I have always been a Robin Williams fan. From watching him goof around in Mrs. Doubtfire when i was a kid to seeing him actually creep me out in One Hour Photo, probably his best movie to date. So i am willing to see anything he has to offer. I got a chance to see The Final Cut for free, so i took it. The plot seemed real interesting and it was a first. Later into the movie though, the plot was getting cut more than people's memories. Williams romance with Mira Sorvino (which was gag-worthy to begin with) doesn't have any closure, and the "cutting" procedure and the whole "chip in the brain" thing didn't seem too thought out. Robin Williams is good as always and he tries his best to keep you interested, and the opening of the movie was promising. I even think with a little work that director Omar Naim can make some really quality flicks. This one, however, seems like it was cut together from a better movie. Which is a shame because it was a really cool idea. 5/10
155 Reviews
A lot of unfulfilled promise, but still worth watching
BrandtSponseller25 April 2005
Set during an unspecified future era, or perhaps an "alternate universe" present era, The Final Cut posits a world in which "first person viewpoint" computer chip implants are possible for those who can afford it. These record a person's entire life from a first person viewpoint--the "camera" sees what the person sees, hears what they hear. The intention is to have an accurate, documentary-like record after the person dies. These are presented as films at their funerals. Citizens known as "cutters" (just a slang for a film editor) pare down one's life to a feature length presentation. There are also those who protest the implants. The Final Cut is the story of the latter days of a cutter, Alan W. Hakman (Robin Williams).
While The Final Cut is enjoyable enough, it has tremendous squandered potential. As one would expect, Williams turns in an incredible performance, but the script, by writer/director Omar Naim, could have used a lot of work.
The premise is fabulous. It opens many philosophical and psychological cans of worms. Some are dealt with, but only cursorily. Surely cutters go through a lot of emotional trauma as they vicariously experience the lows and the mundanities of other person's lives. Naim shows us this briefly with a recording of someone who was an abuser. But as soon as he shows us this material, he drops it. The film is advertised as a thriller. How much more exciting would it have been to embed Hakman in the middle of some grand, suspenseful plot, the details of which became known to him through data from an implant? As one of the opponents of the implant technology remarks, the implants have changed the way people relate to each other. That is a good point--it would have a profound impact on that. So why aren't we shown instances of this in the film? This could have been another hinge for a very intriguing, tense plot.
There are also issues of invasion of privacy, surveillance paranoia, consent (the implants are shown being put into infants and being permanent), and "misuse" of the data. Most of these are barely touched. Often they're only broached with a single comment, or a protester's sign.
Other fascinating issues brought up by the idea of the technology are not even mentioned. Surely, such technology would prove to be invaluable as evidence in crimes. And surely many people, especially victims, would voluntarily offer a "tap" into their implants so they can be witnesses. Why not comment on these kinds of possibilities? The Final Cut is also oddly understated with such a far-reaching sci-fi premise in this era of rubber reality films. A number of plot points, such as the one involving Louis Hunt, have almost disappointingly mundane resolutions. For that matter, for a sci-fi film set in the future or an alternate reality, there isn't much that is different about the world except for the implants. Probably the lack of differences was due to budget. It costs a lot of money to build alternate realities.
This might sound far too negative for the film to warrant a 7 out of 10 from me, which is equivalent to a "C" letter grade. Much of the film is saved by the performances. In combination with direction that is more often than not interesting and unusual, it's easy to focus on the promise of the premise rather than the unfulfilled extensions of the same.
Hakman, and presumably the other cutters, have odd dispositions. Their task is to make everyone look good--like a mortician making up a mangled body so it's "presentable" at a funeral. They spend hour upon hour as voyeurs. They are something like archivists, but also have to play detective. It makes them strangely aloof and dour. It's difficult for them to have relationships. Naim gets in a couple cracks that portray the cutters and their social relationships as similar to geeky "Internet addicts". This is all good stuff, and it's excellently played by Williams.
The flow of the film is a bit odd, and especially the ending (which I praised for its relative nihilism) is eventually abrupt in a way that doesn't exactly work (and I usually love abrupt endings). Being generous, we could take the wonky flow as a "level-removed" kind of self-reference. Of course Naim was faced with cutting the film to make it look good, but it's a bit awkward and arbitrary-feeling, just as a cutter's work would likely be when faced with having to produce a coherent 90-minute film out of 80 years' worth of material. Being less generous, Naim simply needs to learn how to better tell a story, and there was no intention of real-world reflexivity with his fictional material.
The Final Cut is worth seeing, especially if you're a Robin Williams fan as I am, but it's a disappointment considering what it could have been.
While The Final Cut is enjoyable enough, it has tremendous squandered potential. As one would expect, Williams turns in an incredible performance, but the script, by writer/director Omar Naim, could have used a lot of work.
The premise is fabulous. It opens many philosophical and psychological cans of worms. Some are dealt with, but only cursorily. Surely cutters go through a lot of emotional trauma as they vicariously experience the lows and the mundanities of other person's lives. Naim shows us this briefly with a recording of someone who was an abuser. But as soon as he shows us this material, he drops it. The film is advertised as a thriller. How much more exciting would it have been to embed Hakman in the middle of some grand, suspenseful plot, the details of which became known to him through data from an implant? As one of the opponents of the implant technology remarks, the implants have changed the way people relate to each other. That is a good point--it would have a profound impact on that. So why aren't we shown instances of this in the film? This could have been another hinge for a very intriguing, tense plot.
There are also issues of invasion of privacy, surveillance paranoia, consent (the implants are shown being put into infants and being permanent), and "misuse" of the data. Most of these are barely touched. Often they're only broached with a single comment, or a protester's sign.
Other fascinating issues brought up by the idea of the technology are not even mentioned. Surely, such technology would prove to be invaluable as evidence in crimes. And surely many people, especially victims, would voluntarily offer a "tap" into their implants so they can be witnesses. Why not comment on these kinds of possibilities? The Final Cut is also oddly understated with such a far-reaching sci-fi premise in this era of rubber reality films. A number of plot points, such as the one involving Louis Hunt, have almost disappointingly mundane resolutions. For that matter, for a sci-fi film set in the future or an alternate reality, there isn't much that is different about the world except for the implants. Probably the lack of differences was due to budget. It costs a lot of money to build alternate realities.
This might sound far too negative for the film to warrant a 7 out of 10 from me, which is equivalent to a "C" letter grade. Much of the film is saved by the performances. In combination with direction that is more often than not interesting and unusual, it's easy to focus on the promise of the premise rather than the unfulfilled extensions of the same.
Hakman, and presumably the other cutters, have odd dispositions. Their task is to make everyone look good--like a mortician making up a mangled body so it's "presentable" at a funeral. They spend hour upon hour as voyeurs. They are something like archivists, but also have to play detective. It makes them strangely aloof and dour. It's difficult for them to have relationships. Naim gets in a couple cracks that portray the cutters and their social relationships as similar to geeky "Internet addicts". This is all good stuff, and it's excellently played by Williams.
