AKA

I'm a little surprised at how much vitriol is invested in some of the reviews of this film. As a film, it is tells a story that is challenging, thought provoking and fresh, while the filmmaking as a whole takes creative risks. With that said, it is also flawed in many areas, and many of the criticisms have merit. But on balance I was engaged by this film and have to applaud the filmmaker for trying to tell his story with a unique voice. Sure it's a low budget film, and that shows occasionally. But budget issues never "took me out of the movie" and the split screens - while reminiscent of Timecode - were altogether differently used - specifically using obviously different takes. That was clearly a creative decision, presumably commenting on the accuracy of memory (among other things). I'm not sure whether it entirely worked, but it was a brave attempt. I'm glad he made the film, glad I watched it and a year later, I'm still thinking about it.

This film is excellent, and obviously effective, judging by the lively debate it has inspired. Whether you loved it or hated it (and I loved it), you just couldn't forget it. It keeps creeping up on you for days after. In my opinion it's beautifully shot, with lighting that effectively elicits the the right emotional response for each scene.

The acting is terrific, with an wonderfully subtle and stirring performance by its lead, Matthew Leitch. The supporting characters are all excellently played, although the American is annoyingly shrill (which is probably the point). Not for the faint of heart, this is a beautiful, moving film.

What a bad film AKA is. Bad acting, bad dialogue, bad lighting, and hard to see images. Why of why did this director choose to use three tiny images instead of one? Does it serve a purpose other than to annoy you? I don't care if the director is writing his own comments on this site or if in fact he isn't a very nice person in real life, this film is plain and simple

those of you who saw this in the theater (cinema, for any Brits reading this), as i did, might be interested to know that i have been told that the DVD release is in single-screen format. because of this, i intend to have another look at this film, on DVD. while i found the triptych format interesting at first, it came to be a distraction when used for the film's entire length. that device is not sustainable for such a long time and detracts from the film, as the viewer becomes more focused on form than on content, IMHO. others who saw this in theaters and were disappointed by it might want to give it another try on DVD this time.

For some reason, Canal+ Film2 channel is showing on my boyfriend's TV. This movie was on this morning. I didn't even know it's name, I just searched with the name of a character since I felt I should comment on this. AKA is most likely a movie not many people have seen, since it deals quite heavily with things that are often swept under the carpet, such as homosexuals and drugs.

This is not a bad movie. I can't see why so many people seem to have rated it 1/10. I gave it 7 since it's not excellent, but still worth viewing. The main thing is the tension between British middle class and aristocrats. Do you remember the episode of Faking it where a sales girl was taught to be a lady? Well this is the same thing but with a boy and no one to teach him. The main character Dean Page is a mama's boy who must leave home and soon finds himself in Paris, pretending to be Lord Alexander Gryffoyn. David and his lover boy Benjamin take Dean/Alex under their wings, unaware of who he really is. Upper class proves to be mostly a bunch of arrogant cocaine sniffers that treat outsiders like s***. Notice when Dean returns home there is a pile of dog poop on the road. The ending is quite predictable, but what's said about David is quite funny.