Terrell Howell (KnightsofNi11) So it's no secret that experimental filmmaking is a necessity of cinema and some experimental films succeed and others don't. Rage is one of those that doesn't quite succeed in its experimentation on narrative style. Rage is about a New York blogger named Michelangelo, a character we never see or hear. Michelangelo is documenting a New York fashion show by interviewing various people behind the stage in front of various neon colored backgrounds. The entire film is just individual character interviews intertwined to create a story. There is no character interaction and no sets whatsoever. The entire film is done with actors, sound effects, and a blue screen. And believe it or not, the film does actually end up telling a cohesive story, just in the most inconvenient way possible.Simply put, you can't tell a story like this. You just can't make this kind of narrative work without some extra flair or nuance to spice it up. You simply can't tell a unique enough story with just actors in front of a blue screen. The film, for the most part, kept my attention the whole way through, but it is not something that I would watch repeatedly. It is good for one viewing, and the most you can take out of that one viewing is that this is a narrative style that just doesn't work. This film could make an interesting contemporary stage play with a few tweaks, but as a film it is missing key elements that make cinema what it is. I commend Sally Potter, the director, for coming up with new and inventive ways to tell a story through the film medium and I would never discourage her from continuing to expand her experimentation, but I do hope she realized that this attempt was a failed one.Moving on from the narrative style, I really can't complain about the story itself or the characters within it. That is really the tragedy of this film is how much potential its story and characters could have had, if told in a more effective manner. The story takes unexpected twists throughout, and grows surprisingly dark and captivating. Each character is very well designed, but you have to take into consideration the fact that we only see a small part of each character's potential. Like I said before, there is zero character interaction in this film unless you count the things said directly to our invisible narrator. It is difficult to fully judge a character's depth when you never see him or her interact with the other characters of the film. But for what we are given by these characters, it is all very interesting. Each character has their own philosophy and outlook on life and the fashion industry, and these personal values each one of them expresses drives the story home. A lot could have been done with what was laid out across the screen, but the over experimental narrative style held it back significantly.And to add insult to injury, the characters were played by excellent actors who I would have loved to see go further with their roles if the narrative had allowed for it. There are some very big names in this film and a variety of A-list faces. There is everyone from Steve Buscemi as the disgruntled photographer, to the kind old Dianne Wiest who wants her perfume company to succeed, but also wants to keep everyone happy. Jude Law goes the extra mile for this film and plays the transsexual runway model Minx. It is one of the most enticing yet disturbing roles in the whole film, and Law does a great job. Judi Dench plays a painfully honest fashion critic, who delivers one of the last and most enthralling speeches of the film. She ends the film on a particularly dark, yet fascinating note and her performance is great for what she has to work with.I see this film getting torn up by critics and audience members alike, but I feel it deserves much more credit than it has received. Obviously it is very flawed, but it is not an outright horrible movie. The narrative style simply doesn't work and it definitely holds the film back a lot, but apart from that the film delivers a lot of good things. The story, while not perfect, is undeniably interesting, and so are the characters. The actors do a great job in their limiting roles and the only complaint I can make about them is that I just wanted more. Overall, Rage is a failure in minimalist filmmaking. The film makes numerous references to Andy Warhol, but I'm sure Warhol would have been disgusted by this film, as its style almost ended up being a mockery of his own, unintentionally of course. With a lot of tweaking and revising, though, Rage could be a great film or even stage play that would most definitely be worth watching.

JCaseyChapman RAGE is certainly not a movie for everyone. I could see how it would make some people very angry, and I am sure many people walked out of this. However, being an actor myself, watching these performances in their most intimate and raw presentation was nothing short of brilliant. Sure, there are a few flaws, but the truth behind the film is good acting can and SHOULD stand alone. All you really need is a great actor, and a camera pointed at them. It's a series of monologues given by some of the best actors out there. The performances that stood out to me most were: Judi Dench of course, John Lequizamo (who gives perhaps his best performance here), Bob Balaban (who is both hilarious and heartbreaking), Dianne Weist (who can do no wrong), Riz Ahmed (who I didn't know before this and hope to see again), and finally the best of all Adriana Barraza! You should rent/buy this movie just for her monologue about desiring to be invisible. Its a strange little film. But also a brilliant one.

countryguitar This was billed as something groundbreaking and exciting. Live Premiere, London's BFI/Southbank linking up with screens in cinemas all over the place, big name cast, new type of genre. As we sat, we waited, we watched and we waited some more. This is 99 minutes of absolutely mind numbingly boring schlock. Interviews set to a blue/red/green screen. Not a single line has any meaning, is well acted or engaging. Big names such as Judi Dench, Jude Law, Dianne Wiest and Eddie Izzard appear almost as if they have been held hostage and forced to read garbage from an autocue to secure their release. Apparently writer/director Sally Potter's film is about how 'fashion wrecks lives' and she aims to expose the shallow world of fashion in a lighthearted way (it's billed as a comedy). In reality, we are treated to one pathetic interview after another, no outside shots, no story, plot, nothing. The reviews are consistently bad, and as one reviewer wrote on the IMDb "one of the dullest and most purposeless movies I've ever seen in my entire life". The audience in my cinema agreed, they began to walk out in such numbers, that at one point I began to wonder if this was some kind of hoax and we were being filmed as part of an experiment about the staying power of a cinema-goers. Rage shows how ugly and downright wrong it is to allow the production, fiancé and distribution of 'anything goes' cinema.

Coventry Maybe it's me … Maybe I'm too unlettered to comprehend the eloquent content or too dumb to appreciate the profound and innovative concept of Sally Potter's "Rage". I am, however, honest enough to openly and unashamedly proclaim that this was, in my humble opinion, one of the dullest and most purposeless movies I've ever seen in my entire life. That is particularly hard to fathom considering the names of some of the cast members involved, like Steve Buscemi, Jude Law, Judy Dench and Dianne Wiest. What were they thinking? Were they also missing the point at first but then decided to accept the offered roles after all because this type of experimental film is good for your career? "Rage" is one-hundred boring minutes of uninteresting people talking directly into the camera and the only damn thing that changes occasionally is the color of the background! The thing they have in common is that they are all working for a fashion house in one way or another, and they vent about all their job-related frustrations against a student/amateur blogger. One tiny little problem, though … nobody is freaking interested in the rants of eccentric, vainglorious, naive and self-indulgent fashion snobs. The raised topics aren't the least bit controversial and none of the monologues are even remotely provocative. The only thing that Sally Potter accomplishes here is stating the obvious. The fashion industry is a tough and competitive, the world's economy is in recession and all people are selfish bastards and too easily blinded by the idea of fame & glory. Big deal! So What! Who cares? Many interviews and monologues are implausible and preposterous. For example, it's very ignorant to assume that everyone working for a supposedly acclaimed fashion company (and only a few days prior to the launch of a new clothing line) is prepared to free some time and talk to a student with a webcam. As a student I had to coordinate an HR initiative for a big company, but I definitely never had the opportunity to have a chat with the general manager, journalists or security personnel. Oh, and Jude Law is the ugliest transvestite I've ever seen. Big fat fail.