The flow of the film is a bit odd, and especially the ending (which I praised for its relative nihilism) is eventually abrupt in a way that doesn't exactly work (and I usually love abrupt endings). Being generous, we could take the wonky flow as a "level-removed" kind of self-reference. Of course Naim was faced with cutting the film to make it look good, but it's a bit awkward and arbitrary-feeling, just as a cutter's work would likely be when faced with having to produce a coherent 90-minute film out of 80 years' worth of material. Being less generous, Naim simply needs to learn how to better tell a story, and there was no intention of real-world reflexivity with his fictional material.
The Final Cut is worth seeing, especially if you're a Robin Williams fan as I am, but it's a disappointment considering what it could have been.
Great Idea with Poor Execution (SPOILERS WITHIN)
montecristo4219 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
As the summary reads, great idea. But there are some major problems with this movie.
The relationship--very poorly done. We have no idea why Mira Sorvino is attracted to Robin's character. She even has lines that beat you over the head with the theme of the movie "What about your life?" or "You have to live your own life." We get it, we don't need to be told that Robin lives his life through others. In one scene she tells him she doesn't want to be with him in the bookstore(paraphrasing), and fifteen or twenty minutes later she's back over his place. Why does she act this way? I don't know. Her character was poorly drawn. The best part about their relationship was when she discovered that Robin had been watching her with her previous boyfriend.
That added some complexity to the situation and Robin's character.
Jim Caviezel--I usually like him. He was good in Count of Monte Cristo, Frequency, The Passion. But he was just GOD AWFUL in this movie. Every line he spoke in this movie was so forced and way over the top. His line to end the movie almost made me laugh at how overly theatrical it was. He didn't need to say anything at the end I thought. Just by showing us what he was doing, I believe that the director made his point. But no, he beat us over the head again with the message.
The (sub)plot concerning the head business guy--I couldn't tell what plot was supposed to be the focal point of this movie. He's working on this rememory, then discovers he has an implant, and the movie seems to lose direction.
The grieving wife--Near the end, Robin goes to tell her that the disc has been destroyed so that he will be unable to do the rememory. She is WAY too forgiving and accepting here. To her, this is the last way she will be able to connect with her husband, whom she apparently loves very much (enough to fight a court battle to get the implant released). Instead, she just nods her head and basically tells Robin "that's okay you've destroyed my last chance to experience my dead husband." He did blame it on a technical malfunction, of course, but I don't think that would have lessened her anger really.
Robin has an implant--WHOA! Cool idea for a twist, but did the Director not think this through? Perhaps I'm wrong about the facts of the movie, so I'll lay out what I think is true: The cutters work for the company that makes the implants, right? Do you seriously think that when Robin applied to be a cutter, the company didn't have him in some sort of database as one of the implanted people? Don't you think they'd want to check on that? Especially considering they probably asked him questions about his personal life. It's just too hard to willingly suspend disbelief this far. Granted, he obviously told them he had no implant, but still, wouldn't that be in a computer somewhere?
Social Commentary/Thematic Material--The protesters, the stigma of being a cutter, etc. These were cool ideas but poorly expanded upon. It's tough for me to explain why, because I would argue what wasn't in the movie, as opposed to what was.
Feel free to rip me apart. Again, I thought this was a great idea and the Director has shown us some promise. But there were some major problems with the film.
The relationship--very poorly done. We have no idea why Mira Sorvino is attracted to Robin's character. She even has lines that beat you over the head with the theme of the movie "What about your life?" or "You have to live your own life." We get it, we don't need to be told that Robin lives his life through others. In one scene she tells him she doesn't want to be with him in the bookstore(paraphrasing), and fifteen or twenty minutes later she's back over his place. Why does she act this way? I don't know. Her character was poorly drawn. The best part about their relationship was when she discovered that Robin had been watching her with her previous boyfriend.
That added some complexity to the situation and Robin's character.
Jim Caviezel--I usually like him. He was good in Count of Monte Cristo, Frequency, The Passion. But he was just GOD AWFUL in this movie. Every line he spoke in this movie was so forced and way over the top. His line to end the movie almost made me laugh at how overly theatrical it was. He didn't need to say anything at the end I thought. Just by showing us what he was doing, I believe that the director made his point. But no, he beat us over the head again with the message.
The (sub)plot concerning the head business guy--I couldn't tell what plot was supposed to be the focal point of this movie. He's working on this rememory, then discovers he has an implant, and the movie seems to lose direction.
The grieving wife--Near the end, Robin goes to tell her that the disc has been destroyed so that he will be unable to do the rememory. She is WAY too forgiving and accepting here. To her, this is the last way she will be able to connect with her husband, whom she apparently loves very much (enough to fight a court battle to get the implant released). Instead, she just nods her head and basically tells Robin "that's okay you've destroyed my last chance to experience my dead husband." He did blame it on a technical malfunction, of course, but I don't think that would have lessened her anger really.
Robin has an implant--WHOA! Cool idea for a twist, but did the Director not think this through? Perhaps I'm wrong about the facts of the movie, so I'll lay out what I think is true: The cutters work for the company that makes the implants, right? Do you seriously think that when Robin applied to be a cutter, the company didn't have him in some sort of database as one of the implanted people? Don't you think they'd want to check on that? Especially considering they probably asked him questions about his personal life. It's just too hard to willingly suspend disbelief this far. Granted, he obviously told them he had no implant, but still, wouldn't that be in a computer somewhere?
Social Commentary/Thematic Material--The protesters, the stigma of being a cutter, etc. These were cool ideas but poorly expanded upon. It's tough for me to explain why, because I would argue what wasn't in the movie, as opposed to what was.
Feel free to rip me apart. Again, I thought this was a great idea and the Director has shown us some promise. But there were some major problems with the film.
Great Idea, Great Story
Vic_max20 September 2006
I tend to like watching sci-fi movies even though most are really bad. What a wonderful surprise it was to come across this movie. The movie is well written with believable characters, dialog and plot. The concept alone is fantastic and the story does a wonderful job of exploring the many implications and aspects of it - both at a social and personal level. Although the movie seems like it might be slow-paced, it opens with a zinger and eventually ends up giving us surprise after surprise. In conjunction with a lot of intellectual intrigue, there is a lot of strong emotion that goes along with many of the scenes.
It isn't perfect - there are some arguable problems with aspects of the story and characters, but for what one gets, I'm willing to focus on the positive here. Definitely worth checking out.
It isn't perfect - there are some arguable problems with aspects of the story and characters, but for what one gets, I'm willing to focus on the positive here. Definitely worth checking out.
Loved the film's moral dilemas
uap21 April 2004
I saw "The Final Cut" at the Berlin Film Festival, I was surprisingly absorbed by the questions raised. The plot evoked feelings I felt after reading, George Orwell's, "1984". The questions of privacy and morality.
As a first film, Omar Naim does a credible job at directing Robin Williams, Mira Sorvino, and Jim Caviziel. Their preformances matched the morbidity of the world created in the film. Some of Robin's most reserved and pulled back acting, great seeing Caviziel transform from Jesus to a villan. Thom Bishops who I never heard of before was suprisingly impressive as the light point in the film.
To me, this film comes at a time when this subject is pertinent as social commentary on where our society is headed.
There was a couple of plot holes though, and I felt that the romance between Mira Sorvino's character and Robin's could have been more developed.
