Soho Square

I was going to give this a seven, but after re-watching it with the director's commentary I give it an eight. Its VERY hard to believe that it was made for £5000... it certainly doesn't look, feel or sound like so cheap a project. It doesn't have the 'floating fuzziness' of other DV features I've seen (this may be, as the commentary suggests, because some of it is film?) Whilst the performances are occasionally creaky and the exposition filled with ellipses, it manages to make a merit of its weaknesses as it moves further and further into willing abstraction. Its ultimately a film all about Mood and, in a way that belies its budget, it makes its tight-framed abstract photography, eerie score/sound design and thoroughly non-linear approach to its narrative its strength. The result is similar to the style of Don't Look Now, both use the flimsiest of thriller conventions (and this one is pretty weak) to launch off into fairly abstract film making territory. A masterpiece it is certainly not, but as a no-budget B-film, I found it remarkable. Confident enough in itself to relish its slow dark mood in the face of narrative necessity, film students take hope here.

I saw this film having read that it was made for a mere $7000 and was sceptical that this was possible, and if it was possible, that it would be watchable. However, when I sat down to watch this, I discovered a diamond - a remarkable and absorbing discordant thriller from a first time writer/director that looks and feels as if it cost 100 times its minuscule budget. I was compelled to watch the director's commentary immediately afterwards for explanation of how this was done. The influences on the film's visionary are subtle but omnipresent - the cold, detached objectivity of Kubrick, a fractured narrative structure favoured by fellow Brit Christopher Nolan, and a faint reminiscence of Hitchcock's Vertigo. Perhaps its most obvious assimilation is Nicholas Roeg's Bad Timing, echoing the style of remote, disturbed protagonist, the themes of obsessive, all consuming love and culminating in a disturbing but revelatory sex scene. This is a slow burner which requires concentration and a modicum of intelligence to unravel. There is little dialogue - imagery and motif play a large part in the understanding of the narrative - and there are no blockbuster effects or big name stars to sell it. However, its complex thriller narrative, dissonant soundtrack and solid involved performances blow fellow low-budget-starter Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi out of the water. For anyone who is aspiring to be a film-maker and doesn't think it's possible without millions of dollars, this film is an inspirational must-see.

The other user's comment is spot-on, yet much much too kind. This is an absolutely horrible piece of wanna-be cop movie BS. There is absolutely no cohesion to be found in any part of it and I hope that the writer/director/producer finds himself another line of work...perhaps as a sewage plant worker. Seem harsh? You try wasting 78 minutes of your life on this piece of absolutely infected garbage. The only thing I found enjoyable is the "climax" (if you can even bring yourself to consider it that.) The characters are completely poorly developed. The scenes are full of holes, the dialog is barely audible, the music is horrible, the editing is worse, the thinly veiled (strange as hell) pedophilia scenes turn your stomach and you couldn't give a rat's derrière about what happens to any of them. You would almost be glad to see the pyromaniac light fire to the lot of the entire cast (too bad it didn't happen.) Do not, by any means (unless someone involved in the picture is your relative) rent, buy, borrow, or for God's sake watch this piece of trash.

I couldn't really come to care about the filmic aspects... I was too distracted by the script. The script--if there was one-- was so completely devoid of a ANY merit, I soon couldn't get past it. I quit noticing a nice looking or well framed shot here and there because I was too busy agonizing over why such poor choices in both the script and production had gone unchecked. In the meantime, there are enough hokey but still creepy bits that it was generally a downer -as I guess it was supposed to be--but not through any mastery, just through really bald clichés.

After I watched it, I went to find out more about why it had ever made it to my local rental place; I wanted to know who was to blame. I signed up for this account specifically because I'm so angry with this movie.

yuck!

(I've thoroughly enjoyed, with some reservations, any number of Dogme95 movies... I wasn't expecting a Hollywood Blockbuster)

Anthony Biggs plays the no-name protagonist in this British indie, which starts out blandly enough, like one of those Helen Mirren helmed "Prime Suspect" episodes. As the film progresses, insights are revealed that flesh his character out, and his portrayal is specific and compelling enough to keep you watching. At just the right moment, he chooses to expose facets that make the shocking denouement almost plausible. Director Jamie Rafn plays around with time sequences and jump cuts in a way that's not so much clever as it is jarring. Overall, a very uncomfortable, low-fi, effort that is about anything but the pyromaniacal serial killer supposedly at the focus --- and is all the better for it. Great avant-garde jazz score.