Rag Tale

It's sad that directors with no talent use odd cinematographic techniques in an attempt to disguise the film's inadequacies. What's worse though, is the stupid sheep-like gullibility of some of the viewing public who interpret such "novelty" as daring and mold-breaking. Mary McGuckian is plainly a person devoid of talent, vision or taste. Do I hear you say "But it's refreshing to see a director explore new ideas"? Yes, it is refreshing but this no-talent director has simply exhibited pretension and stupidity - any fool can do that. Mary McGuckian is not going to be part of cinema's future. - She'll just slink into the shadows of obscurity and those few who remember her so-called efforts will regard the experience with revulsion. I would have rather been able to sum up Rag Tale as MINUS 10 but 1 out of 10 was the lowest I could award. 1 out of 10 is clearly undeserved praise and might (horror of horrors) encourage this egregious blight on cinema to direct another movie. - I (as I'm sure most other people will) shudder at the thought.

Somehow, I imagine this breathtakingly inadequate director could even mess up sweeping the streets, so I won't suggest she takes this up as a profession. - If she did, walking around her home town would be a whole lot harder than it is now.

Ed Wood's movies were so mind-bogglingly superior (even at their worst) to this woman's pathetic offerings that I feel embarrassed at those who awarded Ed Wood the soubriquet as "worst director ever". At least we could watch his films and laugh at how amateurish they were. In Mary McGuckian's case, we can't even do that. There's nothing in Rag Tale to raise a smile - not even a smile of poignant sadness. What in heaven's name was the producer thinking about to allow this claptrap to be released? He should be jailed for inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on the audience. Don't watch this film within 5 hours of eating food - it'll come right back in your lap.

Set during the momentous U.S. election week of 2004, this satirical story follows the editor of The Rag (Graves) – a London newspaper - as he embarks upon an affair with the Chairman's wife (Leigh) and follows him as he tries to save his job over the course of the week.

With subtle side-swipes at the establishment, this film delves into the seedy underworld of tabloid journalism. Improvised performances from an established ensemble cast helps RAG TALE create a realistic world inhabited by ruthless, back-stabbing hacks, intent on their own advancement.

The frantic pace of a news room is conveyed by the editing style, which features many more cuts than usual, and with hardly a still moment, the camera flits effortlessly between HD and mini-DV, creating the type of realism you would associate with a fly-on-the-wall documentary. The stunning visuals of the film are complimented by an energetic score and exploratory sound-design. This is heightened by the improvised dialogue and sense of inter-character relationships that build from the start to their shocking conclusion.

More cutting and experimental than television shows which attempt to cover similar ground, RAG TALE convinces us that what we read in the newspapers is very often manufactured by an elite group of people who care more about themselves than correctly reporting the news.

A film for the younger audience, this is one that will leave you thinking.

This is a shame. Great cast (why aren't these people on our screens all the time?), completely wasted. The direction in this movie is the worst I've ever had the misfortune to see - the camera is constantly moving, often rotating round so actors are at angles, or zooming. Combined with extremely quick editing, it makes it difficult to tell which actor is which, let alone what their facial expressions are. This would be excusable perhaps if an inexperienced director tried it for one scene, but it's the entire movie. I suppose the attempt is to convey the pressure and fast pace of a newsroom: instead, it conveyed to me a headache (a good director would allow the actors to do some of the conveying emotion: the direction more or less screams look at me in every scene, to the extent the participant I was most aware of was the camera).

Putting aside the direction, the improvised script does not produce a comedy. The cast do a good job of conveying some relationships between the group, some amusing, but really asking them to improvise a script of one liners in a few weeks was always insane and this really could have used a decent scriptwriter. The audience I was in laughed twice. The original concept isn't bad, the cast try hard and are good, but the director never gives them the chance to salvage this. Avoid.

Here is an all star UK, USA cast all at sea with a great fun idea ruined due to the fact that the camera can't keep still and a director who does not rely on a witty script and the good actors she has.The other problem is that films that deal with that days new's forget that very shortly afterwards or in my case 5 years later, it was bought in a boot sale, very few will remember any of the names and news of that time. A subplot of the editor screwing the chairman's wife is fun but does not go anywhere so one is left with very little. This, despite it's star cast, failed to do any box office here in the UK and most of it would be lost on a USA audience. An all round sad flop that could of been really fun.

I felt ill after 5 minutes.

I have no idea if the storyline is good or not.

What genius decided to use that cool-jerky-docu-style camera work for the entire movie ????

I have homemovies that are easier to view than this.

The opening scene in the office was a little amusing and I wondered whether the character would brazen it out when he received the call from his boss.

It's a pity really because based on the opening scene(s) I would have viewed the entire movie.