Remove the one-take gimmick and there's not much there

You couldn't be more wrong......

I couldn't disagree with you more. You are looking at the story in an all-too-simple way, one should look at it as a whole. I can't think of any movies out there about a young woman willingly going into an armed bank robbery or any life-and-death situation with a bunch of guys she just met on the street couple hours ago. I think the story itself is already a fascinating study of human character, and how far one would go to feel belonged when one is lonely for a long period of time. The one-take makes the film even more engrossing because you see the seamless transition of the relationship between Victoria and the four guys, and how her decision-making was based on her desperation to not be alone, and cling on to any relationship or friendship that she manages to build, however brief it has been.

If the filmmaker did not make it one-take, he would still be able to make it a good film because the story is already an interesting one. But I wouldn't call the one-take as a gimmick. It is a very important part of the storytelling, and making sure the audience goes through the transition along with the protagonist without missing any elements.

I also disagree; it would've been EVEN BETTER without the gimmick. Because if there was editing, they could have...

...Shortened unnecessarily long scenes, like the cafe conversation.
...Shown close-ups more quickly and effectively, instead of panning around to show faces.
...Relied less on handheld cameras. Since it was all one take, handheld was necessary everywhere, and this made some scenes too shaky, like when they run from the police.

Why did they do it in one take, anyways? Because it takes place in real time? You don't need a single take to show real time. Look at the TV series "24".

[deleted]

Here's the thing though - even if true, why would it matter. The breathtakingly crafted perfection creation from long takes such as this, Russian Ark and Tarr's Macbeth (granted, one shot pre-credits).

You seem to carte far more about story than technique, that's fine. Personally I don't think story needs to be important - it is all about the form, the structure and the technique. It is the same as how a brilliannt writer can craft a book. With the right description or is the case of cinema - shot/shots - a trip to the mailbox can be extraordinary.

I love this film for the realism this technique adds - that is the freshness that makes the film so spectacular. It genuinly feels like you are there with them and in less than two and a far hours we go from a drunken night out, and through completely extraordinary circumstances.

I do actualy think the improvisation and the slow pace could have made a great film with a somewhat similar feel even if there were done more ordinarily - there's a lot more here to love than just the single shot - and similar traditionally contemplative tools could have been added - but the fact that it was just one shot is what made it stand out and gave it the extreme suspense and urgency the end product had.

My 1000 favorite films - http://www.imdb.com/list/PkAV7BgvMJg

i have to agree. tbh i found this film pointless. the first hour was meant to engage me with the characters, presumably so i would care when they got shot. but i found the conversations really tedious and superficial, like the characters themselves. the characters were generally idiots and/or unlikeable, especially victoria who seems to have some sort of personality disorder, given her decision to kidnap a baby and the speed of her emotional recovery when sonne died in front of her. the pacing was horrible, the plot far fetched and the characters utterly disposable. i won't be recommending this film to anyone.

You can seperate the film from its technical accomplishment. All we can do is review and appraise the film we see presented. Not some fantasy film that doesn't exist.

Armond White - yes that Armond White - once made a very good point about this. When asked if a film showed signs of meddling behind the scenes, he said that didn't interest him. That's fodder for gossip websites. He just reviews what is on screen.