I did have a chance to see "Cache" at the Laurelhurst Theater yesterday. It's a very interesting film. Among the most accurate reviews I've read of it is by Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune. Links to many other reviews can be found at the mighty "Rotten Tomatoes" web site.
In a very small nutshell, the film is about an upper middle class French couple with a 12-year-old son who start to receive videotapes on their front door step. The first is simply footage of the front of their residence, lasting the length of the tape:
There is no reason given why anyone is doing this. Read the reviews to find out more, but I can highly recommend the film. It might even be MORE effective watching it at home on a DVD! I'd just suggest watching it with someone else in the room.
There should be a new category for films like this. It's a thriller without thrills, a horror movie without horror in the tradition sense. Perhaps the best way to describe it would be an "unsettler."
From a technical standpoint, I wanted to see it because it's shot on high definition video. Undoubtedly, this was an aesthetic choice by the film-maker...in this way, it's often impossible to determine if the images you're watching are the movie itself, or the footage shot by the "terrorizer" that is merely being watched by the characters. Thus, the line between the characters and audience is blurred.
High definition video interests me because if I make a feature film, it might very well be HI-DV because it's so much cheaper. I'd prefer to shoot on film but MAN the stuff is expensive! Anyway, watching established film-makers use it --another example is "Collateral" by Michael Mann -- is very instructive.
Of course, an awesome story, such as those employed by "Cache" or "Collateral," help a lot. Ah, there's always a sticking point!