User reviews

This movie can only be viewed as some sort of "what not to do when shooting a movie". The constant cutting and shifting leaves one feeling physically ill. I watched this movie with another person and we both experienced the same symptoms. A headache, strained eyes and eventually a strong urge to throw up.

The pity was that this movie was kinda promising. There is probably a big market out there for a satire of this kind demonstrating the type of spin that goes into publishing a red-top. However the director doesn't seem to want to do that and the end product is a 100 minute music video.

The acting was also pretty dire, having wondered "whatever happened to Jennifer Jason Leigh" for the first few minutes of this movie, I soon realised why i hadn't missed her.

The final nail in the coffin though had to be the resolution. Absolutely awful, I have never seen such and obvious attempt at a directorial get out of jail card.

One of the most black-hearted films I have seen, this is not one I would recommend to others. If it was trying to be the film equivalent satirical TV comedy such as Absolute Power or Bremner, Bird and Fortune - perhaps with a little of the great State of Play thrown in, then it failed miserably. Firstly, it's just not that funny. There are several laughs to be had, mostly because of Lucy Davis' excellent comic acting; there are not enough for it to be classed as a comedy. There is some moderately good satire on the tabloid press, but the film is just trying too hard to be edgy. The first way it tries to do this is by jumping from camera to camera(all of which are at an unsettling angle) and from normal film quality to CCTV-esquire film. This is continuous throughout the film and is instantly annoying. But it's main attempt to be edgy is through a nasty and quite ludicrous twist which destroys any previous good will toward the film. It appears to be self-consciously trying to shock. The characters are highly unsympathetic and one-dimensional. In their defence, the actors are generally good. But overall this is definitely a film to avoid.

There is hardly a shot in this film that lasts longer than 2 seconds. MTV style plus plus. A formal choice made to stress the hectic and crazy world of tabloid journalism. The cast is good, but when people get so much visually fragmented and reduced to mere short visual and aural stimuli it's difficult to care at all for them. Foul language is omnipresent and the ending is ludicrous. At least some of the film is funny as absurd headlines for tomorrow's edition of the "Rag" are discussed and a battle for power and control between the chief editor and management breaks out. A big headache is more likely what you take home from this experience than insight, concernment or merely a good time. Textbook example of style over substance.

This is a shame. Great cast (why aren't these people on our screens all the time?), completely wasted. The direction in this movie is the worst I've ever had the misfortune to see - the camera is constantly moving, often rotating round so actors are at angles, or zooming. Combined with extremely quick editing, it makes it difficult to tell which actor is which, let alone what their facial expressions are. This would be excusable perhaps if an inexperienced director tried it for one scene, but it's the entire movie. I suppose the attempt is to convey the pressure and fast pace of a newsroom: instead, it conveyed to me a headache (a good director would allow the actors to do some of the conveying emotion: the direction more or less screams look at me in every scene, to the extent the participant I was most aware of was the camera).

Putting aside the direction, the improvised script does not produce a comedy. The cast do a good job of conveying some relationships between the group, some amusing, but really asking them to improvise a script of one liners in a few weeks was always insane and this really could have used a decent scriptwriter. The audience I was in laughed twice. The original concept isn't bad, the cast try hard and are good, but the director never gives them the chance to salvage this. Avoid.

As a newspaper journalist myself, seeing this film was almost a duty. By the end of it, I wished that I enjoyed a different vocation.

The script is unremarkable, slightly below average with all of the clichés surrounding journalism pandered to. The plot is almost non-existent, it was difficult to fathom what the film was actually about other than ticking the boxes on how the man in the street views journalists.

What really grated, and which actually gave me a headache, was the way the film was shot. Jaunty angles and quick-cut editing abound. This made the remake of 'Rollerball' look sedate by comparison. One can only assume that the editor or director has recently been dumped by someone with photo-sensitive epilepsy.

Jennifer Jason Lee, Malcolm McDowell, Kerry Fox - what were you thinking of? A terrible, terrible movie. Avoid at all costs.

If this is meant to be a fly on the wall appreciation of a newsroom it is hard to imagine that flies can stick to walls, rather than fall to the floor suffering from some severe form of motion sickness. I could barely watch 24 minutes of this picture, as my head was spinning out of control. If I had watched it any further I may have ended with my face in the toilet bowl.

