charlytully Unlike the Anglophobic negative reviewers who've spewed their venom all over SOHO SQUARE earlier, I will offer a comment on the basis of having watched the whole movie TWICE (the second time with rookie director Jamie Rafn's solo commentary, which is just as succinctly intelligent as the film he made). I easily rated this a 7 after my first viewing, and was only intending on following the director's commentary for five minutes, but Rafn had me hooked for the a 77-minute repeat which was better than deja vu. In the interest of full disclosure, my wife just watched this once and gave it a 4, but I think she only rated MEMENTO 5 or 6 at best. It is galling to see some of the same people who probably degraded this neo noir novella of a flick elevate artsy fartsy crap like Steven Soderbergh's equally experimental SCHIZOPOLIS to a 7.2 average. After all, with a quarter-million dollar budget, much of Hollywood, and an actual nationwide release aiding him, Steve still lost 96% (!) of his working capital on that misbegotten mishmash (going by the sub-$11K U.S. box office). Brownie points should not be heaped upon excruciatingly boring pretentious BS simply because someone is afraid they are too dumb to "get" it!Anyway, aside from the thriftiness of miracle-worker Rafn's $10K total expenditure, a knowledgeable viewer would think there's MORE money being spent here than meets the eye, even given an AVERAGE direct-to-video filming budget. (If you do a quick survey of these sort of titles on IMDb, you'll see they run about a million bucks each.) What the director has done is to use his extensive knowledge of location possibilities in England generally (and London, in particular), plus a lot of friends in right places, along with a canny knowledge of what can and cannot be done with his resources, to milk two thousand per cent more entertainment from his material than Soderbergh did four years earlier with his. Couple this with Rafn's Mac editing wizardry, with a nod to an equally experimental, dissonant soundtrack from Chris Read that perfectly fits the images on-screen, and you end up with something I enjoyed more (at least on a minute-by-minute basis) than the ENGL1SH PATIENT. I've viewed a dozen directorial debuts in the past month, and this is by far the most promising.

Marcelino Plaza 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.

bob_meg 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.

jeanna-1 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.