Collusion

"Collusion" is a very clever film consisting of many layers, and it takes you on an engrossing journey as each one is presented. The movie opens on a painting, which a voiceover tells us was once part of a much larger painting, and similarly, the artwork is only a small piece of the movie's much larger web of deceit. On the surface, Jack Littlemore (Aden Gillett) runs a museum security business, Sally Waterville (Kate Ashfield) is his vivacious companion, Darren Headway (Daniel Lapaine) a young entrepreneur, and Serena Ames (Jessica Brooks) a frustrated daughter of a very wealthy and overprotective father who disapproves of all her relationships (including her latest one with Darren). Well, let's just say that things are not always what they appear to be.

The cast is outstanding, and really gives the movie an edge. The actors and actresses strike a great balance of allowing you to get to know them, but at the same time keeping certain things hidden and elusive. It's a fine line, but they walk it quite effectively. And director Richard Burridge gives the film a very sly, smooth feel, as he coolly weaves a complex story. When the film starts it is hard to tell where it's heading, but as the story moves along and the characters continue to interact, the frame of the puzzle comes into place. Then comes the challenge of putting the pieces in the right positions. "Collusion" certainly keeps its most important cards held until the end.

I saw "Collusion" at its US premiere at the Boston Film Festival, and knew nothing about it save what I had read in the one-paragraph synopsis in the program (and that the director would be present at the screening). I had seen no previews, and knew none of the actors- a different perspective than for most movies one usually sees at a multiplex. It was refreshing to go into a film without any preconceived notions of events or characters, and I believe this enhanced my enjoyment of the movie (and it's good idea to watch this movie with a clear mind anyway). But perhaps the most telling sign of this movie's impact is that after it was over, and as I listened to Burridge field questions from the audience, I was also thinking about the movie in my head, and trying to untangle its many twists and puzzles. And as I took the subway home, I kept thinking about it, and I realized that putting the pieces together was just as rewarding as viewing the finished product.

Man, was this a crummy movie. I'm not sure if it was the actors' faults for being wooden or if nobody could play these characters and make them interesting??? The main actress looks 35 but acts 19, all I could think was 'crackwhore' when I watched her. The other characters were just dull and boring, and some of the lines and situations were so stupid -- ie in a restaurant, the main actress actually tossed her earring on the floor to instigate a private conversation under the table. Puh-lease!!! I rolled my eyes a lot when I wasn't looking at my watch. This was one of the longest 90-minutes movies I've ever seen. It was shown at a film fest in Houston and I can see why it's not going to show at any of the art-film houses here for a run.

I don't know what movie the other posters here saw, but if it was the same one as me, they really need to get out more. This movie is an eyesore. Where can I begin? To be fair, I think the basic story is good. Or could be, with a little work. However, the script is choppy as hell with absolutely no flow to it. We're supposed to believe that just because a bad script confuses us with one unrelated scene to another filled with droning dialog, it's an intriguing mystery. Confusion does not equal mystery. We're confused not because of the mystery story, but because there's not any solid story there!

In fact, the script wanders so much we're confused about what the film's really about: an art theft? No. One man's struggle to steady his failing career & relationships? No. Some sort of confidence game? Maybe. The author tries hard to make this appear like a real mystery / suspense film using cliché and mysterious, hush-hush, unrevealing dialog.

A good mystery will lead you down one or two false paths and surprise you at the end. A good suspense film will have you wondering what's around the next corner; what's going to happen next? This movie bores you to death leading you nowhere, then has a puerile ending a 10-year-old could see from a mile off. The only surprise is that you actually sat through it all. If you did.

One person compared this to Mamet's Spanish Prisoner. Not even close. The only similarity is that both look like plays. That is, lots of dialog. Collusion is full of long scenes with endless chatter about nothing. That, and long scenes forcing us to watch boring night club singers. My script coach would chop this thing down to about 15 minutes of screen time. Maybe it should have been a short film? I hope the actors got paid well. I've seen them in other films and it's hard for me to blame them for this film's outcome. 3 out of 10.

Against the ebb and flow of the film industry, Richard Burridge the writer/director/producer of Collusion has produced a film which is thought provoking for the audience, not just a spectacle to be watched and observed.

To get the most out of this film the viewer has to constantly reflect upon what we are being shown and told. As many characters of the film are deceiving and being deceived, so too is the audience. Never have I been kept on my toes so much in a film trying to work out exactly what the real story is and what is really going on. With the idea at the beginning of the film that not everything is how it seems, we immediately start to suspect everyone and anything. The fun of this film is all about the discovery of truth.

There is a scene in the film where Jack Littlemore (Aden Gillett) is organising pieces of a jigsaw puzzle to reveal the picture. This is exactly what the film is about. The audience must organises the pieces of information given to them throughout to try to reveal the bigger picture.

