The Low Down

The lives of a group of lonely London losers comes under the spotlight in Jamie Thraves' film 'The Low Down'. As a director, Thraves is very keen on breaking up the flow of images, and disconnecting them from the dialogue, a trick annoying enough when Soderbergh does it, but frankly plain odd in this film, which is otherwise unassuming and generally low-key. The script is good at the sort of dialogue spoken by people who don't really know each other very well, or like each other very much, but who pass the time in each other's company for the want of anything better to do, and there are some funny moments. But there's little real warmth on show, and little explanation provided for the characters's disaffection: pointless moody shots of overflying aircraft aren't really adequate for this purpose. Overall, it's a bit of a waste of the beauty of Kate Ashfield, and a forgettable movie.

The Low Down can be rated as an undeveloped good idea, not more not less.

The good side of this movie is the effort to capture an transmit the confusion of those years, but it falls hard on that, sometimes the movie captures the esense of that behavior, but those not transmit anything at all. After watching the 96 minutes I was like `so what?', not a single feeling about the film or the characters, characters that just wander, one does not know where they come, where they go, what moves them, you can not make any contact with them just watch the as watching a pst in the street.

I am waiting for the next movie to see where the director goes; it can be a very good thing or jus another empty presumptuous thing.

Best summarised as middle-class kidults slum it in NE London, this film would really have benfitted from a script which explored the characters rather than indulged their essentially predictable and uneventful lives. Relying far too heavily on improvisation, the director and the cast have forgotten that, although they might well like each other's company, it really isn't sufficient to record great stretches of repetitive, dull conversation and present it to the world as entertainment. It may sound realistic but anyone can sit on a bus in Hackney and tune in to snatches of dialogue - doesn't make it interesting. And this film desperately needs a point of view that highlights the evident absurdities of its protagonists, rather than accepting them at their own evaluation.

The actors look older than the immaturity of their roles would suggest. The female lead is passive to the point of pure stupidity - it's exasperating to watch. Could the actress really have had any input into the development of her character? Any self-respecting woman beyond the age of 15 would have put the male lead (her boyfriend) in his place for endlessly failing to show up and throwing chairs about when he can't have a drink - what a jerk. And why does the male lead have such difficulty in moving into a vast and expensive-looking flat? Most of us in NE London are still renting at 30 and would give up cheapo accomodation any day. Seems something of a spoilt boy dilemma as opposed to the rights of passage moment I think we are supposed to view it as. And where's all his money coming from? These blokes are supposed to be commercial artists - of a sort - but this aspect of the script is totally unconvicing. Anyone who works in that line of business would be baffled by the length of time (framed by the central relationship which we assume lasts a few weeks?)it takes two men to produce a couple of papier mache models.

As for the other characters, we learnt whether or not they were having a cup of tea and where you cold buy dope/coke. That's it. And honestly, there's better conversations going on in any pub in Dalston, any night of the week, and you don't have to pay to take part.

The sad thing is, the genre the director is working in is very interesting and the British film industry urgently needs to develop an identity of its own. So, we do need dramas that explore our own way of life in an inventive way. But this isn't going to be the start of the revolution.

I just saw the DVD of The Low Down and it was time not well spent. I'd rather stand in line at the Post Office or buy a goldfish and watch that move around his bowl for a few hours than experience this movie again. There is no story in this movie, other than watching people live their ordinary lives and face their ordinary fears. The main characters are kept very shallow and the viewer has to decide what they are actually feeling. Not a very bad starting point for an intelligent movie if it weren't for the poor acting and even worse camera work. The feeling rises that a few film students have been given a camera and some government sponsored budget to create a picture about how complete losers live their lives. Too bad it was ever released... Rating is a 1 out of 5

This has a fresh "new wave" feel to it. It's filmed in an inventive and original style that makes it very watchable for most of its duration,

though there are influences, most notably Ken Loach with a hint of Mike Leigh on the acting side and Nicolas Roeg on the experimental way it's directed. It's not a total success it does seem to run out of steam towards the end, but it's still a very impressive first feature and hopefully the start of a long and interesting film career for the director. (7/10)