Censor

Censor isn't really a horror, nor is it a good slasher. They also tried to build up Giallo-like atmosphere, but I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, since it does not correspond well with the time period the film is set in.

The story is very short and basic, there's minimal acting and not that many details to make it interesting. There are no supporting characters, the main lead isn't particularly interesting as well. The ending is predictable and understandable (no ambiguity whatsoever).

It looks like they have used the setting only to oversaturate the film with hipster imagery, never going further with it.

Censor isn't a bad film, it just isn't interesting or engaging, they never try to show anything besides the visuals that serve no purpose other than eye candy for the hipsters (or how are these called today, IDK).

I'll start by saying I am very glad I did not watch the trailer before viewing this film, and it is easy to see why some felt duped. To be clear, this is NOT a thriller. Do not go into this film expecting answers. Instead, it is an often-surreal (and in my opinion fascinating) look into a character's downward spiral. It is stylish, well-acted, and especially considering this is Prano Bailey-Bond's first feature it is surprising brave and bold with its narrative decisions. The film's greatest strength is its ambiguity, I also think this is where the film loses a lot of people.

I see a lot of reviews here complaining that this film has nothing to say, which is absolutely not true. However, it doesn't spoon feed you a concrete moral message such as "censorship = bad". It instead confronts these topics from multiple angles, both showing how ridiculous the conversation was around film during the video nasty era and also showing how a film can actually affect a vulnerable person's mind. I wouldn't go as far as to say it'll blow your mind with it's insightfulness, but it is at least trying to give the audience something worth thinking about, and I appreciate that.

Also, 84mins! Perfect length for a film like this, in fact some of my favourite films of the past couple of years have been below the 90min mark and I hope this trend continues.

This is a typical hyped British film from the BFI and Film Four the main money attached to the movie. As is typical of hype, it usually covers up average or if not, just plain rubbish. Is this rubbish? No, but it is a full length debut so it 5/10, if it were a seasoned director it would be a 4/10 at best. There is nothing new, no new technique, no new plot twist, not even new scenes. Just a very average film that pinches from 70's gore fests to the present (Stranger Things, Color Out of Space). It's not even well directed or acted in places, it's just the critics keeping the board of the BFI, Film Four happy so they can keep having the jollies together. If you have an hour and half to kill for an average film where you enter with nothing and expect nothing, well this is for you.

I liked that sorta Cronenberg-like atmosphere they created. Also as somebody mentioned here, the film definitely felt like giallo in some places, that weird feeling like you're watching from behind a wet window glass?

Good lead actress.

But the screenplay was bad, especially the ending.

I really wanted this to be great. And if you were, like me to believe the press then the director is on a par with Kubrick. But, alas it's all just hype, hype, hype. And that is so damaging for the director it's untrue. Do the press not care about her career. Many of us now feel conned by being lured in to believing we were getting something expectational and sadly all we got was something mediocre.