As a first film, Omar Naim does a credible job at directing Robin Williams, Mira Sorvino, and Jim Caviziel. Their preformances matched the morbidity of the world created in the film. Some of Robin's most reserved and pulled back acting, great seeing Caviziel transform from Jesus to a villan. Thom Bishops who I never heard of before was suprisingly impressive as the light point in the film.
To me, this film comes at a time when this subject is pertinent as social commentary on where our society is headed.
There was a couple of plot holes though, and I felt that the romance between Mira Sorvino's character and Robin's could have been more developed.
What is the point of a Zoe?
michcm15 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I guess I just didn't understand the full point getting a Zoe. First they cost an arm and a leg. Then, during your life your every action is recorded. Then when you die they edit 650,000 hours into a 1 hour funeral service and delete the rest.
Call me crazy, but what a waste of money. Wouldn't the family want at least a few thousand hours? For what you pay, you get so little in return. When my father died, I wouldn't have been happy with a 1 hour service. I would have wanted to be able to see soooo much more, all his high school and college football games, the time he spent with us kids, etc...
Granted I would definitely need a cutter to get rid of all the bathroom time, his dark memories, and intimate time with my mom cut out.
I just couldn't get past what a waste these implants were.
Call me crazy, but what a waste of money. Wouldn't the family want at least a few thousand hours? For what you pay, you get so little in return. When my father died, I wouldn't have been happy with a 1 hour service. I would have wanted to be able to see soooo much more, all his high school and college football games, the time he spent with us kids, etc...
Granted I would definitely need a cutter to get rid of all the bathroom time, his dark memories, and intimate time with my mom cut out.
I just couldn't get past what a waste these implants were.
Don't believe everything you read about this movie
RWFansite16 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I've seen the movie several times in Berlin February 2004. The first time I watched it I was blown away by the end of the movie. The last couple of scenes have so much power, great music and awesome acting performances (actually the whole movie does). The ending was great and I had to think a little longer what I should think about the rest of the movie. Of course I liked it, but I didn't now how much, till I watched the movie for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th time. It's an absolutely awesome movie and it got better and better everytime I watched it. The camerawork is amazing, directing from Omar is perfect and the acting performances (especially Robin and Thom Bishops) are the best of their carreer. I can't help it, but I have to compare this movie with One Hour Photo. Compared to that movie, this one is more thrilling and I think a lot more accessible for a lot of people. The great thing about Robin is that in this movie he gives the other actors the opportunity to shine.
I've read several reviews that were negative about everything they could be negative about. Omar should've been a bad director and writer, Robin was robotic and the set decoration didn't fit in. Well, I think Omar did a great job, Robins performance was even better than in One Hour Photo (and I thought Robins best performance was in One Hour Photo), the set decoration is very human and warm and the music by Brian Tyler is absolutely fantastic. Ok, one thing in the script/story may be doubtful, but I don't think that makes this movie instantly as bad as other critics say.
I completely understood each character and I understood why they did things the way they did it.
I hope this movie will get a lot of positive reviews soon, because everyone who worked on this project fully deserve it!
I've read several reviews that were negative about everything they could be negative about. Omar should've been a bad director and writer, Robin was robotic and the set decoration didn't fit in. Well, I think Omar did a great job, Robins performance was even better than in One Hour Photo (and I thought Robins best performance was in One Hour Photo), the set decoration is very human and warm and the music by Brian Tyler is absolutely fantastic. Ok, one thing in the script/story may be doubtful, but I don't think that makes this movie instantly as bad as other critics say.
I completely understood each character and I understood why they did things the way they did it.
I hope this movie will get a lot of positive reviews soon, because everyone who worked on this project fully deserve it!
Latecomer Evaluation
jedp227 January 2008
I don't completely understand the negative reviews of this film because I thought films (except for documentaries) legitimately use the "willfull suspension of disbelief" to accomplish their goals of entertainment. Granted, not everything in this film makes perfect logical sense and could have been written just a little better (or maybe suffers the fate of all literature to film shortcomings) but I absorbed the film as a morality/ethics dilemma rather than a logical tale of facts and relationships. I do concede the ending left me a little wanting for resolution.
Good questions were touched upon in a less than preachy head slap because of the low key acting presentations. And Williams has always held my attention in any of his work to date. This one is worth watching if you're not a detail critic, though it's not as badly crafted as some would make it seem.
Good questions were touched upon in a less than preachy head slap because of the low key acting presentations. And Williams has always held my attention in any of his work to date. This one is worth watching if you're not a detail critic, though it's not as badly crafted as some would make it seem.
Put together nicely, but no foundation...
stuffkikker26 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Rarely do I come across a movie that holds together as loosely as this. Where to start? (Warning, mayor spoilers ahead, don't read this if you plan to watch the movie)
First of all there is the premise: To be able to record memories of people so their lives can be stored after their deaths. This is what justifies the practice of these so called cutters, and the counter-argument that is voices that this is an invasion of privacy, and that God alone is to see through the eyes of others. Well, in fact there is more to it. In any ethical society, these devices can never be implemented without consent of the carrier. The invasion of privacy is reason enough for this. We all have our secrets we don't need anyone to see, especially after our deaths when we aren't around to defend ourselves against misinterpretation. Would in fact such technology ever be deviced and implemented, there would have to be an exit option: an option to have these devices removed. Instead, in the movie it requires electromagnetic tattoos to disable these devices from further recording.
This alone makes no sense. There being no agreement of consent of the carrier to be signed, nor active tracking of carriers to make sure they are informed of their implant and sign an agreement after all (which would have made the main characters situation quite the different one) makes absolutely no sense if this technology were developed in a society of western ethics (not saying other world ethics wouldn't dictate the same, but this movie is all about the typical ethical dilemma's of the direction the western world is taking). Yet, the plot revolves around exposing a scandal which should change the way we'd view such technology, namely that the man behind the corporation owning the technology abused his daughter... ??? How cheap is that? Why not stick to the moral dilemma of the technology itself, which would be way more interesting to explore. No, instead they go for old fashion discredit to something that should incite moral outrage. That people are to be killed to get the evidence for this seems no obstacle. I could go on about this 'ethical' foundation, but let's get to the next part.
Which is the technology. Here you have recordings of half a million hours, and they are edited by single individuals, with occasionally an assistant? Even if we cut out 60% in sleeping hours and boredom, they still have to go trough over 200.000 hours on their own? Impossible. Tasks like this you'd need huge teams for, judging material on relevance, doing research, editing the thing together. Plus of course you'd need boards of privacy protection and whathaveyounot regulating information and clearance, a vast system of security realising these regulations, etc. The idea that a single person is doing this at home is absurd.
And that makes one of the crucial points in the plot totally uncalled for, which is where the girl takes a shot at the cutting system, destroying the memory implant which the hoodlums are after, and which will eventually get the main character killed. See, it's already unimaginable that Alan (Robin) would be doing this job at home, but even if we accept this under the notion that we do a lot of work at home too these days on our company laptops: We have passwords on our laptops!! Here you have a computer system with the most sensitive information possible, and there is not a single password needed to activate it? No key or pass that needs to be inserted? No single way of keeping out those without clearance?? How extremely unlikely once again.. Companies protect information far less sensitive than this. Of course, would this device had been protected, the girlfriend wouldn't have been able to view her ex-boyfriends memory-card (what was it doing there anyway? Wasn't that guy dead already? Didn't the company have a storage room -lacking digital indexing btw- where they keep these cards in cardboard boxes so that they'd be exposed to the detrimental effects of the atmosphere?)
