Soho Square (2000)

Another attempt by foreigners to pass off a piece of garbage as art and rip-off the American public with long, drawn out, boring, poorly shot, out of focus, rambling shots (to make the movie longer and more boring) in an attempt to present some psycho babble that reminds one the worst possible movies made in the 50's.. (Back then there were A movies, B movies, and garbage.. If the garbage movies were "C", then this movie would have had a classification all its own... "D" or less. It is just really stupid and anyone who can watch it all the way thru is into punishing themselves for being stupid enough to watch it in the first place...

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.

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.