If you want a movie with closure, don't watch this. It's such a slow burn that even crystal meth would have barely gotten me through it, yet power away I did and I want my nearly 2 hours back. I prefer not to watch movies to wonder what the hell happened. It's very open at the end and if that's your thing, check this out. Otherwise, I'd suggest a hard pass.

Juliette Binoche is nearly pitch perfect. Nice complimentary work by Daniel Auteuil. But the main strokes of greatness here were worked by writer/director Michael Haneke. They guy never takes the easy, comfortable route in bringing out the ideas and themes he's looking to explore. This one takes the form of a mystery drama, of sorts. Someone is sending this rather nonsdescript couple (meant for the parents, not the children to tussle with) these random odd but off-putting videos of the exterior of their home, along with these childlike drawings involving what must be meant as blood. But the mystery is not what Haneke is getting at. It's more the means he uses to prick at our psyches over who may be doing this, and certainly why. There's the theme of trust given and betrayed. Also, how we rationalize dubious to very tragic actions of the past, and even avoid the subject until it fades into negligible history. It becomes clear fairly soon that it's something to do with the husband/father, Georges, and his past. There are a couple of very brief, disturbing shots/images early in the film that are not in the flow of the story, but a moment from the past that has real impact on the present. Notice how Haneke can affect the viewer as intended without a score to subliminally or outwardly influence our emotional reactions. A confounding movie, as Haneke wanted, "Cache" uses a different sort of spin on the base ideas of invasion of privacy and unexpected exposure, using your average little nuclear family to show it could happen to most anyone. 4 stars

Balanced transition right at the middle whereas the story been proven secondary and discussed its direction from inspired Hitchcockian tactic to a domestically connective theme of collective guilt while leaning more towards the former upgraded to observe and study, concluding this captivating and sympathetic psychological thriller open-endedly with engaging interpretations to ponder afterwards despite not exactly reaching up to its full potential due to the relevance of thematic blockage. (B+)

For those of you who are wary of subtitles, get over it. Cachè is a great drama / thriller... as long as you pay attention.

("Caché" / "Hidden") This was okay, except that the ending wasn't clear. What happens next?

5.7/10 — "Mediocre"/"Passable"

Other than one truly horrific scene, Cache is a suspense film that relies on a unique story and creative direction to impose its chills and sense of foreboding. A French couple begin to receive lengthy surveillance videos of their home, sometimes accompanied by macabre and child-like drawings, from an unknown source. As their suspicions and anxieties steadily increase, it begins to take a substantial toll on their seemingly stable relationship. Director Michael Haneke handles things with an Ozu-like grace, using a stationary camera to objectively document the events as they unfold. The primarily static shots are beautifully blocked, most notably the elevator scene where the protagonist stands face-to-face with the son of the alleged antagonist, a single shot that creates a true sense of dread and discomfort.

A thriller-mystery that is legitimately unnerving despite being suprisingly reserved and small-scale. Refreshingly realistic for the genre, thriving in domestic discord, uncertainty, and mistrust, Caché focuses squarely on the human elements to propel its character-driven story. The film's refusal to provide concrete answers to the questions that it poses with regard to the actual perpetrator, their motivations, and the outcome of the finale, will certainly aggravate some viewers, but ultimately allows the director to preserve the carefully crafted 'nails-on-the-chalkboard' aura after the credits roll. One particularly interesting element of the film is its treatment of subplots, which often don't reveal a direct tie to the main story, instead only allowing tangential conclusions to be drawn about certain characters that invite further speculation. (4.5/5)

The movie is just boring. Nothing happens. Nothing gets accomplished. The opening is not a great hook. The ending leaves you wondering why you paid money to see this. This movie is the definition of a scam. Have money lying around and would like to pay for something to put you to sleep? By all means purchase or rent this trash movie. And if you don't want to waste your money, I can summarize the movie for free. The movie is a about a couple who get sent VHS tapes of themselves. They have a stalker. They panic and are unsettled throughout the whole film. Eventually the main character has a hunch as to who the movie maker is, but turns out he is wrong. And by the end of the movie you figure out who is filming them but nothing happens. No justice. You get a half-baked effort for a confrontation and they both go their own ways. This movie is a waste of time and should have never been created. I would like to see someone try and argue how this movie is ahead of it's time and how it's a masterpiece. It's impossible to argue for something with that thing has no meaning. This movie is meaningless and pure trash.