Another minor technical detail is the reading of memory of living people; "it can't be recorded"... yet it can be viewed on a monitor... meaning there is a feed, and any feed can be recorded.. what are we moviegoers taken for, total retards? For a movie pretending to have this intellectual dilemma theme about it, I find stuff like this quite the insult to our intelligence..
All of this makes the whole movie feel like a cheap setup, which it is for otherwise the plot couldn't have taken the turns it took, and which totally destroys any credibility.
The music was OK. The acting was mediocre. I liked the detail of Alan leaving the door open on purpose when interviewing the young girl, the face tattoo's those anti-folks walked around with looked OK, and the way the movie was shot wasn't half bad either. But that's not enough. A movie like this needs a foundation that actually compels the mind, and they should have worked with the ethical dilemmas the premise brought forth, not turn it into the cheap generic thriller it actually became..
First of all there is the premise: To be able to record memories of people so their lives can be stored after their deaths. This is what justifies the practice of these so called cutters, and the counter-argument that is voices that this is an invasion of privacy, and that God alone is to see through the eyes of others. Well, in fact there is more to it. In any ethical society, these devices can never be implemented without consent of the carrier. The invasion of privacy is reason enough for this. We all have our secrets we don't need anyone to see, especially after our deaths when we aren't around to defend ourselves against misinterpretation. Would in fact such technology ever be deviced and implemented, there would have to be an exit option: an option to have these devices removed. Instead, in the movie it requires electromagnetic tattoos to disable these devices from further recording.
This alone makes no sense. There being no agreement of consent of the carrier to be signed, nor active tracking of carriers to make sure they are informed of their implant and sign an agreement after all (which would have made the main characters situation quite the different one) makes absolutely no sense if this technology were developed in a society of western ethics (not saying other world ethics wouldn't dictate the same, but this movie is all about the typical ethical dilemma's of the direction the western world is taking). Yet, the plot revolves around exposing a scandal which should change the way we'd view such technology, namely that the man behind the corporation owning the technology abused his daughter... ??? How cheap is that? Why not stick to the moral dilemma of the technology itself, which would be way more interesting to explore. No, instead they go for old fashion discredit to something that should incite moral outrage. That people are to be killed to get the evidence for this seems no obstacle. I could go on about this 'ethical' foundation, but let's get to the next part.
Which is the technology. Here you have recordings of half a million hours, and they are edited by single individuals, with occasionally an assistant? Even if we cut out 60% in sleeping hours and boredom, they still have to go trough over 200.000 hours on their own? Impossible. Tasks like this you'd need huge teams for, judging material on relevance, doing research, editing the thing together. Plus of course you'd need boards of privacy protection and whathaveyounot regulating information and clearance, a vast system of security realising these regulations, etc. The idea that a single person is doing this at home is absurd.
And that makes one of the crucial points in the plot totally uncalled for, which is where the girl takes a shot at the cutting system, destroying the memory implant which the hoodlums are after, and which will eventually get the main character killed. See, it's already unimaginable that Alan (Robin) would be doing this job at home, but even if we accept this under the notion that we do a lot of work at home too these days on our company laptops: We have passwords on our laptops!! Here you have a computer system with the most sensitive information possible, and there is not a single password needed to activate it? No key or pass that needs to be inserted? No single way of keeping out those without clearance?? How extremely unlikely once again.. Companies protect information far less sensitive than this. Of course, would this device had been protected, the girlfriend wouldn't have been able to view her ex-boyfriends memory-card (what was it doing there anyway? Wasn't that guy dead already? Didn't the company have a storage room -lacking digital indexing btw- where they keep these cards in cardboard boxes so that they'd be exposed to the detrimental effects of the atmosphere?)
Another minor technical detail is the reading of memory of living people; "it can't be recorded"... yet it can be viewed on a monitor... meaning there is a feed, and any feed can be recorded.. what are we moviegoers taken for, total retards? For a movie pretending to have this intellectual dilemma theme about it, I find stuff like this quite the insult to our intelligence..
All of this makes the whole movie feel like a cheap setup, which it is for otherwise the plot couldn't have taken the turns it took, and which totally destroys any credibility.
The music was OK. The acting was mediocre. I liked the detail of Alan leaving the door open on purpose when interviewing the young girl, the face tattoo's those anti-folks walked around with looked OK, and the way the movie was shot wasn't half bad either. But that's not enough. A movie like this needs a foundation that actually compels the mind, and they should have worked with the ethical dilemmas the premise brought forth, not turn it into the cheap generic thriller it actually became..
Intriguing plot, intense acting
jrendo25 October 2004
The plot is timely and intriguing, providing lots of food for thought as to the perhaps not-too-far future prospects of technology and our own legacies.
I agree the relationship between Williams' character and his love interest was too sketchy. With a few extra minutes expanding on those two, the film might have been more fleshed out. Overall, I enjoyed the movie. It really gave us pause to reflect on the pros and cons of the "Zoe Implant" and "rememories." Appreciated the intense acting abilities of Williams and Caviezel; otherwise, the movie might have lagged even more.
I thought the angles of the camera shots were interesting.
I agree the relationship between Williams' character and his love interest was too sketchy. With a few extra minutes expanding on those two, the film might have been more fleshed out. Overall, I enjoyed the movie. It really gave us pause to reflect on the pros and cons of the "Zoe Implant" and "rememories." Appreciated the intense acting abilities of Williams and Caviezel; otherwise, the movie might have lagged even more.
I thought the angles of the camera shots were interesting.
It was just okay.
needferspd20 October 2004
Well, I just saw The Final Cut over the weekend and I am finding myself very disappointed in the movie. From the previews I had imagined something a little different with a lot more action that what took place. There were certain scenes that I felt were good and like them, but all in all I would rather have waited to just rent the movie than to have gone to see it in the theaters. It was a pretty slow moving movie when I was expecting more suspense and action. Robin Williams did a great job in the part, just to clarify. Once again, it was just my view of the movie as a whole that I did not like. The overall plot was good and the storyline had a great theme but as I watched, I just became more and more disappointed. Then at the end, it just kind of ended. To me, I was left with the feeling that there should have been more than just a sudden ending like it had.
Raises Many Very Interesting Issues
aimless-4624 January 2007
In six words: great idea-not so great execution. In a slightly vague future, Robin Williams plays a video editor named Alan, his job is assembling 1-2 hour video portraits of deceased clients whose parent's were well off enough to have had them fitted (while still in the womb) with a "Zoe" implant. Named after the corporation that initially developed this device, the implant records (24-7) everything that happens to a person during their lifetime. It is important to the story that viewers understand that these are not memories but actual recordings. This distinction is critical to the plot as well as to one of the interesting questions posed by the film; to what extent have our actual memories been distorted by time.
The editors (called cutters) must distill down this lifetime of footage into a brief highlights video, discretely deleting scenes that would be offensive to the family of the decreased. This is not that different than the writers of obituary notices (see "Closer"). The video is shown at a special memorial service called a "rememory". To add some unnecessary complexity to the story there is a violent protest group who object to the whole concept. The basis of their objection is never adequately explained but seems to be centered on the fact that the footage is by necessity all from the person's own "point-of-view", with the protesters chanting "remember for yourself".
