Soho Square

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.

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.

"Soho Square" is a British drama which follows a troubled homicide detective as he sorts through personal issues while working on a serial killer case. An unfortunate piece of work, the only redeeming thing I could find between the credits of this flick was the shorter-than-usual 78 minute run. A choppy mess of poorly lensed and poorly edited scenes with horrible color and music, "Soho Square" seems to be an attempt at art house fare which just went wrong. The story is muddled and confused and sorts itself out only when it's too late to care. Character depth is superficial, nothing scenes are dragged out for no apparent reason, plot holes are everywhere....I could go on...and on. However, suffice it to say, this film is not recommendable. I happened to rent it mail order by mistake and only stuck with it because it was in English and I could type these comments while it was running. (C-)

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)

From the information posted on IMDb's site I gather this is an opera prima and if so, we might be in presence of a talent to reckon with. The interview with the director included in the DVD clearly shows a person in his twenties, ready to show what he learnt and is capable of.

Yes, the first half hour or so is confusing -maybe deliberately so- but I'd say the plot is cleverly exposed and handled. And the way things turn out to be and how the particular murder the film begins with fits into the series of killings the plot centres on is smartly devised. I concur with others, commenting the movie on this website, on the unresolved issue of the neighbour mum and daughter, perhaps a more seasoned film maker would have taken care of that more adroitly; yet a case could me made towards the transposition of the detective's wife and unborn child and hence the attention he gives these otherwise peripheral characters. Criticising slowness in plot progress in European films is common in this side of the Atlantic and it's really no big deal. They make their films evolve at a given pace, US and (some) Latin American film makers prefer a different one, it's a question of personal preference.

But in sum, let's follow the work of this young Englishman, for he seems a promising talent.