"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-)
11 Reviews
A promising talent.
mplaza10 August 2005
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.
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.
One of the worst films I've seen (that actually made an attempt to be good)
tobywoo2 March 2005
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.
Pretensions but little more
tarbox-323 April 2005
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)
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)
Scar Tissue
bob_meg10 August 2005
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.
Cool creepy music. Disturbing. I think everything else sucked.
ptomptom24 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a circumspect edgy guy, but Jesus, I thought this thing would never end. The film was put together surprisingly well on their budget, but the plot was thin, very thin. When the big "surprise" ending came, I was like...so what? There was no real tension. It was flat the whole way through. If Hitchcock would have made this film, that ending would have been on about page 10 or 20 and the detective would have spent the rest of the film trying to hide facts from his coworker(s), the girl and her mother. If writer/director was not going for the Hitchcock effect, I apologize. The problem is, I couldn't figure out what impact this film was suppose to have on me. Sorry.
The music was very cool. Multi-layered. Creepy. That's why I gave this film a 3.
The music was very cool. Multi-layered. Creepy. That's why I gave this film a 3.
Waste of time and effort
okieindian19 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
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...
Beats Soderbergh's SCHIZOPOLIS any day of the week
charlytully12 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
An outstanding achievement for such a low budget film
jeanna-110 March 2005
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.
More realistic look at this film
travis-j-rodgers16 March 2005
I've noticed that some people have rated this movie a 10. Others have said it's one of the worst films ever made. The truth is somewhere in the middle. If the budget of this film was actually 7K (pounds or dollars?), then it's a very impressive achievement. That said, it's not nearly as good as El Mariachi as some have suggested.
The film moves slowly through the first 20-30 minutes and it's unclear what's really going on. Yes, a cop is investigating a series of murders, but what's really going on? As the film progresses, some things fall into place...but not all of the pieces. Some of the scenes are head-scratchers. What's up with the little girl and her mom? I didn't see a reason for them to be in the film.
As for the technical aspects of the film, the music is very good in a few instances. For the most part, it's terrible and inappropriate to the action. The cuts back and forth do not bother me; it actually provides a fairly suspenseful climax, which was the best scene in the film. The acting is of decent quality, with no outstanding performances. Overall, the film is a 7/10. If you want to see a bad movie, skip this. If you can stand a slow-moving noir, then check it out.
The film moves slowly through the first 20-30 minutes and it's unclear what's really going on. Yes, a cop is investigating a series of murders, but what's really going on? As the film progresses, some things fall into place...but not all of the pieces. Some of the scenes are head-scratchers. What's up with the little girl and her mom? I didn't see a reason for them to be in the film.
As for the technical aspects of the film, the music is very good in a few instances. For the most part, it's terrible and inappropriate to the action. The cuts back and forth do not bother me; it actually provides a fairly suspenseful climax, which was the best scene in the film. The acting is of decent quality, with no outstanding performances. Overall, the film is a 7/10. If you want to see a bad movie, skip this. If you can stand a slow-moving noir, then check it out.
moody B movie
danielleh-131 March 2005
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
