all the significant things the cameras capture the characters doing involve breaking the law or other poor things that you want cameras to capture. Regardless, with so many cameras out there, there's no way even a small fraction of them can be watched by people all the time, since there are so many millions of hours produced each day.

    At some point I also realized that *none* of the shots in the movie are from actual security cameras, rather they're all done with movie cameras and then digitally altered to look like security camera footage (blurry, camera ID and time text overlay). Sometimes peoples' faces are pixelated out, as if these were real security camera shots, even though this is just fiction. This for me seemed almost deceptive, trying to trick the audience into believing it was from real security cameras. I don't even think cameras are legal in dressing rooms, as in the gratuitous opening shot of the movie.

    I found this movie disappointing, but still have to respect the creators for the interesting technical constraint of having all shots from security cameras. That's its only saving grace.
  • "Look", more like watch, takes the movie experience to a new high in voyeurism. Using the medium of film in a new way, Director Adam Rifkin employs the idea and view of surveillance cameras to construct a very thought provoking masterpiece. As the movie opens before any flesh is exposed we are greeted by "facts" about the world of surveillance. It is explained that on any given day an average American can be captured on camera about 200 times. If that's not interesting enough what follows is even more engaging.

    The real heroism in coming up with this idea for a picture is the competency for telling it. "Look" could have easily become some pet project that explored the fascinating world of eyes in the sky and manifested in to some stimulating avant-garde piece. Yet, Mr. Rifkin explores, in a very Altmanesque arrangement, the intertwining of seemingly ordinary lives, if only outwardly, and exposes them intimately. Not only is "Look" visually engaging but the story holds up as well.

    "Look" is a breakthrough in cinema for creativity and style, reminiscent of other achievers, "Shortbus" by John Cameron Mitchell, "Waking Life" by Richard Liklater and Darren Aronofsky's "Requiem for a Dream". It doesn't just break barriers in film-making it embraces structure, story, tone and pace to create the ultimate engaging movie experience.
  • mcgee-2011 November 2007
    I saw this movie at the Lone Star International Film Festival in Ft. Worth & I've got to say that I really hope that this film goes really far. In my opinion, it was one of the most original but very simple films I've seen in a long time. Look is about the lives of different people. But here's the catch, it's filmed all in surveillance cameras. This film gives us a definite inside that no matter what we do, no matter where you are in the United States, you are being watched. I really don't want to give anything away but its definitely a film that's funny ,shocking, & just all out entertainment. Look will be playing in New York & in LA beginning December 14 & hopefully expanding in other areas soon after. This is a film you don't wanna miss for it will might be up for Best Original Screenplay at the 2008 Oscars.
  • kriskoppy196117 April 2009
    2 bit actors attempting to look as though they are being filmed without their knowledge. I was expecting actual footage of events with people being seen stealing, etc., without their knowledge. This was just terrible. I have no doubt that the average American is captured on camera several times a day but this film exploits the concept and does so VERY POORLY. Don't waste your time watching this trash.... You would be better off doing something constructive like sleeping. The only positive thing I can say is that the actors are complete unknowns. This lends "slightly" toward the sense that we are watching people captured on store security cameras, gas station monitors, ATM's, etc. Other than that....pure garbage. The only thing you'll want to do if you do watch it, is take a bath.
  • Just the very idea that cameras capture such a large percentage of our most intimate moments can send shivers down your spine or even make you smile that someone got a glimpse... Whether it was material suited for America's Funniest Home Video's, You-Tube junkies, or even the eyes of a snuff collector. Imagine if someone took all those moments, set them side by side with a total strangers, and fused it all together as if connecting a giant puzzle? Well, then you would have 'Look', of course.

    At first glance, it's easy to write this film off... But look a little closer because it gets deep. Adam Rifkin, the director, captures everything (and I mean everything!) from moments that will make you laugh, rosy up your cheeks, and even leave you cringing with utter disgust. 'Look' does everything a top notch Indy film is supposed to and more. Don't let this one slip under the radar... Go ahead... Look!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Short review on this one. I was very excited by the premise of a film taking a serious look at the 'coined "Big Brother" culture we all live in today, it is a known fact to most people and has become a seemingly accepted part of our lives. Hopefully this film could help me to understand some of the finer or more disturbing facts surrounding this reality.

