People on the boards below have labelled this film as 'challenging' - they're right. It's difficult to compare with other films - certainly any not by Haneke, such is the power of contemporary, original cinematography. Shot in a long series of short scenes which, to someone glancing at the film half-way through, could seem as though they are totally unrelated. However, one of the (many) little points of magic Haneke has implemented is that all the characters are connected not only by an event in the initial scene, but thematically as well. I don't want to spoil too much of the movie, but in a nutshell, this film aims to discuss a number of political and social themes which do connect, which in turn shed light on the thought that everything is interconnected and the links these connections provide can take an observer on a fascinating journey into one persons history/future and then another's. Through the scuffle at the start of the film (wherein, incidentally, themes of civil right, civic authority, morality, racism, prejudice in general and sociology are all presented initially), the characters who are apparently coincidentally caught up lead us into enlargements on these themes and even introduce new ones. The big ones are ones that were, importantly, contemporarily significant (and still are) at the time of the film's 2000 release. Asylum seeking, the war in Kosovo and communication on a very grand scale are three big ones. But there's more - astoundingly - alienation of youth, bullying, inter-familial relationships, nationality and a very intriguing look at cinema itself in conjuncture with thematic exploration of the individual, deception and a person's 'real self', or, as it is called in the film, their 'true face'. Having just written that paragraph and retraced the film in my mind, I find myself realising just how expansive this piece is. This is surprising perhaps, as at first the series of short scenes suggests that it is not possible to really explore something in depth. But then again, inquires Haneke (I imagine), if you get to the heart, the very point of something in a short scene - what is that if not 'in depth'. I believe that is what Haneke has achieved here - with remarkable skill. How? Well, the bottom line is, this is exquisite drama. It's brilliantly, beautifully acted, it's bold at times, it's suggestive without being glaring and then on the other hand, it huddles things close to its chest which an observer will only discover if they look very intently. Some of these I'm sure I have not seen - the ones I have alone are too many in number to recount here. Countless little things are running across my mind as I decide what to include in this review - I must mention the cinematography in detail. There are scenes where there is no dialogue; it is just an image with 'background noise'. But whatever is happening there in that scene is significant. It represents something and invites the viewer - undisrupted by dialogue or some other special event - to ask him/herself what that is. To say, 'what are the connections here, what is this scene telling me, and what are other scenes telling me about it'. That is why this works. To return to my introduction - the film is challenging in an importantly constructive sense. It makes you think, it makes you work to get the meaning - and not only that - once it has you there, it's been so constructed that it shapes that meaning in a certain way as to let you then perhaps rethink that idea in a new context! For some this will deserve multiple viewings, but this is all the better. I think everyone should watch it at least twice. There's simply so much here and it's portrayed in such a refreshing way that it would be criminal not to give it special attention.

P.s. A note on the title: A few suggestions have been voiced here as to what the 'unknown code' is - I think it's a number of things. Like many things in the film, such as themes, it is repeated here and there so as to be more effective to an audience. But repeated in a totally different and context. It could be the strange sign-language at the end of the film (communication being a major idea), it is most literally the door code to Anne's apartment but this in turn could represent attempts by the asylum seekers into France. Notice that Georges is removed from the apartment due to a fight and Maria is taken from France - due to a fight - and returns unsuccessfully. I think these are definite parallels - though they are tastefully engineered. This film excels in its ability never to be glaring, brash and obvious. It lets the film speak for itself. Which is what all films should do.

This is not a conventional film in the sense that the narrative is not complete. The myriad, unconnected short scenes from the lives of various characters that are presented to us have no beginning and no resolution. We come away having gained an insight into the lives of the various people we have seen, but wanting to know more about all of them. This makes for an incomplete experience, and if that is what you want or need then this is not a film for you. If on the other hand, a glimpse into the lives of people so every day and matter of factly portrayed, in a film so realistically set that suspension of disbelief is never an issue then this is a film for you. I came away, emotionally drained, without having had my emotions manipulated. On reflection (I think)this is a film about how cities dehumanise us, and on how we move together without connecting or communicating.

A brilliant an original film. It unites current fads in art cinema, the frequent long take and multiple, interlocking storylines, both of which are in danger of becoming cliché. The way that these interlocking stories begin and end is very interesting. It gives us so little, and leaves us to figure out so much for ourselves. It's like a cinematic test of the psychological principle of closure. We ourselves have to connect the scenes and build the stories. In a way, it's kind of a game, and a fun one, at that. But it does cover some serious and important topics, namely the interaction of the various, and constantly increasing variety, of peoples in Europe. Most of the action takes place in France, although it does journey to Eastern Europe often and even Africa at one point. And, thankfully, Haneke isn't happy about simply making blanket political statements about the situation. For example, in the film's second scene, a white boy throws a piece of paper into a homeless woman's lap. A young black man, an immigrant from Africa, sees him and tries to force him to apologize to the woman. They get into a fight when the white boy refuses, the police see it and haul the black man, the white boy, and the homeless woman away. The black man is charged, the homeless woman, a refugee from Romania, is deported, and the white boy is let go. The criticism seems clear and obvious, until we find out that the piece of paper, which the audience is originally to think is garbage, is money. We learn this from the woman, who tells someone else about it and how she had once done nearly the same thing to someone below her in class. None of the stories are resolved. We are left to finish them for ourselves. This is one of the best films of recent years. Really, there have been a ton of highly-praised directors who rely entirely on bags of gimmicks. It's so nice to see a modern film that actually achieves something resembling a re-imagining of how narrative works in the cinema.