Of course a Cutter sees everything (mostly in fast motion) making him or her privy to a person's every secret and sin. In the film they briefly raise the most interesting question posed by this whole idea, if you knew that someone (be it man or God) would replay your entire life, to what extent would it change your behavior? In the film most (but not all) people with the implant are aware that they have it.
Knowing all this stuff makes Alan a lonely man. His philosophy: "The dead mean nothing to me, I took this job out of respect for the living", has caused him to avoid close interpersonal relationships, which might compromise the many confidences he is keeping. Within the closed community of cutters he is known as a "Sin Eater" because of his willingness to sanitize the lives of the scum of the earth, accepting clients that the other cutters reject. Williams looks even sadder and more depressed than in did in "What Dreams May Come". It is a extremely restrained performance, not especially challenging but perfectly suited to the mood of this film.
Alan gets in trouble when he takes on a project for a rich widow (Stephanie Romanov). Her husband knew a lot of corporate secrets and had been playing around with their young daughter. This "messing around with something much bigger" has a Raymond Chandler feel to it, and this fits nicely with what might be called a futuristic film noir production design.
Overall the many interesting ethical and philosophical questions raised by "The Final Cut" are more interesting than the film itself. In fact, there is so little real suspense and character identification that the viewing process is mostly an exercise in pulling yourself back from your contemplation of earlier scenes so that you can follow what is happening on the screen.
The film goes wrong by introducing a parallel story about Alan's childhood. While well handled, it fails in its purpose of explaining his adult motivations. By the end we care nothing about his character or his actions and are back to day dreaming about the many issues the film raises but does not adequately address.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
The editors (called cutters) must distill down this lifetime of footage into a brief highlights video, discretely deleting scenes that would be offensive to the family of the decreased. This is not that different than the writers of obituary notices (see "Closer"). The video is shown at a special memorial service called a "rememory". To add some unnecessary complexity to the story there is a violent protest group who object to the whole concept. The basis of their objection is never adequately explained but seems to be centered on the fact that the footage is by necessity all from the person's own "point-of-view", with the protesters chanting "remember for yourself".
Of course a Cutter sees everything (mostly in fast motion) making him or her privy to a person's every secret and sin. In the film they briefly raise the most interesting question posed by this whole idea, if you knew that someone (be it man or God) would replay your entire life, to what extent would it change your behavior? In the film most (but not all) people with the implant are aware that they have it.
Knowing all this stuff makes Alan a lonely man. His philosophy: "The dead mean nothing to me, I took this job out of respect for the living", has caused him to avoid close interpersonal relationships, which might compromise the many confidences he is keeping. Within the closed community of cutters he is known as a "Sin Eater" because of his willingness to sanitize the lives of the scum of the earth, accepting clients that the other cutters reject. Williams looks even sadder and more depressed than in did in "What Dreams May Come". It is a extremely restrained performance, not especially challenging but perfectly suited to the mood of this film.
Alan gets in trouble when he takes on a project for a rich widow (Stephanie Romanov). Her husband knew a lot of corporate secrets and had been playing around with their young daughter. This "messing around with something much bigger" has a Raymond Chandler feel to it, and this fits nicely with what might be called a futuristic film noir production design.
Overall the many interesting ethical and philosophical questions raised by "The Final Cut" are more interesting than the film itself. In fact, there is so little real suspense and character identification that the viewing process is mostly an exercise in pulling yourself back from your contemplation of earlier scenes so that you can follow what is happening on the screen.
The film goes wrong by introducing a parallel story about Alan's childhood. While well handled, it fails in its purpose of explaining his adult motivations. By the end we care nothing about his character or his actions and are back to day dreaming about the many issues the film raises but does not adequately address.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
futuristic and mysterious
antoniotierno17 May 2005
It's the kind of film provoking many ethical questions about life, death, privacy and so on. Omar Naim's direction gives a glimpse into possible science discoveries and paths; its strong originality consists of showing how the state of civil rights could be threatened if these futuristic odyssey came true. The whole film is based on a steady premise, very solid performances and an impressive visual style, though special effects are not as special as one could think (given this title and this plot). Robin Williams is now accustomed to playing such frightening and alluring roles; after "Insomnia", "One hour photo" and this flick "Dead Poets Society" is now a far memory.
A Dark Look at the Meaning of Memories
noralee19 October 2004
"The Final Cut" is a dark cross between "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", "One-Hour Photo" and "Citizen Kane."
While this is an original screenplay by writer/director Omar Naim, it is faithful to a Philip Dick-type imagining of a techno-world in the not-so-distant future, with the bleakness, of both the excellent production design, cinematography, music and the story, only briefly mitigated.
I like how gradually we see the explanations and issues of memories from many different view points and issues, while one lives and dreams and how one lives on in other people's memories, as a multiplier effect in touching other people and our own souls.
Just as the interviews of family recall the journalist trying to understand Kane, the fine scene is a nice visual play on his famous mystifying "Rosebud," ironically demonstrating that someone outside one's head can never understand what is significant and meaningful to an individual, what goes into making that unique personality.
While I'm not sure it's such a bombshell that eulogies --in this case as visually edited "re-memories" culled from brain implants--are whitewashes (as pointedly satirized by Tom Wolfe in "Bonfire of the Vanities") and the political protesters seemed almost to be satirically out of a T. C. Boyle novel, James Caviezel's seriousness keeps them out of Unabomber territory.
One awkward miscast is Mira Sorvino. As if it's not already obvious why a Robin Williams would be attracted to a blonde bombshell, another layer of motivation is added, but it just makes absolutely no sense why she was drawn to him. Not only does this seem yet another instance of film's older man/younger woman tendencies, the character would have made a lot more sense as an older woman with a past.
The effective multiple screens showing the editing of "re-memories" may be difficult to distinguish on the eventual DVD, but I wasn't sure if the blown-up look was from projection issues.
While this is an original screenplay by writer/director Omar Naim, it is faithful to a Philip Dick-type imagining of a techno-world in the not-so-distant future, with the bleakness, of both the excellent production design, cinematography, music and the story, only briefly mitigated.
I like how gradually we see the explanations and issues of memories from many different view points and issues, while one lives and dreams and how one lives on in other people's memories, as a multiplier effect in touching other people and our own souls.
Just as the interviews of family recall the journalist trying to understand Kane, the fine scene is a nice visual play on his famous mystifying "Rosebud," ironically demonstrating that someone outside one's head can never understand what is significant and meaningful to an individual, what goes into making that unique personality.
While I'm not sure it's such a bombshell that eulogies --in this case as visually edited "re-memories" culled from brain implants--are whitewashes (as pointedly satirized by Tom Wolfe in "Bonfire of the Vanities") and the political protesters seemed almost to be satirically out of a T. C. Boyle novel, James Caviezel's seriousness keeps them out of Unabomber territory.
One awkward miscast is Mira Sorvino. As if it's not already obvious why a Robin Williams would be attracted to a blonde bombshell, another layer of motivation is added, but it just makes absolutely no sense why she was drawn to him. Not only does this seem yet another instance of film's older man/younger woman tendencies, the character would have made a lot more sense as an older woman with a past.