Yes this movie is quite unconventional in it's use of short shots, and rapid edits. But its lack of convention adds to its almost complete lack of veiwability (I may have invented that word). I do not know why someone would revert to a nauseating MTV style of editing with such a subject. Some reviewers here have said it adds to the fly on the wall experience. But flies on a wall have one perspective, because they are sitting still on a wall.

A sense of pace can be portrayed by other means. Such as using shots that last for more than two seconds depicting people moving frenetically, and exploiting these actors' abilities to show stress, see Broadcast News. I can't imagine this would be too much of a stretch for the cast in this pic.

It is a pity that many of the audience would not be able to watch this movie given the stellar cast and subject matter. JJL is one of my all time faves, and I was quite disappointed that I could not see more than 23 minutes and 55 seconds of this pic. I watched this movie on DVD, and I've never asked for money back; but on this occasion I shall.

If you want to have a good time that results in you being very sick at the end of the night, I recommend a night at the pub. This movie does not provide you with a good time.

0.5/10 Unfortunately IMDb doesn't allow for a 0.5 rating.

I felt ill after 5 minutes.

I have no idea if the storyline is good or not.

What genius decided to use that cool-jerky-docu-style camera work for the entire movie ????

I have homemovies that are easier to view than this.

The opening scene in the office was a little amusing and I wondered whether the character would brazen it out when he received the call from his boss.

It's a pity really because based on the opening scene(s) I would have viewed the entire movie.

This had to be turned off after about 15 minutes. It is easily the worst shot thing ever. If you want a masterclass in generation tension without moving the camera, check out The Collingswood Story. If you want a masterclass in HOW NOT TO MAKE A FILM, watch this sh*t. Rupert Graves is pathetic as some sort of Pier Morgan character - about as intimidating as a dead moth. Truly poor, feeble effort. The director should be shot, and so should everyone else involved for not telling her this was a bad style to adopt. I purchased this dung from Blockbutser for 1.99. It wasn't worth 0.01p. You want to see this sort of thing done well - improvised script, floating camera, and so on - see Festival or One for the Road. This joins Confetti in the 'bin' list. Get lost, the lot of you

It's sad that directors with no talent use odd cinematographic techniques in an attempt to disguise the film's inadequacies. What's worse though, is the stupid sheep-like gullibility of some of the viewing public who interpret such "novelty" as daring and mold-breaking. Mary McGuckian is plainly a person devoid of talent, vision or taste. Do I hear you say "But it's refreshing to see a director explore new ideas"? Yes, it is refreshing but this no-talent director has simply exhibited pretension and stupidity - any fool can do that. Mary McGuckian is not going to be part of cinema's future. - She'll just slink into the shadows of obscurity and those few who remember her so-called efforts will regard the experience with revulsion. I would have rather been able to sum up Rag Tale as MINUS 10 but 1 out of 10 was the lowest I could award. 1 out of 10 is clearly undeserved praise and might (horror of horrors) encourage this egregious blight on cinema to direct another movie. - I (as I'm sure most other people will) shudder at the thought.

Somehow, I imagine this breathtakingly inadequate director could even mess up sweeping the streets, so I won't suggest she takes this up as a profession. - If she did, walking around her home town would be a whole lot harder than it is now.

Ed Wood's movies were so mind-bogglingly superior (even at their worst) to this woman's pathetic offerings that I feel embarrassed at those who awarded Ed Wood the soubriquet as "worst director ever". At least we could watch his films and laugh at how amateurish they were. In Mary McGuckian's case, we can't even do that. There's nothing in Rag Tale to raise a smile - not even a smile of poignant sadness. What in heaven's name was the producer thinking about to allow this claptrap to be released? He should be jailed for inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on the audience. Don't watch this film within 5 hours of eating food - it'll come right back in your lap.

At film festivals there are times when one is forced to watch absolutely bad films.This happens as a particular time slot is booked for a bad film.If there are no other films on other slots,one is inevitably forced to experience a lousy film.This is also the case with British film called "Rag Tale".I encountered this film in 2006 at Women's International Film Festival Film de Femmes Creteil,France. There are many reasons why Irish director Mary McGukian must be blamed for making an absolutely bad film.This is a film which does not make any sense.No one knows for sure whether it is a thriller or a drama.The acting is so horrible that one can claim that at any given day amateur theater actors would give better performances.Malcolm Mcdowell has been wasted in this film.He appears as an actor who is forced to work beyond his glorious days.American films would be a great choice if somebody has to watch better films about print journalism.Rag tale is a silly story which has neither head nor tail.