Maybe I watched a different film than everyone else? Maybe I've just seen better and more effective films that cover similar themes that have been made in the past 15 years? I don't know, all I know is this film for some reason has glowing reviews (probably because anything made by an already established auteur people eat up and do mental gymnastics to justify because it makes them feel smart), and I was completely unimpressed by it. I don't care that the mystery didn't resolve. I get it, it's more cerebral to have a mystery movie where things are left ambiguous. I'm fine with that. What bothers me is that there's no story here. This is a film of nothingness. The main conflict of the story with Georges guilt ends up being totally lame and banal. We're led on for 90 minutes to increasingly feel tense about what Georges could've done in his past and then all that tension just kinda flops over when it's revealed that, actually, he didn't really do anything that unspeakable, it was just a childhood lie like he said in the first third of the movie. Great, I'm glad that I wasted two hours on a story that could've been summed up in a sentence. And then aside from that central conflict, there's...nothing else going on in the movie. I mean there's lots of little breadcrumbs here and there but none of them particularly go anywhere, or are original in any way. Like the hinted affair between Anne and Pierre...like wow Haneke, a cheating wife, that's really a clever and original storyline I've never seen in any movie before. I'm wondering why it was even included when it barely has anything to do with the movie and only takes up like two scenes, but then again maybe he knew how boring that kind of plot was and that's why it's never expanded upon. Ultimately, I know why people eat up Haneke's work. It's supposed to be challenging. But there's a difference between a story that is challenging because it's smartly conceived, and a story which is challenging because it's not a story at all. One takes great skill to create, and the other any schmuck handed a camera could make. Guess which category this movie falls in.

On any given day or two, you can usually find me at home firing up the DVD/Blu-Ray player and watching a foreign language film or, as they are now calling it, an international film. Whatever they call it, foreign language or international, any film NOT American-made is usually far better than the crap we in the U.S.A. put out (sorry, America!). CACHE is no exception here. The premise is a no-brainer: A successful married couple start receiving disturbing videotapes and drawings that rattle their nerves and open up buried secrets. What French director Michael Haneke does with this simple outline is he builds often unbearable Hitchcockian suspense to a finale that is about as nontraditional as you they come. Other than this description, I care not to delve any further. Through my watching of the Special Features of the film, some have said that in the last scene, they witnessed the young boy of the married couple and the son of the possible distributor of the eerie creativity together on the steps of a school. Some have said they didn't see any of this in the last scene, and that the ending is just how the married couple, because of their trauma and unresolved guilt and shame, are going to pass all that on to their little boy. I watched the final scene over and over again, and I thought I saw the married couple's young boy leaving the school but not the son. What I witnessed, though, was a last shot of a school where parents are picking up their children apparently after school and how ALL the parents, not just the ones in the film, pass on their trauma and unresolved guilt and shame to their children. Of course, this is hardly the parents' fault, yet it is often enough a seriously disturbing reality. Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche as the parents give masterful performances that are carefully nuanced to their particular reaction to this placed-upon fear, and their response to same is not always on equal footing. The actor who played the sick distributor, if he was the distributor, I found particularly compelling, as it must have been the choice of the actor and director Haneke to make this villain very soft and unimposing and incredibly fragile, which in turn made the character even more disturbing. As someone who has played many villains onstage, I tended to act loud and assuming, thinking that is how a villain acts, but I recall that it was in the tender moments of my characters' madness onstage that was probably what frigidly chilled the bones of the audience present. Any film that wants you to find other films by the same director is a really good thing, and CACHE has me on the hunt for more work by brilliant French director, Michael Haneke. He's that good….and so is CACHE!

Not a thriller in the sense that you're on the edge of your seat...but one that intends to make you constantly question. Filled with small twists, you've got to pay attention...

Near plotless, agonisingly slow and self-indulgent, 3 things that really irk me

Caché, also known as Hidden, is a 2005 psychological thriller film written and directed by Michael Haneke. An interesting and original narrative with themes of collective memory and guilt over colonialism, and surveillance. 1001 PdON

It was a good movie. It was just ok until I read the wiki page explaininh that it's an allegory to the 1961 French Algerian war, plus the concepts of guilt from childhood events. Supposedly if you leave the theatre wondering who sent the tapes (like I did) then we completely missed the point of the film.... mmhmmm.

I love indie films and this one was pretty cool. Well done!!

The worst movie I've ever seen.

The "chilling", "thriller" aspect of this is way overstated, in my opinion. Its somewhat creepy, but nothing compared to what he's done before. What IS brilliant is the structure and craft of the thing. the intentional confusion of the framing of the scenes, and the ultimately unknowable narrative. The last scenes were especially perfect.

Michael Haneke demands a lot of his audience. He never patronizes, and he trusts that the viewer is intelligent enough to deduce the human complexity on display. At the same time, he brilliantly creates excitement and tension by making us investigate every frame. He only uses close-ups when there is complex, hidden emotion to decipher; every master shot is voyeuristic and haunting. This is masterful, sophisticated filmmaking. A brilliant story about trust, morality, and consequences. Plain and simple.

It may take a few viewings to sort out and fully experience, but Caché is a great film, with thrills and chills hidden away under its core human story. It's probably the only thriller I've seen with next to no cliches. It feels like a peak into real life.