The effective multiple screens showing the editing of "re-memories" may be difficult to distinguish on the eventual DVD, but I wasn't sure if the blown-up look was from projection issues.
Steady film, that could have used couple of more minutes.
tomimt26 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
'The Final Cut' is small scale sci-fi flick, that has almost none existing special effects and that relies more on its plot and actors than action.
Alan Hakman (Robin Williams) is a cutter of memory films, which are recorded directly from peoples mind using a chip, that is installed on them on birth. He's considered extremely good in his work, as he doesn't mind of the sins he sees on the monitors flashing out the live stories of the deceased. He can forgive each sin, because he has a childhood sin of his own, that has haunted him for so long, that he's almost incapable of human relations.
Fletcher (James Caviezel) is on the other side of the scale. He is leading a group of activists, who want the memory recording banned. The see, that people have the right to execute their relationships without of fear of being recorded. Fletcher sees his big break, when he learns that Alan has the recording of hot shot lawyer of the implant company. There surely must be sins in his closet, which could be used to drive his cause.
'The Final Cut' is more a film about the human memory: how we remember things and what we remember. There isn't much of action and the film doesn't need that. The plot is interesting enough to carry through and the actors do very good job through out the film.
On the minus side the film is very short, only 1 and half hours, which leads on that other characters besides of Alan stay very underdeveloped, like his girlfriend Delila (Mira Sorvino), who had the opportunity of bringing interesting side plot to the film, but was never really used.
All in all good, well directed film, which could have been a bit longer.
Alan Hakman (Robin Williams) is a cutter of memory films, which are recorded directly from peoples mind using a chip, that is installed on them on birth. He's considered extremely good in his work, as he doesn't mind of the sins he sees on the monitors flashing out the live stories of the deceased. He can forgive each sin, because he has a childhood sin of his own, that has haunted him for so long, that he's almost incapable of human relations.
Fletcher (James Caviezel) is on the other side of the scale. He is leading a group of activists, who want the memory recording banned. The see, that people have the right to execute their relationships without of fear of being recorded. Fletcher sees his big break, when he learns that Alan has the recording of hot shot lawyer of the implant company. There surely must be sins in his closet, which could be used to drive his cause.
'The Final Cut' is more a film about the human memory: how we remember things and what we remember. There isn't much of action and the film doesn't need that. The plot is interesting enough to carry through and the actors do very good job through out the film.
On the minus side the film is very short, only 1 and half hours, which leads on that other characters besides of Alan stay very underdeveloped, like his girlfriend Delila (Mira Sorvino), who had the opportunity of bringing interesting side plot to the film, but was never really used.
All in all good, well directed film, which could have been a bit longer.
Editing lives
jotix10024 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Wouldn't it be great if one could just be able to cut parts of one's life and make that life appears as though a person had only good qualities and helped humanity in some sort of way? Alas, by editing those parts which are not good, a different sort of person emerges. In the end, if all these bad moments in life are erased we could see how people lived in a perfect world, yet, how can one justify wars, famine, holocausts and all those things mankind has seen again, and again.
The idea of being able to implant a chip that will record one's existence on earth is an interesting theory. When a chip can be loaded into a computer device and past moments of that person's life can be seen by anyone with the proper equipment, it can prove a brilliant tool, but since all good and bad moments are recorded forever, at the end of a life, editing what was painful can be deleted with the help of the computer that enabled to have the device implanted, in the first place.
Omar Naim, the director of "The Final Cut", has some provocative ideas for his viewers. Yes, we all go along with what he presents to us, but when Alan Hakman, the mysterious editor at the center of the film, discovers something that will damage a man's reputation, why not expose that aspect of the flawed character, even though it might be painful for the people still damaged by his actions.
Robin Williams is an actor that working with the right director, can give excellent performances, as proved here. Jim Caviezel is seen as the mysterious Fletcher. The only discordant note from the casting is Mira Sorvino, whose Delila doesn't add anything to the story, and has no chemistry with Mr. Williams' character.
"The Final Cut" would have been an excellent film, had the director tried to explore some of the possibilities that are opened when a "cutter" gets a hold of the chip that contains a life. The film will not disappoint sci-fi fans though as it shows a promising new director, Omar Naim.
The idea of being able to implant a chip that will record one's existence on earth is an interesting theory. When a chip can be loaded into a computer device and past moments of that person's life can be seen by anyone with the proper equipment, it can prove a brilliant tool, but since all good and bad moments are recorded forever, at the end of a life, editing what was painful can be deleted with the help of the computer that enabled to have the device implanted, in the first place.
Omar Naim, the director of "The Final Cut", has some provocative ideas for his viewers. Yes, we all go along with what he presents to us, but when Alan Hakman, the mysterious editor at the center of the film, discovers something that will damage a man's reputation, why not expose that aspect of the flawed character, even though it might be painful for the people still damaged by his actions.
Robin Williams is an actor that working with the right director, can give excellent performances, as proved here. Jim Caviezel is seen as the mysterious Fletcher. The only discordant note from the casting is Mira Sorvino, whose Delila doesn't add anything to the story, and has no chemistry with Mr. Williams' character.
"The Final Cut" would have been an excellent film, had the director tried to explore some of the possibilities that are opened when a "cutter" gets a hold of the chip that contains a life. The film will not disappoint sci-fi fans though as it shows a promising new director, Omar Naim.
FORGETTABLE
Rack-Focus19 October 2004
What if someone could watch as your life flashed before your eyes? That's the premise of THE FINAL CUT (TFC), a movie that raises intriguing questions about privacy, truth, and memory, but unfortunately, leaves the answers on the cutting room floor.
TFC fast forwards from our post-911 world of surveillance cams and camera phones to a time when one in five people carry an organic TiVo in their brain. The Zoe Chip records everything seen and heard until death. Then 'cutters' convert a lifetime of memory into a movie-length 'rememory' for survivors.
ROBIN WILLIAMS plays Alan Hakman (hack man, get it?). He's the best, an artist able to turn mortal sinners into saints while keeping their worst secrets safe. Hakman's newest job is to makeover Charles Bannister, a nasty corporate lawyer employed by the implant company, Eye Tech.
Former cutter Fletcher, JIM CAVIEZEL, and other implant opponents want Bannister's memories. They're convinced it holds secrets that could destroy Eye Tech. But Hakman won't let go, in part because he's found something in Bannister could destroy his own life.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: TFC raises interesting questions. Should we always tell the truth about the past or should we look back at the past through rose colored glasses. Were the Happy Days of the 1950s really that good? Was the Kennedy era really Camelot?
However, instead of attempting to answer such questions, TFC fades into a forgettable film about corporate conspiracies and criminal acts. And that makes it not worth remembering.
TFC fast forwards from our post-911 world of surveillance cams and camera phones to a time when one in five people carry an organic TiVo in their brain. The Zoe Chip records everything seen and heard until death. Then 'cutters' convert a lifetime of memory into a movie-length 'rememory' for survivors.
ROBIN WILLIAMS plays Alan Hakman (hack man, get it?). He's the best, an artist able to turn mortal sinners into saints while keeping their worst secrets safe. Hakman's newest job is to makeover Charles Bannister, a nasty corporate lawyer employed by the implant company, Eye Tech.