A previous report slating this film was holey inaccurate in the assessment if you see this imagine something Across between His Girl Friday and Requiem for a Dream, The editing is brilliantly edgy, I was sitting in the first three rows and the director warned we may take 15 Min's or so to get into it but I got into it instantly. The bitchy nature of the dialogue which was improvised was funny with Sessions and Stockbridge particular stars at this ( There Start in improv obviously paying off ). The twist at the end was good. This Is a film that I will recommend to everyone. I will probably see this film twice more in the cinema as It is going to be one of those ones that the more you see the more you get out. The Score was excellent, the editing brilliant the Story good the Script/Dialouge wonderful. Kerry Fox was immense as "Peach". Sessions Patterson Hart give hope to what should be Lucy Davis is minus her orange Glow and Not Forgetting Malcolm Mcdowell & Jennifer Jason Leigh who were great.

At its Gala premiere at the Edinburgh International Film Festival, Shane Danielsen, the festival's artistic director, commented how British television was very good when it came to satire but not the same could be said for British film and he felt that "Rag Tale" went some way to redress that imbalance. He certainly has a point. "Rag Tale", with the help of a very impressive cast, takes a very sharp look at the British tabloid press but with a somewhat different spin (literally!) on proceedings.

The main story, which is played out during the week of the 2004 US presidential elections, is that the Chairman/Chief (McDowell) of "The Rag" newspaper discovers that Eddy, his Editor (Graves), is having an affair with the Deputy Editor (Leigh) who also happens to be the Chairman's wife. The Chairman uses the affair to blackmail the Editor into shifting editorial policy and turning "The Rag", which has always maintained an anti-royal stance, into a pro-monarchy paper so as the Chairman can curry royal favour in his attempt to gain a knighthood. The problem, however, is that the Editor refuses to play ball and a power game comes into play pitching Eddy and his editorial staff against the all-powerful Chief.

The spin taken by the film is that firstly, although McGuckian, provided a very basic script with written "guide lines" as to who, where, & what as far as the plot was concerned, the script was completely improvised by the cast. Secondly, to reproduce the frenetic atmosphere of the newspaper room, McGuckian has opted for constantly spinning cameras capturing the characters in revealing close-up at every conceivable angle. Sometimes this method really works, i.e. when the Chief first confronts a stunned Eddy about the affair (this scene went down well with the audience) but it's fair to say that at other times the moving camera-work does become somewhat overwhelming and I found myself wishing that there were a few more "still" moments as a counterbalance.

Where the film does work, however, is in getting the story across. This could easily have been a case of style over content but thanks to the worthy cast and some very good editing, we get to see the daily machinations of a tabloid newsroom where spin is everything. It's obvious that a lot of research has been done, i.e. the scene showing the old Fleet Street tradition of "drumming out". There are also some very funny moments such as the proposal for Buckingham Palace to become the "people's palace" and the various uses it could be put to – "Carphone Warehouse or multi-storey car park". There's also a brilliant soundtrack.

Prior to the gala screening, McGuckian asked the audience to bear with the first 15 minutes of the film. Despite this, several people did walk out (after 15 minutes), some looking slightly nauseated and perhaps this film should carry some sort of warning, in the same way that we are warned about strobe lighting in film. The people I spoke to afterwards said that once they had got used to the style, they did enjoy the film.

Many people walk into a cinema with preconceived ideas/certain expectations about the film they're about to see. To its credit, "Rag Tale" totally turns the tables on any such preconceptions and does not make for easy viewing. It's a very brave style to adopt and it's very doubtful that you will see another film like it this or any other year. It's a film that will provoke some sort of feeling in you - even if it's only one of nausea!

A pile of hemorrhoids, - uncomfortable crap.

There is so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start.

The direction is all shaky cameras, weird angles, mono cuts to colour etc. Nothing wrong with that you may think, expect that this is not between scenes or to add sense of perspective. This was just to say that 'my goodness, life in a newspaper office is a fast paced, chemically fuelled trip don't you know'.

I have in the past despaired at those Daily Mail types who moan every time a shaky camera is used but inducing headaches amongst your audience detracts from the content. Moving everything around constantly, and I mean constantly, only draws attention to the fact that there is nothing worth watching at the centre. By not allowing the audience to watch the actors you are forced to listen to the god awful script.

