London

This is simply awful.

It's very pretentious. Constant references to artists and philosophers, even though they are irrelevant to prove the point the narrator is trying to make. Use of the french language for no other reason than trying to sound "fancy".

Some pretty shots, like the recurring theme of water, that was good.

Extreme manipulation of the events that happened in 1992. Conservatives win the election and right after the IRA bombing is shown, almost suggesting that the bombing was a response to the result.

Constantly criticizing the monarchy and conservative supporters. Making it hard to classify this as an excursion film. If it was up to me, I would put this in the "*Author complains for 1 hour and a half straight through its characters about the world he lives in and blames SOCIETY" genre. Yep, its one of those wE LIvE in A sOCieTY BS movies.

This documentary offers an unconventional perspective on a major British city, focusing specifically on events from a particular year. While its poetic, essayistic style and intellectual rigor offer a compelling view of urban life, some might find the film's distinctively British references and nuances challenging to fully appreciate if they're not native to the UK. For instance, the voiceover provides a nuanced interpretation of the city's complexities and political landscape, but it might lean too heavily on British historical and literary contexts for an international audience to grasp fully. Despite its strengths, this could be viewed as a weak point for viewers unfamiliar with British culture and history. Overall, the film invites deeper engagement, serving not merely as a factual account but as a contemplative portrayal that captures the essence and contradictions of city life.

Filmed during the election year of 1992, this poignant film presents a very personal, politicised portrait of London as John Major replaces Margaret Thatcher and all seemingly tilts further down into depressing times. If the Conservative government are paralysed with fear and doubt, the IRA certainly are not and add to London's woes on a more frequent basis than I remember. Watching this downbeat, socialist view of London some 15 years after it was shot makes one so aware of just how much has changed for the better. The streets are brighter, people spend more time on them, transport has improved, tourism has roared and confidence and success have replaced the tired old dormitory like city. Ironically, given the tone of this film, it is a little bit of the Labour party, quite a lot of Ken Livingstone, as London Mayor but a whole lot of capitalism at work that has rejuvenated this great city.

I used to visit London since the mid-70s. From mid 70s through the 90s, London was more or less the way Patrick Keiller presented it. Beautiful, charming and dangerous. The Beauty and charm of the city lurked in its history, lore, architecture and diversity of its inhabitants among many other things; while its dangerousness came from its wild and lawless youth and thugs. I recall how risky it was to walk alone into certain parts of the city at night. Whereas London in the early 21st century is totally different from its 20th century version. I remember London in 2005 or around when I visited it last, clean, tidy and safe with all sorts of surveillance devices everywhere. I have no intent to relate this to party politics; but for sure it is high tech, and the will to use high tech to tame and discipline the wild in a huge and beautiful metropolitan, that transformed the city from the Jungle it was to the park it is now.

Woke before its time. Reeks of politics and identity politics. Lovey-leftism at its best - pure Fabianism. Of course the BFI love it. Interesting how the IRA issue has evaporated - largely due to terrorism becoming associated with other groups, I expect. A star for the images of London and a star for the idea.