    However the films opening scene had me thinking, perhaps I had the wrong film, maybe this was "Girls Gone Wild: Changing Rooms of the Midwest" and not a serious look at anything. Apart of course from the blonde's a**hole, which the brunette analyses kindly as she herself is considering anal bleaching, they then proceed to dry hump each other against the changing room door... it was at this point I was compelled to look away, for good.
  • I'm convinced that many of the favorable reviews here are planted by the producers, or written by very imperceptive people.

    Other reviewers have actually posited that the only people who would dislike this movie would be those with a limited understanding of film - those who would reject anything that's not a conventional, run-of-the-mill Hollywood movie, lacking the intellectual yearning for movies with insight into society and the human condition.

    That's a ridiculous assertion. I'm all for avant-garde, inaccessible films. And I like "deep" stuff that insists on showing the underbelly of humanity that some people would want to deny. To put this movie in that league is ludicrous. It's terrible.

    Okay, telling multiple, eventually overlapping stories with pseudo-surveillance camera footage is an idea that has some potential. But this movie is very poorly conceived and executed. Not a single scene is convincing as actual surveillance camera footage. Not one. The main characters are all too conveniently visible, at the center of the shot (as if there were a director filming ...), at all times.

    Not only that ... the stories rely on dialogue! DIALOGUE!!! Are you kidding me?! I'm pretty sure most - possibly ALL - of the surveillance cameras represented in the film would not record audio. Yet every word spoken by the main characters is crystal clear ... including when the surveillance camera is recording them from a considerable distance, such as in a parking lot or food court, where a number of other people are, but for some reason, the camera doesn't pick up a peep from them, but somehow zeroes in on whatever the leads utter. And when we cut between cameras during the same scene, the audio is uninterrupted. The dialogue is always at the front of the mix. You know, like a movie, in which everything seen and heard is placed intentionally. This film's creators were either clueless, or banking on a clueless audience.

