Inland

Clearly, the Director is no young Orson Wells.

Whether his talent will out remains to be seen.

As it is, it is a dull, depressing film, with little to commend it.

Note to Directors, both young and old: I realise occupants of cars have to be lit, but, please, not by the interior light!

My review has been rejected because it is "too short", and requires 247 more characters...

I find that perverse: when I was studying (French) films at University, my Prof always told me that, when analysing a film, "Less is more", and that, if a film was poor, you should say so as succinctly as possible.

I think I've reached my quota now - a "quota quickie"!

I heard about Fritjof Ryder's first film through a podcast and became interested to see it. The film is by no means perfect but for a very young director it is a landmark achievement to have a feature film in the BFI film festival official selection.

One of the film's main problems is that the nearly unknown cast are completely overshadowed by the brilliance of Mark Rylance, and whilst his performance is very strong I would question if his stardom may have stolen the limelight from the films other actors, particularly the quieter performance of Rory Alexander.

The film does benefit from brilliant sound design, which gives an ominous presence to the film, as well as some interesting direction and cinematography which gives the film a unique style and a new take on suburban/rural En.

The film is far better in the parts where it is not swamping itself too heavily in it's influences (David Lynch is the clearest here) and Inland could benefit from less ambiguity and more narrative.

Overall, I am interested to see what Fritjof Ryder could do with bigger budget and more experience under his belt. Don't dismiss him as a poor filmmaker yet; he has to start somewhere and personally I think Inland suggests that he has more to offer in the cinematic world.

You know, I can't quite decide whether it's great that Oscar winning knight of the realm Mark Rylance continues to support independent cinema like this, or was "Bridge of Spies" (2015) just a fluke and he really isn't much better than a jobbing actor for whom parts like this are his true bread and butter? Lately, I've begun to err on the side of the latter. In this rather dreary drama he is garage owner "Dunleavy" who welcomes home a young, unnamed, man (Rory Alexander) after that man's time in some kind of an institution. It's clear there is a bond between the two men, but the nature of that bond is unclear and gets little clearer as this short feature leads us on a tale of rural mysticism the would seem to suggest that Alexander has some visceral relationship with the forest, with nature, with the creatures that live within. Where has his mother gone? She has been missing for ages. Has she just eloped or has something more sinister occurred? It poses questions, this film, but answers none leaving us with a rather rambling and muddled narrative with some beautiful photography, and an easy on the eye Alexander (when he smiles) but otherwise it's all just a bit of a non-story with lots of driving and the rather curious "Faerie Queene" establishment that may be a tad more than the local brothel. Perhaps I just wasn't on Fridtjof Ryder's wavelength for this, but as I left the cinema I could see I was not alone in my bemusement. It rains a lot too!