User reviews

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

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.

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.

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.

Set in a world with memory implants, Robin Williams plays a cutter, someone with the power of final edit over people's recorded histories. His latest assignment is one that puts him in danger.

While this is an interesting science fiction universe in and of itself, it also has an interesting message on surveillance and Neo-Luddism. While the idea of having your life on film for future generations may sound pleasant (or horrible), it puts everyone in the path of a camera -- anyone who looks at you may be recording your every move.

This is an idea that is thoughtful and well-presented. Maybe they could have explored the theme more, and it might even be worth returning to this universe in a future film...

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

I thought that this movie was very good. Well made and written up until the ending. I will not describe for those that still have not seen it but it is upsetting. I still recommend this movie to everyone, especially those that still do not think that Robin Williams is capable of playing serious roles. If you are interested in seeing other films like this one by Robin Williams, I will have to recommend the World According to Garp. Although this other movie includes a few more comedic lines, it has a similar character who meets the same fate. Another movie I would have to recommend to all those that enjoyed this movie is What Dreams May Come.

I was not going to write a review about this film, although reading how so many people seem to hate it, I felt compelled to do it. For what I've read on the forums, for example, some people seem to believe that there is no plot here. ???

My only explanation to this is that certain ideas of the movie are so subtle that many people would simply miss them. Or, perhaps, it's like somebody said: there are no explosions or car chases...

I personally found a lot of very deep plot lines and moral dilemmas underneath the obvious. Who knows, maybe it's just me, I didn't go on the internet searching for the true meanings of this movie nor anything. In any case, I believe that it's exactly what you cannot see and the hints what makes the true plot. Take for example what you do NOT see of the issue with the daughter and the father.

Simply put, this is not a "in your face" kind of movie. It's a flick for you to think, to get involved in the ramifications of what you see and don't.

The movie is not perfect, of course, it has its flaws and little plot holes, but I find them to be minuscule (that part when Williams has got 5 minutes to dive in the memory -not giving more details in order to avoid spoilers- is somehow a bit dodgy).

Yet again, I could be wrong and there's no utter motives or dilemmas behind the obvious and it's all in my head. However, I do not think I am such a privileged and gifted person in this aspect. I consider this movie quite acceptable if you allow yourself to look at the possibilities instead of just staying on the surface. Still, no explosions for you Michael Bay fans out there...

Cutters splice together the dead's memories for viewing at their funerals which have been recorded by the Zoe implants. They work under three specific rules. Alan Hakman (Robin Williams) is a dedicated cutter whose latest controversial job is connected to a childhood trauma which still haunts him.

This undercooked sci-fi premise is not thought out completely. The basic idea has obvious corruption possibilities. It's hard to imagine people doing this without self-control unless it's compulsory. Somebody just needs to ask a few more questions before the premise gets used. It's what I call high school sci-fi writing. The religious opposition is too easy in a way. Wiping your glasses is too general to be specific like that. I wipe my glasses like that. All of that is excusable. Sci-fi can use simplistic ideas to great effect. The bigger sin is its slow first half. I do like that the movie is showing us this world but it's slow visually. His job is basically sitting, interviewing, and watching video. It's not a kinetic job. While everybody else is driven by bigger issues, he's driven by an interior personal issue. It does try to get into some interesting ideas but it feels ham-fisted. It can never feel real. The attempt is interesting but the execution is lacking.

The strength of the movie lies in the theme, it makes the viewer think. The Grey matter is given some food to munch on. Robin Williams as always is brilliant. But it doesn't really gel in that you see that everything apart from the concept of the memory implant is so like today's world. On one hand there are 9th generation Zoe implants and on the other hand the filing system is so primitive. Lock and key lockers for storing files. Same old buses. Hardly any security at the building when Williams is looking for files etc. If science has progressed so much in one field then surely other things should have changed. It seems to be an anachronism. Overall for the good theme- recommended

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.

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.