Everything

This is not, as some would have you believe, a skin flick just because a hooker is one of the two main characters, It's a great atmospheric work that would make a really interesting stage play as only two sets are required. Made for a budget of £50,000 (which would not cover the Catering Budget of most movies) Ray Winstone did this for free just because he loved the script you cant get much higher praise than that ! I viewed this a couple of days after seeing him in "The Proposition" and for me confirms his status as a Clint Eastwood for our generation who seems to constantly improve the depth of his performances. Jan Gravesen the female lead was equally impressive, as I have not previously seen her in anything, at some points I felt she may actually have been in this line of work at some time ..

A solid 8/10

An absolutely uncanny performance from Jan Graveson as the Soho prostitute - her character, way of looking, her walk, her movements, facial expressions, tone of voice and the thoughts these implied were uncannily realistic. Her dialogue was so natural - her reaction to her oddly motivated and persistent client, her wariness that he might be violent and her irritation at some of his questions - that many lines could be anticipated before they were spoken. The pacing too was perfect - long pauses when she had to consider something, instant responses when she reacted instinctively. How much was owed to the writer-director is impossible to know from simply viewing the film. As a portrayal it was absolute perfection 10/10.

This is a tense and intelligent film that deals with a difficult subject. It gives a realistic portrayal of a sex workers life as she comes into contact with Richard played by Ray Winstone. He is deeply troubled by something he won't or can't reveal, but he persists regardless of the cost to himself. She can only reply with the manners and behaviours of her trade. A very uneasy alliance develops which refreshingly avoids the usual clichés.

Winstone's character's torment is palpable, its all there under the surface. It takes a while for the point of the plot to emerge but its worth the wait. There is a sub-plot however that doesn't quite resolve adequately. Generally dark and claustrophobic in tone it is leavened with earthy humour. A good solid independent film.

There are very visual films and there are very talky films.

Most films fall into the former category. However, one of the most famous of the latter variety was My Dinner With Andre (1984), a brilliant talk-fest directed by Louis Malle.

This little gem has no gastronomic delights and it's no intellectual heavyweight, either. It does, however, hit you between the eyes with its raw emotions and power.

Consider this as a plot: an unnamed man (Ray Winstone) spends day after day with a local London prostitute, paying her to allow him to find out everything about her. The hooker, Naomi (Jan Graveson), agrees to the arrangement initially, but soon, she begins to question the man's motivations despite the fact that he's not violent, he's very courteous, but he's very nervous and evasive about what he wants – other than to ask questions.

At a certain point, he tells Naomi his name is Richard. He asks for her real name. She refuses. But he keeps pressing for more details about her work, her life, her loves – if she has any, that is. He pays her a lot of money to talk. So, she answers his questions. And, at the end of his time each day, he leaves to go home to his suburban house and his suburban wife to watch his suburban TV etc etc.

Why is Richard doing this every day? Good question...

Were it not for the acting skill of Winstone and Graveson plus the intricate and highly charged script, I think many would walk away from this one, because the narrative doesn't seem to be going anywhere. That is, until you realize that Richard is slowly but surely gaining Naomi's trust: and eventually, Richard is no longer a john or a client. He's a friend...

So, it's when Richard finally asks Naomi to do something extra special for him that the real reason for Richard's interest in Naomi is revealed in an emotional climax that will touch all but the most cynical or hard-hearted.

So, to say any more about this very clever narrative would spoil it completely.

Cinematography and music soundtrack are excellent, although I was a bit annoyed by the overuse of quick zooms in, reminding me of the way some Asian directors do the same technique with martial arts films. That aside, it's actually very well photographed, with some unusual stairway shots. Some might say it is way too slow. Given the context of the whole story, however, I think it's just right.

Now - all of that might make you think this film is a downer. Not so. In fact, it's an object lesson in what it means when you gain somebody's trust – and the final scene between Richard and Naomi says it all...

I'm just home from seeing this film at Sydney's Film Festival (2005) and have to say I was very impressed. It was especially rewarding to have the director (Richard Hawkins) in attendance for Q&A after the film.

The performances were captivating, the suspense was just right (you never lost interest but weren't overly stressed either) and the setting utterly believable. (NB: the locations were real, not sets).

The two main characters, although unusual, were validated by excellent dialogue and acting (Winstone and Graveson). And the story was interesting and very moving.

I always think the measure of a good film is when I'm not aware of the audience or the chair I'm sitting in. I'm happy to say I was oblivious to both.

On the downside, various jerky zooms reminded me that there was actually a camera involved and prevented complete immersion in the story outside of the storytelling. But it is nevertheless astonishingly impressive to see what a small budget ($47,500) and an enthusiastic writer/director can achieve in a 9 day shoot!