The script or lack thereof is the other major failing. The director, Mary McGurkin, informed us that the script was improvised but presumably the idea of a Fleet St editor, shagging the proprietor's wife and the ensuing power struggle for the direction of the paper was the basis for the funding. Some filmmakers can use improvisation to develop performances and create something great, Mary unfortunately can not. The problem is that the narrative is more akin to a Jeffrey Archer novel than a biting piece of satire. Armando Iannuci, Bird and Fortune etc clean their shoes with scripts like these.

I would honestly say this is one of the most annoying, self knowing and sanctimonious films for sometime, possibly (but probably not) all time. I have never seen so many walkouts, (this was a Gala premiere remember) especially when the content was not in the least bit shocking or challenging.

There is a kernel of a funny satire but it is, like most kernels of corn, it is trapped in crap. Just another rubbish British comedy.

Here is an all star UK, USA cast all at sea with a great fun idea ruined due to the fact that the camera can't keep still and a director who does not rely on a witty script and the good actors she has.The other problem is that films that deal with that days new's forget that very shortly afterwards or in my case 5 years later, it was bought in a boot sale, very few will remember any of the names and news of that time. A subplot of the editor screwing the chairman's wife is fun but does not go anywhere so one is left with very little. This, despite it's star cast, failed to do any box office here in the UK and most of it would be lost on a USA audience. An all round sad flop that could of been really fun.

This is the first film i've failed to sit through.My head ached, my eyes hurt, and boy did i feel sick! After 20 mins i had to give up. It's a shame that such a top rate cast was let down by the insane camera-work and direction.Quick cutting has it's place,Natural born killers and the Bourne trilogy are enhanced by it because it furthers the story, but you are still able to actually focus on the characters.This rubbish is so quickly cut you are't given the chance to appreciate the acting or follow the plot.The director should definitely never work again. Unless you are a depressed masochist avoid this at all costs.

Why is every scene filmed at an angle I can do better filming on my smartphone. Makes me feel seasick so didn't watch it all the way through.

I've long held the theory that the level of sexism displayed on a DVD's front cover is directly proportional to the dreadfulness of the film itself. I should have been warned off by the stiletto clad legs on display on this DVD, but I was foolishly blinded by the impressive cast list. It's a shame I didn't heed my own inner alarm system, because I would have saved myself an episode of eye strain from the godawful editing and boredom from the godawful script. This DVD would serve the film industry and mankind to better avail by being used as a drink coaster.

Utterly awful.

Rag Tale is an unusually pacy and clever film. As a person who gets bored fairly quickly, I found it gripped my attention and was one of the few films I have seen recently of which I haven't been able to guess the ending. It keeps the viewer on their toes with clever camera movement and editing which really makes you feel like a fly-on-the-wall of the office. I almost felt as if the story was told from the viewpoint of a character similar to Debbs who listens in to everything that's going on. The music was great and I would definitely buy the soundtrack, something which I normally wouldn't even notice.

The director makes you dislike M.J. from the start, but ultimately you can empathise with her situation. The ending had a real effect on me and is something which I won't be able to forget easily.

The performances of Kerry Fox and Simon Callow are particularly memorable because of their comic aptitude, and I would certainly recommend this film as I will go to see it again when it's on general release. People who don't like this film probably can't follow it's pace and relation to current affairs.

The first thing you notice about Rag Tale is, as everyone should know by now, its editing which is sporadic to say the least. But then again, I never heard anyone complain about The Bourne Supremacy and, with hindsight, the latest Bourne film 'Ultimatum' what with Greengrass' 'all over the place' approach to material that does demand urgency but not the sort that should solely rely on appealing to a crowd with a severe case of ADD. But, somewhat surprisingly, I enjoyed Rag Tale a lot more than I thought I would even if I had to look away from the screen as the film wore on due to the repetition of the insane visual approach director Mary McGuckian adopts.

I think there is a certain menace flowing throughout Rag Tale, a certain air of danger that you do feel could explode and come to the forefront at any point in the film. This is very much a British film revolving around a British-run tabloid newspaper and I would be very surprised if anybody overseas even has a sniff of a positive opinion on this film. But then again it would be too easy for anybody to label this 'junk' merely because of the camera work and editing. I was hoping the film would develop into something a little more than a mere 'fly on the wall' look at a British run tabloid newspaper and I sort of got what I wanted. The film dibs and dabs into a few stories, the primary two of which revolve around a man's affair with a woman who's the boss' wife and a stab in the dark attempt at a major scoop which threatens to bring down boss man Richard Morton's (McDowell) company and honour altogether.

