Tangent Room

source: Tangent Room

Brilliant idea let down by horrible writing, acting and direction. It's a film you want to turn off hey early but don't because you want to see what happens, not because the film is riveting but the concept is intriguing. Sadly though, it's trash.

I'm cutting this one some slack. It's a micro-budget movie that jams in a little String Theory. I'm glad it was only 64 minutes. Frankly, I think they could have cut 4 minutes and made it an even hour. If you like the Twilight Zone, you might like this. But don't expect to be knocked off your feet. This isn't another Primer. But again, it's a relatively short film, and judging from the set, effects, and script, your investment in time is probably about as big as the budget of this film. I didn't like the end.

The concept of the film was interesting, so it isn't that the premise was bad, just poorly executed. I understand budget constraints of independent films such as this, but a mantra that is often used in this medium is "show don't tell." Through exposition we find out that the participants had to relinquish all of their personal items at the reception desk. This would have been an easy scene to film. Perhaps the intention was to make the whole movie what takes place INSIDE the room and thus that is the only location we see our protagonists. However, the problem arises that the introduction has a character in another setting presumably sending out the invitations as well as several random establishing shots of hallways and different telescope observatories sprinkled throughout the movie. Also there are flashbacks experienced by each character so we already see them in environments other than the room. Another example I felt could have been executed visually telling the story better was when two character compare notes. You literally watch them looking at their books for about five seconds without getting to see what they see. It isn't until they disagree about something that we get to see that one thing. We are show notes later in the film, why not at a time when that is the narrative focus? There is also a lot of brooding on the part of the characters where we are to think they are deep in thought but, since we can't read there minds and there is no internal monologue or them 'thinking out loud,' we end up watching them silently pondering for several cumulative minutes. The main issue I have with a lot of sci-fi films is that if you cannot explain the science to the audience in a logical way, then don't make abstract ideas like that your focus. All of the characters are the best in their field of studies and are scientists. Yet all we are given are equations that the audience isn't meant to understand and jumps in logic that don't have a catalyst to cause or justify them. Instead of explaining things away, there could have been things that the characters needed to physically do to avert the disaster, ways that they needed to implement the conclusions that they had come to. Instead, them just figuring out the solution was enough for the universe to be satisfied, no action necessary. The story also had other strange tangents, lol, it went on. There is a random scene where the characters express different emotions but all of the do the exact same ones in sequence. So we see four people smiling, then frowning, then laughing, etc. The stated idea was to imply that they might lose their minds but it was unnecessary and probably just included to add to the run time. I don't wish for the director to think that I hate his work, I don't. I just think there are better ways he could have conveyed the story to the audience and added meaningful danger for the characters to address and not just abstract ideas and a time limit. I hope that this filmmaker continues to make films and improve his craft. I did derive entertainment from it, so technically that is a success, but probably not for the reasons that he intended.

The basis scenario is set out simply, 4 genius level scientists in different disciplines are set a problem by a deceased colleague to solve within a strict time limit. At first I thought it was a re-telling of the short story "Noise Level" by Raymond F Jones, and certainly it leaves the strong impression that it was originally intended to be so, beginning with the enforced isolation of the scientists and the scepticism shown by them to the situation and to the problem. However, it quickly deviates from that story and instead enters into a situation where it becomes clear that the scientists do not, and cannot possibly have, any control or understanding unless and until they solve the problem. Though the problem is one that cannot be shown cinematically without either great complexity or great simplicity (thankfully the directer went for the latter) it is one that is interesting. Is it worth watching? Yes, but be aware that the movie primarily consists of "talking heads" with a few simple special effects that you won't even notice at first, until they are made obvious to the viewer. More a thought experiment, but with a good cast able to hold your attention

Crap reviews delayed me from watching this. But it's good, like any decent sci fi flick the whole film was based on real physics (their maths and theory's hemmed for film but) but the idea is what real physicists are theorising today! If you have no head for science you might not get it.

At least its short being only 66 minutes. No character development when one of them is shifted off into time space, you kinda hope you get someone else back.

I went into "Tangent Room" with very few expectations - four (eventually five) actors in a room arguing about ideas is nothing new as a premise. But if it is done well, the premise can make for an interesting "Twilight Zone" experience, and that's almost always worth having. And it starts out pretty well - the introduction of the characters is well done; the actors are interesting to watch; they can work a dialog-heavy script with crispness and verve; the central mystery driving the plot is reasonably Kafka-esque; and the swerve into paranoia and survival mode is delivered nicely. There's even some nice "mood shots" of the star-filled night skies outside the observatory (where the characters supposedly are trapped) to give the viewer a break from all the claustrophobia. So I can buy the premise - four scientists working with a mysterious string of numbers somehow deduce that reality is about to collapse, and then their efforts to arrive at a solution is hindered as reality starts to collapse around them. But somewhere in the middle of an endless and annoying string of jump cuts and editing tricks, the screenplay overtaxes my patience and loses my interest, because apparently all the director really wanted to do was use the discontinuity film tricks from "Altered States" . And the end resolution doesn't work. The scientists don't actually "do" anything that I can see once they discover the problem - it's their simple presence in the room and their unified will - and the will of their other-dimensional counterparts (NOT their brilliance) that saves reality. (So a bunch of plumbers,architects and ad execs who were sufficiently motivated, imaginative, and informed could have done the same thing). There's a big concept to deliver, and the movie just doesn't have the moxie to do that in the space it has. (I'm not sure ANY movie on a scale less than "2001" or "The Matrix" could deliver on the idea). So...even with few expectations, and not expecting anything more than a good "Twilight Zone" episode, I still felt let down. But it wasn't a bad way to spend an hour plus, and I enjoyed watching the actors work their craft and build the mystery in the opening minutes.

As someone who LOVES characters trapped in a room films, this one was unfortunately a complete disappointment. While it's obviously a lower budget film, that does not preclude it from having the possibility of being brilliant! It's not money that makes actors and a story brilliant, it's competent direction and a good script. Something it was obvious from the start this film lacked. Odd character interactions, awkward dialogue make this a very... annoying film to watch. I eventually got the feeling that the people behind the camera did not take the story very seriously. Allowing characters to react (or rather, NOT react) appropriately, ruins the tone of the film and gives it an oddly humorous undertone. NOT A SPOILER The man in a very early scene has just heard some chocking news, and all he does is sit with his head balanced atop his clasped hands like an intrigued school boy. The women on the other hand look appropriately scared/in denial/confused. In fact, the only actor in the whole film who sold the film's story consistently when others faltered was Vee Vimolmal. She really carried everyone else! In conclusion, without spoiling anything, whoever made this film tried to recreate Coherence (2013) with more science babble, without understanding that it's the character interactions that are truly important. So I urge you all to watch Coherence instead. It took me at least 3 viewings to keep track of all the multiple dimensions and characters. It is simply a far superior film and mystery. (As are the first 2 Cube films, if you're into people trapped together genre!)

So they have 4 hours to save the universe, or actually, universes! Yeah, right! At 10:21 pm, they did it! They saved the universes, thank God. Nothing to do with tachyons or time travel because that's too far-fetched. Just good old numbers and a few equations and those amazing special effect tangent lines that flickered momentarily. But yet again, thank God(s) - one for each of the 4 universes (I think) that they solved the problem at 10:21 pm!