Of my own personal quest for the truth when I viewed the film, all I will say is that I was on the right track, but still far enough off the scent to be left amazed and bewildered by the reveal at the end of the film. The clever thing is that once you realise what has gone on in front of your eyes, it all seems so credible. Richard Burridge manages to weave a fantastical tale, but make it seem credible and make so much sense that it left me wondering how I hadn't worked it out for myself when the answers were there all along. The film is testament to Burridge's story telling skills as he manages to keep us guessing right to the end.

In conclusion, Collusion is a very engaging and entertaining film that challenges the way in which we watch films. We are left to fill in the blanks and unravel the story strands for ourselves which gives the film lasting impact long after the initial viewing.

My love affair with intricate, enigmatic plots began a few years back with David Mamet's `The Spanish Prisoner' and my masochistic tendencies a few years prior to that. It's almost an oxymoron really because deriving pleasure from this genre of film can be truly taxing on the brain in that it forces you to really evaluate what drives people. And to see this played out is sometimes a very scary thing. Fortunately, the self-titled `Collusion' acknowledges the deception from the get-go. More importantly, it leaves its audience guessing and wondering about the truth up to its abrupt conclusion. The last 5 minutes of the film being the appropriate time where you think to yourself: `What actually happened?' and are left with about a billion puzzle pieces you need to put back together. In a world plagued with films intended to explicitly shock and immediately gratify (where our attention span is shorter than a 30 second frame), a film like `Collusion' stands out as a classy remnant of a not-so-far gone past when people actually enjoyed participating more actively in the cinematic experience by utilizing a tiny fraction of the space between their ears.

The deliberate tension-filled mood for `Collusion' is aptly affected in the smoky jazz tunes scored by David Mitchum.. The film's main character, Jack Littlemore (Aden Gillett) is a mysterious man, belying an artifice of the strong, silent type. We are immediately both intrigued by this man and skeptical of him. Hints about Jack's past are strategically placed throughout (in the way of understated comments and character interactions) and from bits and pieces we gather Jack is a man with a dubious history. Jack's brash gal pal, Sally, is played with according bravado by the ever-so-effective Kate Ashfield. Like Jack, she is also of a questionable background. While we may not like Sally's self-promoting antics very much, we can't help but be somewhat sympathetic to her dogmatic resistance to fail. (and be amused by her unabashed disloyalty to anyone but herself) Her relationship with Jack as she describes it: `Two ships that bump in the night' (By the way, I LOVE this line and will make a point of using it as often as I can) Simplicity pervades Sally. She is very linear. Jack, it would appear is not.

Darren (the beautiful Daniel Lapaine) enters the story early on as an acquaintance from Jack's past. Jack does not like Darren and Darren enjoys getting under Jack's skin. The cat & mouse uneasiness between the two men mimics the tension in the group as a whole. (rounded out by Darren's heiress girlfriend, Serena) Serena (Jessica Brooks) is Sally's polar opposite. Quiet, genteel, and much more refined, Serena mirror's Jack's persona. She appears silent, yet quite possibly not so strong. Despite their choice of partners, there is definitely more chemistry (both spoken and unspoken) between the Jack/Serena and Darren/Sally duos. And not so surprisingly there is jealousy. Sally wants to be Serena. She studies her, almost like an actor/actress would research a role. She copies her clothes, tries to affect her mannerisms, and ultimately seduces Serena's boyfriend. Even Darren and Jack seem at times indistinguishable. This is the point however. To reveal at a very base level, that art is artifice, that people's facades are just that, that truth is an unknown entity, and thus deception commonplace. And in this world, true intimacies are rare.

Imogen Stubbs plays Jack's ex-wife, Mary, and Ames' lawyer. Blackmailed by Ames, she becomes a pawn in the collusion. She is inevitably torn between loyalties to her employer and her ex-husband. While Jack is usually very guarded and deliberate in his actions, he seems the most indiscreet in his interactions with her, almost to the point of revealing the collusion. But not quite. We must remember that Jack is more calculating than he seems. Of course as the film relays nothing is as it seems. So it's all amateurish guesswork (on our parts), really.

Serena's father, Ames (Leslie Phillips) is a prominent tycoon who seeks to control her and to use his power to manipulate anyone who gets in his way. He is particularly hell-bent on destroying Darren. (or any man in Serena's life) While Ames appears ruthless on the surface and is an altogether detestable character, Phillips plays the character with a certain directness and honesty that lies in stark contrast to every other person in the film. Like Sally, you know what motivates Ames. Darren, Serena, and Jack are more of a riddle...

A riddle that Burridge does not give up until he is forced to and the film must end. Burridge, a well-known screenwriter (`The Fourth Protocol') took on many roles behind the scenes. He acted as producer, director, and screenwriter. For his first time out as all 3, I have to give the man my sincerest praise. The film seduces you with its sexy songs and its even sexier characters. And leaves you achingly wanting for more. You slowly succumb to its rhythm and do so almost subconsciously, unaware of the spell it has cast and just how relentlessly it'll linger.