London Fields

Apparently the lead actress was a looker ten years ago and this made up for a complete absence of acting talent. she is not a looker unless one means her own blank stare, and she just destroys the film with unbelievably bad acting.

FYI for the one person who posted four reviews under different names saying "get the directors cut" -- all of us giving this one or two stars did see the directors cut. It IS the directors cut streaming. It is just as bad only more nonsense. More garbage does not make the garbage better.

I'm not sure if Jim Sturgess was encouraged to play the insanely over the top cockney geezer, or it's simply how he did it

I give it three stars, simply because the opening was brilliant, two minutes of stylish, elegant, engaging cinematography, those sequences were the best part of the film. Some scenes looked nice. However...

As soon as Keith arrives, the film becomes unwatchable. The plot vanishes, the story telling is nothing short of a fiasco, it really does become a self absorbed mess, I applaud you if you see it all the way through.

Theo James by contrast is very good, he's a fine actor, but the damage had been done beyond belief by the time he arrives.

Didn't enjoy it, 3/10.

I'm going to be brief: Jim Sturgess overacts so much it's embarrassing, my neighbours three dogs bark from the minute they leave to when they get back, Jim is way more irritating than them. It's like amateur dramatics night.

Give this one a wide berth.

Hands down, this HAS to be one of the WORST movies ever made.

It's a mess.

Not a film noir. It's a film No

This film tells the story of a writer who gets inspired by her neighbour of his flat swap.

Seriously, this film is so sexually charged that it gets me uncomfortable. It basically is the vehicle to objectify Amber Heard, thereby fulfilling someone's perverted sexual fantasy. It tries a bit of noir, but it does not succeed. Instead, it is less than engaging and does not offer suspense or mystery as intended.