Former cutter Fletcher, JIM CAVIEZEL, and other implant opponents want Bannister's memories. They're convinced it holds secrets that could destroy Eye Tech. But Hakman won't let go, in part because he's found something in Bannister could destroy his own life.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: TFC raises interesting questions. Should we always tell the truth about the past or should we look back at the past through rose colored glasses. Were the Happy Days of the 1950s really that good? Was the Kennedy era really Camelot?
However, instead of attempting to answer such questions, TFC fades into a forgettable film about corporate conspiracies and criminal acts. And that makes it not worth remembering.
A complete Disappointment, and waste of time!
ibanezman625 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Well, I was looking forward to a suspenseful thriller, as the movie was suggested to be. What I got couldn't have been further from the truth. While the plot seemed interested at first, it was SOOO slow as I DESPERATELY waited for something interesting to come about. Robin Williams was nothing short of dull and showed only the most insipid emotions. The story was very weak and the conflict almost pathetic.
In the distant future, micro-chips are planted in a person's brain to record their every waking moment with video and sound. Williams plays a "Cutter", someone who views people's lives and edits them to show only the high points for a memorial service viewed by their loved ones after they die. As we see in the very beginning of the film, Williams is a child, and watches his friend die (or so we think), and then feels responsible for this accident. After that, he has no life of his own and spends the rest of his time involved in editing other peoples lives.
The earlier accident haunts him for the rest of the movie. Anyway, while he is working on editing the life of a big time CEO who was in charge of the corporation which designed the micro-chip, he surprisingly notices a man that looks exactly like his friend who supposedly died years ago. Williams also finds out that the CEO molested his daughter. This is where Caviezel greets us with his "powerful" presence.
Caviezel, an old acquaintance of Williams, finds the idea of "cutting" immoral and is desperately in search of finding any "dirt" on the corporation to stop what they have done. As you might be able to guess, WIlliams is chased by Caviezel while searching for a way to forgive himself. Basically, this film goes nowhere and leaves you wondering if you could have spent your time more effectively. Mira Sorvino and Jim Caviezel served absolutely no purpose in this film. While this movie had the potential to be an exciting and enthralling story, it wasn't! Please, I urge you not to bother with this, and find something else to do.
In the distant future, micro-chips are planted in a person's brain to record their every waking moment with video and sound. Williams plays a "Cutter", someone who views people's lives and edits them to show only the high points for a memorial service viewed by their loved ones after they die. As we see in the very beginning of the film, Williams is a child, and watches his friend die (or so we think), and then feels responsible for this accident. After that, he has no life of his own and spends the rest of his time involved in editing other peoples lives.
The earlier accident haunts him for the rest of the movie. Anyway, while he is working on editing the life of a big time CEO who was in charge of the corporation which designed the micro-chip, he surprisingly notices a man that looks exactly like his friend who supposedly died years ago. Williams also finds out that the CEO molested his daughter. This is where Caviezel greets us with his "powerful" presence.
Caviezel, an old acquaintance of Williams, finds the idea of "cutting" immoral and is desperately in search of finding any "dirt" on the corporation to stop what they have done. As you might be able to guess, WIlliams is chased by Caviezel while searching for a way to forgive himself. Basically, this film goes nowhere and leaves you wondering if you could have spent your time more effectively. Mira Sorvino and Jim Caviezel served absolutely no purpose in this film. While this movie had the potential to be an exciting and enthralling story, it wasn't! Please, I urge you not to bother with this, and find something else to do.
Promising Trailer and Premise, Awful Execution
claudio_carvalho30 October 2005
In a near undefined future, people may have a Zoe microchip implanted in their nervous system to permit their families retrieve the best moments of their memories and watch on video after their deaths. This process is called "Rememory" and Alan H. Hakman (Robin Williams), a man traumatized by an incident in his childhood, is the best cutter of the Eye Tech Corporation. The company is facing groups that oppose to the "Rememory" and the ex-cutter Fletcher (Jim Caviezel) is leading these opponents. When Alan is assigned to prepare the final cut of the memories of the Eye Tech lawyer Charles Bannister, his Zoe chip is disputed by Fletcher. Meanwhile, Alan finds that he has also an implanted microchip, which is against the rules of a cutter.
When I saw the trailer of "The Final Cut", I became anxious to see this promising sci-fi movie. Unfortunately, the awful execution spoils the great premise. The story has a good beginning, but when Alan finds his implant, the movie gets completely lost of direction. Most of the characters are horribly developed. Delila (Mira Sorvino) is completely inconsistent, has no chemistry with Robin Williams and their relationship is totally weird. The cutter Alan (Robin Williams) finds that he has an implant, which is against the policy of Eye Tech. But this technology is a monopoly of Eye Tech, and the information about Alan is in the database and could be easily checked when he was hired. Therefore, how could he be hired to the function of cutter? Jim Caviezel has a horrible interpretation, and the relationship of Jennifer Bannister (Stephanie Romaniov the Lilah of "Angel") with her deceased husband is not clear. Further, if Charles Bannister knew that he had an implant, how could he abuse of his own daughter? The screenplay of this cheesy movie has so many holes and flaws that look like a Suisse cheese. My vote is five.
Title (Brazil): "Invasão de Privacidade" ("Privacy Invasion")
When I saw the trailer of "The Final Cut", I became anxious to see this promising sci-fi movie. Unfortunately, the awful execution spoils the great premise. The story has a good beginning, but when Alan finds his implant, the movie gets completely lost of direction. Most of the characters are horribly developed. Delila (Mira Sorvino) is completely inconsistent, has no chemistry with Robin Williams and their relationship is totally weird. The cutter Alan (Robin Williams) finds that he has an implant, which is against the policy of Eye Tech. But this technology is a monopoly of Eye Tech, and the information about Alan is in the database and could be easily checked when he was hired. Therefore, how could he be hired to the function of cutter? Jim Caviezel has a horrible interpretation, and the relationship of Jennifer Bannister (Stephanie Romaniov the Lilah of "Angel") with her deceased husband is not clear. Further, if Charles Bannister knew that he had an implant, how could he abuse of his own daughter? The screenplay of this cheesy movie has so many holes and flaws that look like a Suisse cheese. My vote is five.
Title (Brazil): "Invasão de Privacidade" ("Privacy Invasion")
Sounds like The Story Line is Pilfered from William Thien's Novel titled The Dream Chip
MoviegoerinWI23 August 2014
The premise of this novel is almost identical to William Thien's novel titled The Dream Chip where a corporation uploads the thoughts and memories of the recently departed.
But William Thien's novel has way more guts as the premise also involves the same corporation that creates the technology to do that and taking on big, overbearing, intrusive government as well.
Another title, one more recent, Transcendence, has a very similar premise as The Final Cut and William Thien's novel The Dream Chip as well. In Transcendence the main character even has the same first name as the author of the novel titled The Dream Chip as if for some reason Hollywood is fixated on this guy named William Thien and making all of these box office flops instead of just buying the rights to his novel and making the real thing. It's as if Hollywood insists on pilfering ideas from the novels of relatively unknown writers so they don't have to pay anyone.
