London

I'm sorry, I know I am in the minority, but I really didn't get this doc-montage-essay, for all its wit and cleverness, and lush photography, and even lusher soundtrack, I felt I was being soundly manipulated by the filmmaker into seeing London as a political and spiritual wasteland. Yes, this film is, I suppose, artistically good, I felt some of the narration was poignant, and resonant of an underlying angst that many people experience in London, which can be isolating. Still, the haughty, droning voice of the narrator, really put me off. The simplistic dichotomy of labour versus conservatives, one good, the other doom laden, an insult to my intelligence, and the lack of voice within the film, apart from the writer's insistent polemic, was by far the most meaningful element. The film approves itself, and obliterates all dissent.

This is simply awful.

It's very pretentious. Constant references to artists and philosophers, even though they are irrelevant to prove the point the narrator is trying to make. Use of the french language for no other reason than trying to sound "fancy".

Some pretty shots, like the recurring theme of water, that was good.

Extreme manipulation of the events that happened in 1992. Conservatives win the election and right after the IRA bombing is shown, almost suggesting that the bombing was a response to the result.

Constantly criticizing the monarchy and conservative supporters. Making it hard to classify this as an excursion film. If it was up to me, I would put this in the "*Author complains for 1 hour and a half straight through its characters about the world he lives in and blames SOCIETY" genre. Yep, its one of those wE LIvE in A sOCieTY BS movies.

I used to visit London since the mid-70s. From mid 70s through the 90s, London was more or less the way Patrick Keiller presented it. Beautiful, charming and dangerous. The Beauty and charm of the city lurked in its history, lore, architecture and diversity of its inhabitants among many other things; while its dangerousness came from its wild and lawless youth and thugs. I recall how risky it was to walk alone into certain parts of the city at night. Whereas London in the early 21st century is totally different from its 20th century version. I remember London in 2005 or around when I visited it last, clean, tidy and safe with all sorts of surveillance devices everywhere. I have no intent to relate this to party politics; but for sure it is high tech, and the will to use high tech to tame and discipline the wild in a huge and beautiful metropolitan, that transformed the city from the Jungle it was to the park it is now.

Woke before its time. Reeks of politics and identity politics. Lovey-leftism at its best - pure Fabianism. Of course the BFI love it. Interesting how the IRA issue has evaporated - largely due to terrorism becoming associated with other groups, I expect. A star for the images of London and a star for the idea.

This documentary offers an unconventional perspective on a major British city, focusing specifically on events from a particular year. While its poetic, essayistic style and intellectual rigor offer a compelling view of urban life, some might find the film's distinctively British references and nuances challenging to fully appreciate if they're not native to the UK. For instance, the voiceover provides a nuanced interpretation of the city's complexities and political landscape, but it might lean too heavily on British historical and literary contexts for an international audience to grasp fully. Despite its strengths, this could be viewed as a weak point for viewers unfamiliar with British culture and history. Overall, the film invites deeper engagement, serving not merely as a factual account but as a contemplative portrayal that captures the essence and contradictions of city life.