AKA (2002)

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

A Masterpiece!

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

those of you who saw this in the theater (cinema, for any Brits reading this), as i did, might be interested to know that i have been told that the DVD release is in single-screen format. because of this, i intend to have another look at this film, on DVD. while i found the triptych format interesting at first, it came to be a distraction when used for the film's entire length. that device is not sustainable for such a long time and detracts from the film, as the viewer becomes more focused on form than on content, IMHO. others who saw this in theaters and were disappointed by it might want to give it another try on DVD this time.

I enjoyed this movie for the interaction between the characters. THere were many characters and a large number of them were drawn without much development. However, the character of Dean, Benjamin, and Alexander were well done. We could see what Dean was struggling with and how he attempted to cope with it and where it went. Unlike the less well-drawn characters, more of Dean is revealed when he interacts with Alexander and Benjamin.Unlike some others, I enjoyed the split screen. I thought that the different images worked together to create the tension and dynamics of many scenes. Having looked at the movie both this way and as it was shown on TV, I think the TV version lost a lot of the power of the scenes. However, it made the story seem less linear. My main regret was not having scene it on the big screen. The three screens become rather small on a TV.I would recommend this movie but it is not for everyone.

This offering was recently presented on Sundance Channel without much fanfare. I had never heard of it before, in fact. The comparison to "Mr. Ripley" is immediately obvious at about thirty minutes in. If I had not subsequently learned more about evidence of an autobiographical source, I would have judged it a poor copy of the Highsmith novel and film.Nevertheless, I rather liked it as a whole. The version I saw was limited not so much by any split-screen device as it was by extremely shoddy editing. Great gaps in both story line and character development occur almost from the start, and I was left floundering from time to time until I could infer this or that bit by slogging onward. Had it not been for a great supporting cast I might have switched it off before other redeeming pieces fell into place.Those better features included an accurate social setting for 1978, some interesting costumes, and one or two experiences of the character played by Matthew Leitch in Paris that approximated some of my own contemporaneous involvements with that city. In other words, I am not able to be completely objective, and will say no more.

I loved this film. I just loved it. I was so amazed by the split screen. I saw it at Sundance and I was blown away. I very rarely cry during a movie but I sat there in the dark and cried. It was so moving and beautiful. Of course it reminded me of other stuff but I just felt that due to the split screen device I left the movie having had a unique experience. I read these other reviews and wondered if we had all seen the same thing. The bad ones are totally inacurate. I urge you to go and see this film and make up your own mind.