Rage (I) (2009) User Reviews

Ambitious artistically, but flat in delivery.

[jeremyemmet · 5/10 · 19 July 2010]

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.

predictable and superficial for a play-like movie

[ignominia-1 · 5/10 · 9 February 2010]

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.

Very flawed but much better than people give it credit for

[KnightsofNi11 · 6/10 · 3 January 2011]

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.

Another Crisp and Controversial Film from the Gifterd Sally Potter

[gradyharp · 12 July 2011]

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 cum 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 fashion industry is tough ... Big deal!

[Coventry · 1/10 · 29 April 2009]

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.

Too much, too inconsistent, too little effort

[hans_germany · 3/10 · 9 February 2009]

I don't post here often, in fact this is my very first comment, and wish it was a better film I felt I could say something about...Please, if you feel differently, explain it too me. This has been my first exposure to Sally Potters work.

In Rage, we see a host of characters involved in a fashion show, being interviewed by and speaking with a student working on a school project. Throughout his seven days with the fashion designer, the models, the investor, the marketing consultants, the company owner, the pizza delivery guy, and others, several deaths occur, an investigation is launched, and public opinion is formed and voiced. Stylistically, we see see talking heads, declaring their thoughts and describing their own and others' actions.

In my view, the film tries to be a bunch of things, but fails at most of them, miserably. First and foremost, it lacks a plot. Stuff happens, but there is no discernible character development (with a couple of exceptions, rounding up), no new or challenging views on topics we should care about, no discussion on why bad stuff happens to good people, or why people end up as bad people. This is notable, as films as Babel even Crash, and TV fare as The West Wing have taught us that issues have more than one side. Rage fails at that for the most part, focusing on illustrating that the fashion industry is bad, the media industry is bad, marketing folks anyways, and that those poor kids in China and on the runway that suffer. The film seems to work through a laundry list of things you ought to get upset about, had you not heard of them before and discussed them with your friends 10 years ago.

Secondly, I straight out blame lack of directing skills for a set of inconsistent, seemingly badly enacted characters. Frank (Buscemi), Mona Carvell (Dench) and Miss Roth (Wiest) come across as at least as semi-credible, non-farcical, at times even multi-layered, or torn. Contrast this with Homer (Oyelowo), Merlin (Abkarian) and (don't shoot me) Minx (Law) - shallow monologues, farcical as far as I could tell, or plain out unbelievable and embarrassing. Either way, I dare say, could be fine. But please, don't mix! Help me understand if the film tries to be funny, or if we see an actor's most horrid performance to date. Ideally, help me understand this without the help of a pamphlet as required reading.

Thirdly, try to maintain a shred of plausibility in the set-up. A kid with a cell phone camera being asked by Otto to please, not leak information, again? Diamonds trying to strike a behind-the-scenes deal, talking to said camera? Anita, doing the same, asking for anonymity? Cut that kid off, throw him out, sulk, but do not do what we see on screen! It renders the story implausible, as this asks the viewer to follow along with the cheap-looking declarative approach, no matter what. This in turn allows the makers of the film to skirt the hard work of story-telling - creating a believable universe of topics, characters and contexts.

We saw the film as part of the Berlinale competition program. It did receive applause, especially Jude Law and Dianne West, but it also received applause when the words "last day" appeared on screen, and several people, possibly those more critical of what they saw, left mid-film. We wondered if Tilda Swinton is too good a friend of Potter to not invite her to this festival.

3 stars, for Wiest, Dench, Buscemi, and 1 laugh/half hour.

An utter disaster - 99 minutes of inane tosh about nothing at all

[countryguitar · 1/10 · 5 October 2009]

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.

a film experiment gone wrong

[marinostattaris · 1/10 · 12 January 2010]

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

I liked it.

[benjiworkshard · 10/10 · 18 December 2009]

I greatly enjoyed this film and have no idea why all of the IMDb reviewers seemed so bitterly scorned by this production. I found so much of this movie to be funny, sad, or at least entertaining. I thought the writing felt honest and sharp, and i found the acting to be superb, because IT FELT LIKE I WAS WATCHING REAL HUMAN BEINGS. Everyone else who commented seemed to have a problem with the performances but i thought they felt authentic. I think we could probably all agree that some people working in the fashion industry might on occasion behave in a way that is a little over dramatic. So when the characters in this film are portrayed behaving in an overly dramatic way, as many of them are, it makes complete sense to me. I thought this was a really unique (I'm saying this because I haven't seen any other movie shot with only actors sitting infront of blue screens) way to tell a story and I was really glad I picked it up. A fellow reviewer complained that Rage was plot-less, but it felt as ambiguous as something a teenager might put together but still had cohesive elements strong enough to leave you, or at least me, with a sense of what transpired off camera, which I believe was the aim of the director. I mean, so it is rather beyond the scope of possibility that some teenage black kid got to interview all of these people, repeatedly, and did so while they were not trying to be interviewed. But I think the statement that, "Rage shows how ugly and downright wrong it is to allow the production, fiancé and distribution of 'anything goes' cinema," is a horrible and self indulgent criticism of a artistic work you didn't like. There are a lot of things down right wrong in this world; creative expression typically isn't one of them. And also that isn't how you spell finance.

The rating for this is way too high

[mjk1807 · 1/10 · 25 October 2019]

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.

I found this brilliant

[JCaseyChapman · 9/10 · 15 April 2010]

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.

