Mister John

off the top of my head, I could see snippets/influences of Claire Denis 'The Intruder', and David Lynch, in addition to the more obvious, such as Antonioni's 'The Passenger', and Bogdanovich's similarly-themed, and Singapore-set, 'Saint Jack'. (and at a stretch, I could probably make some Bergman connection, also).

So I guess you could safely conclude that I would classify it as an 'art-house movie', although, perhaps more kindly, an interesting failure than a cinephile's self-indulgence.

'The Passenger' connection might seem the most obvious, on the face of it, but I thing the Singapore connection is more relevant, and particularly to the degree that the filmmakers sought to make an exotic, even mystical connection with the notion that the waters in which the 'Mister John' of the the title had drowned were attempting to claim his soul; which led to brother Jerry immersing himself in those waters with the aim, presumably, of reclaiming his brothers' soul.

I found more interesting the dreamier images set in the bar/brothel, but the filmmakers seemed too focused on domestic pregnant pauses and stares - mostly featuring Aidan Gillen's Gerry - and trivial or tedious dialogues: not so much 'sound and fury' as sound and boredom, signifying nothing.

But I will watch out for the filmmakers next work: if for no other reason than that they've been influenced by the right people.

An evocation of a moment - to evoke a moment - to question this - and your - life ...sometimes the pain will show...even though you didn't want to reveal it, or you thought you didn't, but really you did...A spirit in this world...on reflection too many knowing looks in contradiction of the feelings ot tries to evoke...

A dreamy and enigmatic character study about a man who flies to Singapore to wind up his dead brother's affair but finds himself coming adrift. Gerry (Gillen) is a man whose marriage is heading for the rocks and a visit to his dead brother's family and hostess bar in Singapore brings him into contact with a decadent, ex pat' world that starts to fit him too well.

The film plays somewhere between an Antonioni and the wonderful yet under-rated Peter Bogdanovitch film Saint Jack. The bar scenes while stylised feel truthful and affectionate, and the film has some powerful moments - a scene where a bar girl interview becomes a template for a disintegrating marriage is both original and uncomfortable to watch.

Gillen is cast against type and has really worked his way into the character who loses himself through the simple act of wearing a dead man's clothes and walking in his steps.

I notice one reviewer seems concerned with nudity in the film - there isn't any to speak of, so those seeking titillation look elsewhere.

This was the most pointless film I think I have ever watched. The cast mumble their way through the limited dialogue and a good portion of the film seems to comprise of endless pensive gazes into the near distance, endless pensive gazes into the far distance and endless pensive gazes at other members of the cast. The camera gazes pensively at the back of the casts neck, head .........and so on. A snake steals the show and out-acts the whole cast. Avoid. Did I mention it's completely pointless ?

This film has an interesting theme and the potential to be much more than what it is. The central character arrives in Singapore after his brother's death there and, over the indeterminate ensuing period, dreamily drifts into his dead brother's ex-pat life - staying with his family and floating around the seedy bar he ran - while having nightmares/flashbacks about his problematic marriage back home. So, the breakdown of a marriage on the one hand and bereavement on the other. Rich ground for exploring human feelings, yet I didn't really get a sense of his (or affected others') pain or any soul-searching to make sense of his situation. A good drama seldom neatly resolves all the key 'dramas', centring instead on the human condition and the nature of relationships. This film attempts to do that, but the lack of character development makes it difficult to identify with the protagonists and to be moved by or care much about their plight. The actors make a decent fist of a narrative that sometimes wants for coherence (not all scenes/subplots seem relevant or in some cases are underdeveloped) and the largely insipid dialogue, which, with few exceptions, reveals little about the characters and their motives and needs some attention to lend them greater depth. The overall effect is of a potentially relevant piece of work made somewhat prematurely, before the authors had really decided what story it was they wanted to tell or how best to tell it. Despite the score, I'd be tempted to give it a second chance some time to see if I was just being unreceptive. OK, 3 years later, 2nd viewing accomplished. Enjoyed it more. 3/10? It's better than that. Characters seemed more life-like; some good dialogue; quite atmospheric; may linger.