    To do this right, it would have had to lack audio, and show only small pieces of events, making it hard to see what's going on at select moments, telling the story by implying it. The data markers could be dropped from the movie that was made, and it would basically play out like a low budget, schlocky student film. The whole "Oooooo, Big Brother is watching" conceit is pretty extraneous to the actual film, and comes off as an afterthought. All of the stories (a teacher having sex with a student, a cop getting killed at a traffic stop, a little girl getting abducted) are nothing more than juicy smut that play to our base nature in the same way certain prime-time TV dramas do. This movie has nothing to say, but acts like it does in a half-***ed way by tacking on as the opening some text reporting some data about the number of surveillance cameras in the country or on the planet or whatever.
  • mb-4517 July 2007
    All one needs to know, is that this film is more than captivating, it is stunning. I was more than mesmerized, as I was fortunate enough to have attended the premiere at CineVegas 2007. "Look" has lived in my memory, ever since. Unshakeable! Incredible work, all the way around! Just when you think you've seen it all, this film hits you right between the eyes! No surprise then, that Look is from the mind of the same filmmaker, who conceived and executed another masterpiece; Night at the Golden Eagle. The "Tour de Force" cast and are impossible, not to watch , everyone of them. "Master Class", at every turn. Fans, Filmmakers and Actors, alike, should sit back, buckle-up and take notes. Rifkin and Co. have delivered, once again!
  • I saw this movie at Cinevegas at Las Vegas and I enjoyed it. Im going to give some of the plot but not all of it.This is one of those types of movies that I have to give the basics without ruining it if I can. First off there is a town in California that has a video surveillance 24/7. The story involves a lawyer and his family, a gas station attendant(Guiseppe Andrews) and his slacker friend hanging around, two teen school girls, a department store manager and his female co- workers, a nerd at work being picked on, a mysterious dark skinned foreigner in aback pack, two carjackers,a school teacher whose working on a screenplay and his pregnant wife, and a sinister man in a cap following a mom and her child. There lives captured on tapes and which ones cross pass for better or worse. Plus you can tell each ones quirk without even guessing were they heading. Adam manages to make the film fresh without being soap operas. But the gimmick is the sex and violence. At least the violence is realistic but the nudity is two much. But they say sex sales! Hey, you cant ignore it people. I found some segments a little preposterous. But I do like the music montage with Andrews playing the keyboard in the store while his friend dances around the aisle. Its kind of a Pop Rock 80's feel to it. I enjoyed this movie very much. Check it out if it comes to theathres.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    It has an interesting idea and concept, sort of, I will give it that...however it is *almost* completely unwatchable. I will watch almost ANYTHING, and even I had to admit - its a seriously god-awful film. The sound doesn't match the video, which is rather unnerving to begin with. There IS decent nudity early on which wasn't *great*, but did help some, I guess; without that, I would have been much angrier that I spent almost two and a half dollars to see this. To be honest, I couldn't even watch it to the end, it was that bad, and not even in a 'so bad it's good' way. I feel like the "one star" rating is really a star (or two) too many. These people owe me over an hour of my life back. I'll forgive sitting through the dressing room scene, but thats as much credit as they're getting from me, and probably more than they deserve. I think that, in the unlikely event that someone actually PAID someone else to see this tripe, the person who was paid would still be getting the raw end of the deal. I wish I could UN-see it, and I cant.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I've just seen a copy of LOOK over at a friends house and this movie was fantastic! I had this vision in my head of what I thought I was about to see and Adam Rifkin (writer-director) was able to completely blow my expectations. Such a powerful and thought provoking experience. After the end credits started to roll I turned to my girlfriend and said, "This is even more amazing if you think they finished this film, jumped on a plane, and started HOMO ERECTUS". It just goes to show how much range this man has. He can go from "THE DARK BACKWARD", "THE CHASE", "DENIAL", then write "MOUSE HUNT" for the big boys at Dreamworks. He had me caring for certain characters and feeling DIRTY for having thought I liked them, sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for innocent people to be rescued, and feeling heart broken for them not being saved. Then I took a second to realize these kinds of things happen everyday. Children are abducted, innocent people are robbed at gun point and left for dead. The sleazy department store manager (Hayes MacArthur was GENIUS!). The slacker's turn out to be the only two characters I liked from start to finish (Giuseppe Andrews and Miles Dougal are so talented, they always amaze me). I am looking forward to the DVD from Anchor Bay on May 5th, I hope it is chock full of extras that I can study and have all my "how did they.." questions answered. Adam is a true talent to the film community.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The concept of 'Look' is an insightful one. It panders to the 'Big Brother is watching you' notion and is filmed entirely through some form of security or CCTV camera where supposedly no action or event goes unnoticed.

    The film follows a series of different story lines covering mostly themes of a very disturbing nature….murder/rape/child abduction etc. These themes, amongst others, interlink many of the characters throughout a picture that is reasonably well-paced and that builds to a shocking climax. The variety of characters and plot lines should keep you reeled in for the film's entirety.

    The sometimes grainy, muddy, or black and white filming is what makes the movie work – it appears 'real' and the actors mostly add to this effectively. This effect could be deemed annoying and a little confusing, especially on a first watch, but overall its produced well – the viewer sees as much as they need to see at any given moment. Some nice musical touches are brought into play, mainly to build up the tension in some of the 'darker' scenarios. We're also given some light relief with a little comedy dotted throughout the film, which I felt balanced the atmosphere nicely.

    Whether or not this was a budget decision, using unknown actors was a good ploy by the director to instil that sense of regular people doing regular things and having regular jobs. That in itself maintains a sense of realism which draws us into the various situations. Having said that, some of the acting is a little rough around the edges and stereotypical characters are played a little too obviously in some instances. Nonetheless, the plot lines should retain your interest if the acting doesn't.