Complete nonsense

[marisol_bassino · 1/10 · 25 October 2019]

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

Visionary

[filipa_xavier · 22 August 2011]

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.

a big nothing

[whoknows134 · 1/10 · 4 April 2014]

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.

cinematic negative space

[chris-3415 · 10/10 · 5 January 2011]

in classical Chinese painting, what gets left out of the composition is of crucial importance. potter's "rage" omits quite a few of the compositional elements we take for granted as essential in modern cinema - a bold move in a world dominated by Hollywood tropes and CGI. "rage" isn't what i'd call an experimental film, it's a film produced with an acute awareness of cinema as a super-saturated medium, in which the audience already knows all there is to be known. there are no new stories to be told; no killings which haven't been shown, no motivation which remains unexplored, no new formulas. but this literate, knowledgeable and sophisticated modern audience produces a space which can be activated by leaving things out, rather than putting things in. potter knows that all she needs to do is map out a bare structure, with sumptuous color and first rate actors, and all the rest of the work can be played out of the expectations we all bring to bear on the cinema experience. "rage" is a who-done-it, with andy warhol's "screen test" film series operating in the background, dressed with a kind of glossy-magazine-photoshopped look in which everyone's irises are a suspiciously similar sci-fi hue, and with a nice little twist in the end which implicates us, the passive viewers. i thought one of the most surprising things about the movie was the palpable "rage" expressed in other reviews on this site. we react like addicts when the sugar-candy experience of having everything laid out for our adrenal stimulation is withheld. this isn't a movie about the fashion industry, its about the modern obsession with surface, with effects, and its background theme is intensely political. it's characters are ciphers for the main players in the infotainment infiltrated everyday world, the businessmen, the celebrities, the wannabes, the innocents, the jaded old-hands, the haves and the have-nots. for those who were disappointed by this work, who weren't fascinated by watching, up close, great actors working, i sincerely hope michael bay's next SFX blockbusta isn't too far away. . .

Rage, shrouded

[anthonyhope · 10/10 · 7 February 2018]

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.

Magnificent and unique use of an art form

[Rodrigo_Amaro · 8/10 · 31 December 2022]

Sally Potter's "Rage" is a very unconventional picture in so many ways to I was attracted and impressed with the concept put together of having a story with a talented group of actors and how to make they perform in solitary close-ups and in monologues that actually makes a full play where they are all connected despite never appearing on the same shot. I was curious by the whole thing and it becomes of the most interesting film experiences of recent years, and it also goes for the plot of what she wanted to tell us: to deal with the crazed and glamourous world of fashion - something you don't see these days (with the notable exception of "Ready to Wear" and I'll go back to present a harsh comparison of both).

The story and concept presented: it revolves a huge fashion where a group of characters from all walks of life are directly or indirectly involved with. An all-star cast were well-chosen by Potter: Dianne Wiest, Jude Law, Eddie Izzard, Bob Balaban, John Leguizamo, Steve Buscemi, Patrick J. Adams, Riz Ahmed, Adriana Barraza, David Oyelowo, Judi Dench and a few more are part of this unusual art project and they play characters as distinct as a rebel photographer, a tough security guard, a diva-like drag model, an organizer of the event, a delivery guy, a fashion agent and many others, each with their individual characteristics that can go from being nice people or really arrogant figures or they can change their ways as the events pass by - and they do pass by which revolves a tragic incident and each react in unexpected ways reaching out to the point of despair, fear, or simply rage.

Like said before, they don't interact with each other, they simply look at the camera in great looking close-up shots or sometimes moving around frantically, and as for background each actor/character has a colour design behind them, no props or almost anything is used. So, they're all alone delivering their monologues interacting with an invisible blogger who's covering the fashion show and the tragedy.

Sounds boring, right? Totally. Yet Ms. Potter manages to create a film/play where the actors performance and characters speaks great volumes with their own personas that the movie is anything but boring, exhausting or pretentious. You feel the action, the humor, the drama and the intensity of all so you're hooked through the whole experience. And as for the story and it meanders it's an honest view of the fashion world and all the parties involved going from models, managers, photographers, and the people from behind the scenes. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity; and there's the crudeness between those who have against those who have not, the unfair treatment workers have, the arrogance displayed by people who want to grow in such scenario by hurting people's feelings and backstabbing each other is a common place (but truth be told those issues goes on other working places as well). A dog-eat-dog world where even a death is view as something worthy of admiration and fascination rather than the sadness of the act.

You don't get to see what happens except for the static play format so a lot of what happens you have to exercise the power of imagination. And that's where I get my criticism against Altman's "Ready to Wear". That movie had a spectacular ensemble, it was filmed in Paris during the Fashion Week, it had cameos for many supermodels of the 1990's, and you the visual and the lux speaking great volumes. Was it a good movie? Absolutely not. That was a comedy of errors that had no balls to criticise the fashion world or something say good about it, so it goes all too crazed to appeal to all audiences yet it didn't get anything worthy of view. It was revolting in so many levels that it's beyond belief. "Rage" on the other hand, with the similtarity of an all-star cast takes the same environment without actually showing it yet there's magic, intelligence and creativity. I simply loved, specially the performances of practically everybody (Wiest, Law, Izzard, Ahmed and Buscemi are my favorite) - except for an unfamiliar face who got a nasty role and it didn't feel he was a professional actor, he was way over the top.

More than entertainment, movies are an artistic experience that reflect the times we live on. It must have a speech, a message, an intent even if it's just make us laugh or cry, to feel frightened or in pain. It must hit through your head and your heart, and if possible to make you connect with the world in a different way, see the world in a different light and cause a positive reaction on you to the point you can change your actions, reflect on what you're doing and with luck, you are transformed. Only a handful of films can aspire to that, and maybe I'm seeing a lot more in "Rage" than what people can actually find - and it's low rating is a proof of that. But trust me, I felt connected with it, I've seen a technique that I hadn't seen before and the concept worked. It's not a masterpiece, there are some flaws in it but it got real close of a spetacle to the senses, and since it got close I have nothing but admiration for it. 8/10.