Clearly Hollywood is in the business of making propaganda, some of it pretty unsettling. But is it socialist, big government propaganda or corporate propaganda or are for some reason members of a particular religion involved in some form of religious propaganda? Maybe reading Thien's book before you watch this movie, will give you some answers.
And why does The Writer's Guild of American (WGA) have a script registry again?
But William Thien's novel has way more guts as the premise also involves the same corporation that creates the technology to do that and taking on big, overbearing, intrusive government as well.
Another title, one more recent, Transcendence, has a very similar premise as The Final Cut and William Thien's novel The Dream Chip as well. In Transcendence the main character even has the same first name as the author of the novel titled The Dream Chip as if for some reason Hollywood is fixated on this guy named William Thien and making all of these box office flops instead of just buying the rights to his novel and making the real thing. It's as if Hollywood insists on pilfering ideas from the novels of relatively unknown writers so they don't have to pay anyone.
Clearly Hollywood is in the business of making propaganda, some of it pretty unsettling. But is it socialist, big government propaganda or corporate propaganda or are for some reason members of a particular religion involved in some form of religious propaganda? Maybe reading Thien's book before you watch this movie, will give you some answers.
And why does The Writer's Guild of American (WGA) have a script registry again?
interesting idea
kairingler8 July 2013
I really enjoyed Robin Williams performance in this movie. Mira Sorvino was also pretty good. what an interesting idea this movie does present us. what if.... and the end of you're life someone could take out all of the bad things you did or thought about.. and have someone re-arrange all of you're memories to where only the pleasant stuff came to surface,, therefore when people went to you're funeral you would be fondly remembered. well this is the job that is set for our main character to accomplish,, this time he has to make over a nasty lawyer's life,, and there is something that he has seen that he shouldn't have and therefore his life is threatened and his life is now in danger. Robin Williams recently has played a few bad guys, and a few creepy ones.. it's a refreshing turn for me as only ever seen him in comedies.. and his stand-up, and the ever popular Mork and Mindy on TV. this is a dark movie, and very well done,, I will watch it again soon.
This movie definitely makes the final cut
view_and_review22 February 2007
I just happened to stumble upon this movie and I began watching because I saw Robin Williams. After watching it I once again had to praise my channel surfing and visual content identifying skills. This was an amazing movie yet again showing the incomparable talent of Robin Williams. Though Williams adds a lot to this movie, the movie was a gem in itself. "Final Cut" had me pondering many things, such as: what if I had a recording chip in my head, would I alter my behavior? Would I be more careful of what I looked at? And if I was a cutter, would I keep quiet about the things I saw? The concept of this story is brilliant and its execution is equally brilliant. Director and writer Omar Naim is well on his way if he continues to produce masterpieces like this.
I'm a Robin Williams fan....
tavegia4 June 2005
This movie bored me to death! The plot to The Final Cut was weak and the acting very unreal. Enough information was left out of the movie for one to not understand why certain things or people were doing what they were doing. I felt it was a waste of the $3.99 I had to pay to rent it! In one scene, Robin Williams is visiting with a family where a child had been abused and he had viewed it. He shows no true compassion or concern but appears to let the child know that he knew her secret. Emotionless and BORING! I would not recommend this movie nor would I force myself to watch it again. My husband fell asleep half way through the movie and he is more of a fan than I.
Thought provoking
krowley-5759312 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I read through all 14 pages of these reviews to see if someone else had thought what I thought about the ending, and I did not see it, so here goes ... The movie is about a cutter from a time in the future when parents can decide to pay to implant a chip in their baby's brain that records their whole life. A Cutter's job is to review their life after they die and create a film from their implant recording to show at the person's funeral, which they called a "Re-Memory." This practice upset many people who picketed at Re-Memories. They felt it was a privacy invasion, that people should live in the moment, and keep their own memories -- why allow someone, a stranger, to cut and choose pieces of someone's life and put it together the way they choose? This whole premise, I believe, is why the ending was cut the way it was. We didn't like the way the director cut this movie any more than the people in this movie liked the way a Cutter cuts and creates a movie of the lives of these people.
Painted Over
tedg22 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this with another, supposedly failed independent film "American Strays." Both seemed successful to me.
Its almost never the perfection of production values or the fact that the story is neatly explored that matters to me. Its whether the thing affixes, whether it twists and evolves something I have.
The story has two threads.
One is a thriller-formatted version of the traditional noir form, average guy finds himself arbitrarily manipulated by forces connected to the existence of an audience. That thread is wound around an intensely folded device that has the audience in the film, watchers of POV films of complete lives. An annotation within this thread indulges in a new wave observation of how narrative bends reality.
I find all of that remarkably successful, including the usual but in this case unexpected end where we discover that everything we have seen is "rememoried." The usually vapid Williams is entirely right here. Because of his Rainbow Randolph, I can forgive several Sean Maguires. In this case, though, he really pins it. I attribute that to decades of image- centric psychotherapy, where the patient is asked to recall things cinematically.
If you have not seen this, the setup is that by unimportant means people's lives are captured as POV films. The films, capture "truth." After death, a filmmaker modifies that truth by selection so that the memory of the individual is pleasantly colored. The filmmaker of focus, Williams, is particularly good at this bending. Because of a childhood trauma, he adopts the posture of retroactive therapist, a "sin eater," purifying his characters.
He finds that he unexpectedly has one of these internal cameras installed and both freaks out as a result and illicitly uses the recall to re-remember the trauma, discovering that the filmed version differs from his memory, the filmed version releasing him from guilt. But at the very end, we discover that whet we have seen in the re-remembered version could have been changed by the Caviziel character. This, we know because the final scene is a transition from the POV of the recording to the fourth wall of the noir viewer.
Pretty effective. Pretty intelligent. Pretty cinematic.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
Its almost never the perfection of production values or the fact that the story is neatly explored that matters to me. Its whether the thing affixes, whether it twists and evolves something I have.
The story has two threads.
One is a thriller-formatted version of the traditional noir form, average guy finds himself arbitrarily manipulated by forces connected to the existence of an audience. That thread is wound around an intensely folded device that has the audience in the film, watchers of POV films of complete lives. An annotation within this thread indulges in a new wave observation of how narrative bends reality.
I find all of that remarkably successful, including the usual but in this case unexpected end where we discover that everything we have seen is "rememoried." The usually vapid Williams is entirely right here. Because of his Rainbow Randolph, I can forgive several Sean Maguires. In this case, though, he really pins it. I attribute that to decades of image- centric psychotherapy, where the patient is asked to recall things cinematically.
If you have not seen this, the setup is that by unimportant means people's lives are captured as POV films. The films, capture "truth." After death, a filmmaker modifies that truth by selection so that the memory of the individual is pleasantly colored. The filmmaker of focus, Williams, is particularly good at this bending. Because of a childhood trauma, he adopts the posture of retroactive therapist, a "sin eater," purifying his characters.
He finds that he unexpectedly has one of these internal cameras installed and both freaks out as a result and illicitly uses the recall to re-remember the trauma, discovering that the filmed version differs from his memory, the filmed version releasing him from guilt. But at the very end, we discover that whet we have seen in the re-remembered version could have been changed by the Caviziel character. This, we know because the final scene is a transition from the POV of the recording to the fourth wall of the noir viewer.
Pretty effective. Pretty intelligent. Pretty cinematic.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