But apart from being an uninteresting and somewhat obligatory story about a mere office love affair, the film paces these two stories and ties in the relationships between the other office workers during nights out as well as everything including friendships and feuds that occur within the office's space. But the situation involving Eddy Taylor's (Graves) affair with 'MJ' Morton (Leigh) is established in the exact manner you expect it to be before the gruff voice of Richard informs Eddy that he is onto him in a chilling warning that immediately makes the audience wary of that situation and the danger of that predicament; that the boss is onto him. It is a battle that will not let up and one that will contribute to the quite shocking ending after the final act.

But Rag Tale is a film of great 'Britishness'. The topics each character talk to one another about involve our Royal Family; bashing our Royal Family; the debate on foxhunting and the immigration into our nation of Eastern Europeans. Whilst the film never gets to a level that renders it political, the film does pause its narrative briefly to focus on a few scenes that critically knock the Royal Family whereas a few minutes later there are scenes which patch up the criticisms with another character offering an opinion on the Royals in a positive light. The most interesting thing to note here is that the sole character most concerned with the criticism of the Royals is MJ herself, the American.

As a newspaper, 'The Rag' of which Rag Tale is born epitomises the short, sharp and somewhat brutal nature of tabloid newspapers. Other papers such as 'The Sun'; 'The Star' and 'The Mail' are 'disposable once the day has finished'; short, sharp reads on the train going to work or wherever. The papers cover stories that appeal to specific demographic groups about celebrities and other such meaningless things. The aesthetic for this film is of a very short and cut-throat nature, echoing the industry and the times we inhabit right now when it comes to wanting what we want to read, when we want to read it - usually about the most meaningless of things to do with beauty, humour or petty politics and right now.

But the film does not get away without criticisms of its own. Rag Tale uses an old, age old idea revolving around an office affair perhaps disappointingly as its catalyst. It also allows us glimpses of newspaper cuttings on walls and information on television screens give us a glimpse of a story but nothing stone wall creating an ambiguous atmosphere in retrospect to timeframe, something I wished the film could've maintained. Alas, there is reference to President Bush and particular Manchester United Football Club players which 'places' Rag Tale in a specific period of time, that being late 2004 when a date on an email is revealed. Rag Tale will not be for everyone and I doubt anybody who's non-British will take to it; that said I doubt if many Brits. at all will take to it – in a way, that is sort of a shame because despite the editing Rag Tale does have things on offer.

Set during the momentous U.S. election week of 2004, this satirical story follows the editor of The Rag (Graves) – a London newspaper - as he embarks upon an affair with the Chairman's wife (Leigh) and follows him as he tries to save his job over the course of the week.

With subtle side-swipes at the establishment, this film delves into the seedy underworld of tabloid journalism. Improvised performances from an established ensemble cast helps RAG TALE create a realistic world inhabited by ruthless, back-stabbing hacks, intent on their own advancement.

The frantic pace of a news room is conveyed by the editing style, which features many more cuts than usual, and with hardly a still moment, the camera flits effortlessly between HD and mini-DV, creating the type of realism you would associate with a fly-on-the-wall documentary. The stunning visuals of the film are complimented by an energetic score and exploratory sound-design. This is heightened by the improvised dialogue and sense of inter-character relationships that build from the start to their shocking conclusion.

More cutting and experimental than television shows which attempt to cover similar ground, RAG TALE convinces us that what we read in the newspapers is very often manufactured by an elite group of people who care more about themselves than correctly reporting the news.

A film for the younger audience, this is one that will leave you thinking.

I enjoyed it actually.

The camera-work was shocking. Truly terrible. It gave me a headache after a few minutes.

That aside, I thought the acting was good, the pace of the dialogue worked, there was (contrary to the other comments on here) a reasonable plot, I found the banter quite funny.

The ending, after the twist, probably wasn't necessary - the explanation of how the twist happened reduced its impact for me. The conversation about the photos was poignant though, they should have just gone with that.

My main problem was JJL - she just wasn't convincing. Replace her with someone else, and you'd have a much better film.