    After watching this for about the fourth time I pondered over what the point of the film was. There's an obvious statement in play here: the camera doesn't lie. Private activities become very public and some wrong-doings are exposed. The fact that not all wrong-doings become exposed may very well be the director advising that we should still be mindful, using our own senses constantly. And what does this film say about the viewer? Does it implement in us that we live in a voyeuristic society? Do we turn away at the 'uncomfortable' scenes depicting sex acts? In most cases, probably not. So, in a sense, the film turns on its head and points the camera right at the viewer.

    For me, there was a real sense of being 'in' the movie, mostly because of the filming, and partly because of the element of normality that's brought into it. The regular family with the nanny-cam, the standard petrol station, the school kids' reactions to unexpected situations, the chatter between work colleagues….all of this and a well written script kept the film very 'real'. Alongside this were the twists and turns that disrupted these 'normal' elements and kept me gripped all the way through. Ultimately, the film is a study on human behaviour and the consequences of their decisions, whether good or bad. Yes, it is pretty extreme in places but that's what makes it all the more watchable. It also makes you think and want to talk about it for a while after the credits have finished rolling and that, for me, is the sign of a decent movie.
  • Look is a poorly written, poorly directed, and conveniently directed "expose" of the overwhelming presence of surveillance in our lives. It's unfortunate, as the concept is one that could have been used to provide commentary on big brother in society, and it's uses for good or bad.

    What we get instead, is a 105 minute collection of conveniently staged shots from a downward angle with identifier code used to provide nearly every "shock and appal" theme possible. Paedophilia, check. Adultery, check. Gay adultery, check. Sex in the workplace, check. Bullying, check. Sexual assault with a minor, check. The only thing we're missing is incest, which I'm assuming was just left on the cutting room floor.

    As a whole, the movie is lacking. It provides no real insight into the prevalence of surveillance, nor into the actual advantages or disadvantages therein. Take away the identifier code on the footage, and what you have is little more than a poorly written, poorly created B film.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I really liked the idea of this show because it is true that we are captured on cameras many times throughout the day. However, I was expecting real footage of random people.

    It would have been interesting to show real footage of real people going about their lives. The fact that they chose to doctor the footage and use actors basically negates the entire idea of being captured on film without our knowledge.

    I watched one episode and had trouble making it to the end. It was an episode that had to do a lot with a husband/wife/secretary combo. The husband and wife are just horrible people who shouldn't be allowed to have custody of their kids and their secretary finds a homeless man sleeping in her car. The homeless guy was the only interesting part of this entire episode and the only part of the episode that felt remotely unscripted. Using actors is pretty lame to begin with, but using actors who have had parts in mainstream media before is even worse. The fact that I could recognize a few of the actors made the entire show even more annoying and less believable. The girl behind the counter of a convenience store played a part on Weeds for several episodes. The secretary has been in several series (multiple episodes) including Felicity.

    If they wanted to make a "reality" series about the cameras that capture our daily lives, they shouldn't have used recognizable actors and they should have used actors who could deliver a line in a believable manner.

    Just awful. I only gave it 2 stars because I like the concept.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie followed several different stories that interweave, much like the Oscar-winning movie Crash. The novelty is that every scene is filmed from the point of view of a security camera. Mounted in places like stores, ATMs, intersections, and more, the movie definitely got me thinking. As Americans, we are probably being filmed more often than not, once leaving our homes.

    The stories themselves are compelling enough to transcend the novelty of the technique--I would have watched even it had been filmed more traditionally. Some of the highlights were (SPOILERS): the music the kid plays in the 7-11 (and the dance his friend does), the high school girl getting caught lying about being raped, and the department store saleswoman who gets mad at a co-worker for sleeping around with other employees (she was my favorite character).

    Overall, a well-done movie in most every aspect that doesn't feel like a well done movie. It feels like a trashy look into some late night seediness.
  • This version of FF is all security and CC cameras. It starts out showing different people in the segments where they are caught by different cameras unbeknownst to them. We slowly get to piece together different lives and watch some people fall and others prosper. We see a department store floor-manager boff different women who work with him, a couple of teenage sirens up to no good, a good teacher who tries, two serial killers and a convenience store hero. The stories are well connected by the end.
An error has occured. Please try again.