Rage

source: Rage

Rage has been given a most surprising rating, which is what prompted me to write my review, though I don't usually do that. Surely this is a very unique film in terms of how it was conceived and so the outcome couldn't have been predicted prior to completion and distribution. This is a film that presents no more than individual characters' worldviews translated to the number of lines they each had alone on screen while being recorded. Centered around the film's subject, which is this fashion event and fashion in general, the things the interviewees said gave me material to form a solid picture, insight into what I ultimately wanted to see, and Rage succeeds tremendously here: how tiniest details give away a person's whole value system, and the value systems tend to be flawed as they are human. The actors brought with them a quality of fearlessly facing the camera through the role and also I give them credit for being very interesting on screen. The tone they set at the end is deserving of praise because it concludes the film effectively. On the whole Rage is, ridiculous as it is at times, a study of human nature, it just uses a particular setting, and perhaps that is what people are put off by. I can imagine the idea working for other subjects too, and certainly think Rage deserved to be ranked higher - really, I am surprised. Hence, I contribute with my rating of 10.

I understand why it was created for phone viewers.. good idea but poorly executed

I just cannot understand why this film has been made. Why did such esteemed and brilliant actors contribute to this film! The film is only just over 1hr 30 minutes but felt like hours. There is nothing I cannot say that is good about this film. It was not at all interesting in my opinion.

Directors usually have the freedom to change topics and styles. But what is this?? If it's trying to sneak into the world of fashion and other trivial consumerism, I don't think it get it at all. And if if it's supposed to be a protest about the triviality apocalypse we're heading, it didn't make it either. Don't bother to watch if you expect something on the style of Sally Potter. It's poor, synthetic, a big nothing that not even gives meaning to it's tittle. I just watched it till the end because I couldn't believe how empty it was.

Rage is a brilliant performance movie that pushes all the boundaries in form and distribution (first film ever released on a cell phone), but unfortunately, not for everyone's eyes. If you are a mainstream-blockbuster kind of viewer don't even bother to watch it, 'cause you'll almost certainly be bored to death. It's a back to the basics in a series of monologues, where you have, actually, to use your imagination to figure out the whole action, throughout noises, emotions and other clues. Which is kind of attention grabbing (at least for me), because it ends up being your own personal "movie"/ interpretation of the story. What I found so fascinating about this movie was the whole irony behind it. Do not expect a normal plot, cause it was made out of randomness, clichés, effective close ups and absurdity. Which also feels very genuine, intriguing and captivating. And I don't know if you noticed, but the colors of the background changes accordingly with the personality and mood of the characters. And you can also tell by the colors that some of them actually change emotionally during the "week". It's not a typical fashion business movie. It talks about the power of new media relationships (bloggers/audience/networks), the ugliness of fame obsession, naivety and capitalism - there is nothing new about the subjects, to be honest - in a series of intimate interviews at the backstage of a fashion show, shot by a schoolboy on his cell phone camera for a "school" project. However, what started as a school project ends up as a murder investigation (not going to spoil). Sally Potter is also a visionary and very clever in understanding the power of giving power away in this New Millennium paradigm.

well not the worst movie I have seen but certainly a disappointing one given the cast and the director. The movie had the structure and intimacy of a play which would have been alright if it had explored deeper into the characters' intentions and the meaning of their actions. As it were they were predictable and cliché-y: the superficial billionaire, the jealousy ridden transvestite; the vulnerable baby faced model; the over the top "artiste" designer; the cold critic; the body guard (who had too much time to talk to the camera to be doing his job) etc. The story is unclear on what really happens to the two models though we know we should mourn but over what? Suicide, murder accident? We see repeated shots of the characters with cliché gestures of sorrow but we cannot share in the tragedy as we don't know what happened. We are led to believe that the blogger has incited a mayhem of protest but would people -young people we are told- protest so vehemently against some stupid fashion's show? Which gets rerun after the first corpse is not even buried? I don't buy that. The format should have yielded amazing performances as in THINGS YOU CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT HER by Rodrigo Garcia where the actors are stripped bare in front of a close up camera, but in RAGE they chose to follow preset tracks giving little more than prefab personae and that flatness is what kills the movie. Save for Dame Dench who is always superb; Dianne Weist's smile and voice as sweet as honey and Adriana Barraza who steals the movie as Anita de Los Angeles, the only believable and truly sympathetic character in the story. I was disappointed by Buscemi and Leguizamo who can do better acting (Buscemi is excellent as a grieving father in The Messenger) and by Izzard whose straight acting does not convince me - I love his cross dressing comedy routines and he should stick to them. Law is well hidden under wigs and make up and though I was reminded of him (his amazing eyes, beautifully enhanced by make up) mid movie I did not realize it was actually him. Still his Minx was just a caricature of a shallow diva who wants to grab and hold our attention, nothing more. The vivid color backgrounds made for interesting optical tricks when complementary colors clashed and glowed almost hurt the eye, but were insufficient to keep one interested. It's a pity that Potter's failed to go beyond color and costumes for I loved Orlando, her aesthetic was formidable in that movie and Virginia Woolf's story well adapted to her eye for rich costume imagery.

