Postcards from London

This film attempted to do more than it was capable of. I think it's just too artsy idk. Definitely not for me.

Synopsis: Postcards from London is a 2018 British drama film directed by Steve McLean. It is McLean's follow-up to his 1994 film Post Cards from America, which he based on the work of David Wojnarowicz. The film follows a teenage boy Jim (played by Harris Dickinson), who escapes his rural Essex town for London, only to find himself involved with a team of high-class gay escorts in Soho.

Postcards from London is a 2018 British drama film directed by Steve McLean. It is McLean's follow-up to his 1994 film Post Cards from America, which he based on the work of David Wojnarowicz. The film follows a teenage boy Jim (played by Harris Dickinson), who escapes his rural Essex town for London, only to find himself involved with a team of high-class gay escorts in Soho.

The cinematography is very much like watching a play transposed to cinema, the set (small) scenes and lighting just seems like someone has taken a moderately successful stage-play and done a somewhat lazy transposition to the screen. I appreciate that budgets might have been small, but producing for the stage vs cinema is a very different thing.

don't get me wrong, I like the slightly surreal aspects (the parent's dining table) but the execution didn't quite make it, it's just a too too literal translation of the set-design and the lighting-design onto screen which just doesn't work.

I don't want to be harsh, because there are precious few interesting indie movies out there but its not 'grand budapest hotel' or 'gods own country'

a solid 6, but with a different producer / designer / director then it could have been better. can't really fault the actors at all.

I've continued watching, after the 1st 'chapter', it does move into other directions!

If you're expecting the gritty, sweaty reality of rent boys in London, you'll find this movie disappointing. While there are some brief, decidedly homoerotic poses struck by the boys that replicate some of Caravaggio's paintings, the rent boys in this fantasy film are more about the cerebral than the physical. As mentioned several times in the film, they do not like the term "rent boys," preferring to be called "raconteurs."

The clients are obviously drawn to the physical beauty of the boys, in particular Harris Dickinson, but (and one must be reminded that this is a fantasy) it is the boys' ability to discuss artists such as Caravaggio in depth that seals the deal, so to speak.

One reviewer referred to this as "pretentious 'dibble'". Not sure what "dibble" is. I didn't notice anyone in the film dribbling, so presumably he meant "drivel." I have to totally disagree with that. I found it all to be fascinating and the actors carried it off with marvelous skill.

If I attempted to explain what it all meant, I would undoubtedly descend into pretentious drivel. It was somewhat amusing and presumably intended to mentally stimulate the viewer by making it all open to different interpretations. It undoubtedly explored the different forms of exploitation, but not in a way that demands all viewers react in a singular, predictable way.

I thoroughly enjoyed Postcards from London and will probably watch it again because, like a painting by Caravaggio, it contains far more than can be absorbed in one glance. I can easily see that it wouldn't appeal to everyone, but it definitely deserves attention as a thought-provoking film.

This film tells the story of a young man who goes to London to find his artistic dreams.

The film is visually very beautiful. Harris Dickinson is beautiful, and is clearly objectified in the film. The story is interesting. It is pleasing to see that BFI makes a film as alternative and as erotic as this.

Tjhis movie is a pretentious and self-serving pile of manure. It has absolutely no redeeming features, other than some of the actors, who are at least very easy on the eyes. In fact, the most attractive of those actors is not the main character.