Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

filipa_xavier 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.

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.