There's a tricky decision the you have to make when you choose to do a film examining the controversial elements of an industry. You have to choose whether to fix the film in a place and time, and discuss real historical events, or to allow the film to examine broader topics through fictional constructs, thus freeing the movie to be timeless. Both choices can be fraught with peril, and Sally Potter braves those waters with Rage, choosing to create a fictional context for examining the class disparity, sweatshops, and unrealistic beauty standards that are at the heart of most of the Fashion Industry's major controversies. Potter uses a bare-bones film technique, fixing a camera at a green screen, and shooting a series of documentary-style still-camera interviews with actors playing fashion industry archetypes. There is a fundamental premise, and a story arc complete with acceptably dramatic events of a shocking nature, but these are neither compelling, nor believable in any context. The story here is secondary, and is a means to an end. This film is, essentially, an acting exercise. It is an opportunity for Sally Potter and her actors to explore a character's arc in the broader context of a (largely silly and contrived) fashion industry disaster. The film never answers any of the poignant questions it asks, and it never really allows any one character to follow a satisfying arc (with the possible exception of Jude Law's character, the high point). For the most part, theatre and film geeks will enjoy the effort, if not the execution, but mainstream film-goers will be bored to tears inside of five minutes.

Sally Potter takes chances. There are so many unique aspects of this film that reviewing it is difficult. The major aspects of the film include the very au courant 'rage' of blogging as a means of communication, the 'rage' to stay young and in fashion (that almost daily changing series of fads of what is in and what is out), the 'rage' of focusing everyone's attention on celebrity antics including drugs and death, the 'rage' to buy everything (if you don't own it and it looks like it is going to be popular then buy it), the 'rage' of climbing into the media world, be it film, fashion, television searching for that promised 15 minutes of fame, the 'rage' of PR, minding the selling promotion of a product without concern of its value, the 'rage' of creating new fragrances with a special name for fame, and the 'rage' for maintaining a wealthy or famous class and a poor or service class. Potter manages to take us through all of these phases with brilliant writing, fascinating character studies, experimental lighting and photography, and one of the best uses of color fields ever on film. The premise is simple yet strong. A blogger named Michelangelo follows the backstage proceedings of a New York Fashion Show: we never see him, we see only his daily blog entry and the images of the interviewees through his cellphone camera - the individuals all are part of the hyped fashion show * ramp walk of fashionista Merlin (Simon Abkarian) who designed the clothes, Miss Roth (Dianne Wiest) who owns the company, Mona Carvell (Judi Dench) the fashion critic who writes for the media coverage, Otto (Jakob Cedergren) who works managing PR, Mr. White (Bob Balaban) who directs the show until he is replaced by the overeducated image builder Dwight Angel (Patrick J. Adams), Frank (Steve Buscemi) a hard nosed photographer who has spent better time on the war fronts in the Middle East taking 'meaningful pictures', financier Tiny Diamonds (Eddie Izzard) who buys everything he wants including his bodyguard Jed (John Leguizamo), models Minx (Jude Law in drag) and Lettuce Leaf (Lily Cole), pizza delivery boy transformed in to model Vijay (Riz Ahmed), and Anita de Los Angeles (Adriana Barraza) the seamstress who simply wants to remain invisible. Two deaths occur - one car accident and one shooting - and that brings in Detective Homer (David Oyelowo) who investigates while displaying his own brand of Shakespeare to the blogger's cellphone camera. All of this complex story happens in the form of interviews - each star is dressed in well designed clothes and each poses in front of various colored screens. The ending of the interview brings the whole experience together. Potter's immaculate and imaginative script gives each one of these gifted actors room to shine in a one person act. It just simply works and never for a moment does it become dull. Sally Potter gave us 'Orlando', 'Yes', 'The Man Who Cried', and 'The Tango Lesson'. She is one of the most imaginative and skilled writer/director units in the business. Grady Harp

The blue screens combine well with the characters lipstick colours , the performances at some points are really good but halfway through this movie i just couldn't wait for it to finish. I actually watched it on fast forward. For one thing you cant have a movie on people just talking in front of the camera. Its just hard to believe that this were done by a teenager. And those questions that coming straight from a fashion experts mouth were really hard to buy. Coming from the same person that made "Orlando" i was deeply disappointed since i was expecting much more. The aesthetic result is quite good but nothing more than that. This is one of my favourite worst movies ever. This is a film experiment but it just doenst work. Leave it for film schools or even museums but i wouldn't recommend this as entertainment