Watch Soho Square For Free

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

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...

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.

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.

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.