Mojo

This is a massively underrated film, after studying this for analytical review for uni, I had to watch it several times and the more I watched it the more I loved it, I would find myself discovering new meanings and connections every time, I think it's funny and actually I thought baby was a psychopathic but lovable character with daddy issues, he was my favourite character and I loved how he is so unpredictable

'Mojo' is a story of fifties London, a world of budding rock stars, violence and forced homosexuality. 'Mojo' uses a technique for shooting the 1950s often seen in films that stresses the physical differences to our own time but also represents dialogue in a highly exaggerated fashion (owing much to the way that speech was represented in films made in that period); I have no idea if people actually spoke like this outside of the movies, but no films made today and set in contemporary times use such stylised language. It's as if the stilted discourse of 1950s screenwriters serves a common shorthand for a past that seems, in consequence, a very distant country indeed; and therefore stresses the particular, rather than the universal, in the story. 'Mojo' features a strong performance from Ian Hart and annoying ones from Aiden Gillan and Ewan Bremner, the latter still struggling to build a post-'Trainspotting' career; but feels like a period piece, a modern film incomprehensibly structured in an outdated idiom. Rather dull, actually.

Mojo is a strange film in the sense that everyone seemed to be trying to out act each other which lead to some very poor acting especialy from the actor who played "Baby" and the actor who played "Skinny" ( i dont know what accent he was trying to do but it definately was not a London one!). The story is about a night club and the fight between owner and gangsters of who should have ownership of up and coming Star Silver Johnny not for career reasons but for sexual ones. The script could have been handled so much better but having said that it is very watchable. 6 out of 10

Well it's true. This could have been really good. Most of the cast are good actors, the setting and plot were intriguing, the characters interesting and the score was good but for some reason it failed to come together.

A few comments about the good things first - the music over the opening credits was beautiful, really beautiful. The actors' performances were all good, Hans Matheson especially surprised me with how good he was given how bad he'd been in Dr. Zhivago.

The bad things - the plot didn't really hang together, the script was badly written and even the characters that weren't supposed to jabber did at times. It was also unfortunate that there was only one sympathetic character in the whole story and that the characters as a whole were a little underwritten. The directing was a little flat and if you can get Harold Pinter into a film at least use him for more than five minutes.

I like crime films, gangster flicks, those sort of things but this is definitely one not to recommend. Except for the first fifteen minutes which I would watch just for the music over the beginning credits and the appearance of Silver Johnny I would avoid this unless you're a fan of one of the actors since all of them get a decent amount of speaking time.

This is truly terrible: painfully irritating stylised performers screech and mug gratingly incoherent dialogues which take place in scenes which seem to have no purpose, no beginning, middle or end, cut together without any apparent narrative or even cognitive intention, all in the service of some entirely uninteresting and almost undetectable "story". What makes it worse is the film's pretentions to "style": suddenly a remote-head crane shot spirals downwards, and, without any apparent reason there are sudden whip-pans or wobblyhand-held sections: all this "style" merely serves to magnify the almost unbelievably huge misconception of the project and the almost offensive vacuity of the material. Definitely a candidate for the worst film ever made.