London

This is the first of the two travelogues of our anonymous commentator and his companion Robinson, the second one being the awesome Robinson in Space.

Essentially this is a travelogue of London in 1992. It concentrates on locations and issues within London precious to the commentator, and also on the political and social events of the time. The film is shot mostly as stills of the locations visited, and is very well observed. One sequence which lingers for me is the film of the aftermath of the IRA bombs in the City of London at that time, which are eerily beautiful.

The election of 1992 is recorded and commented upon, and the monarchy dont escape unscathed. The writer is very very obviously a socialist, and the commentary is heavily 'Old Labour', but is in turns informative, witty, and thought provoking.

It attempts some major social points, but is preaching to the converted somewhat, this is definitely for the Art House Crowd - You would never see this at a Multiplex. However, is good to see it on film

I gave this 8/10, but Robinson in Space got 10. If you get the chance to see either, do, opportunities are few and far between, and it's made in a very unusual and exiting style.

This film has a hypnotic feel to it, the narrator fits the scene as well as the music. The photography is good to supered. The film maker seem to be on a quest for something, but we don't know what. The images do linger, and the sense of London being a comusuming monster works well. We never see the film maker giving the film a hidden depth,and the narrator makes many references to a unknown person (who lives in Vauxhall). We see a familiar London, but also (and this is the clever part) a strange London. The route master bus for instance, so common, but in this film a strange object - maybe from outer space. I just simply enjoyed in. It nice to see a personal film like this being made, but wonders, who was the film made for? And where could this film be shown. As Lonodn continues to change over this film will become more and more remarkable.

This is simply awful.

It's very pretentious. Constant references to artists and philosophers, even though they are irrelevant to prove the point the narrator is trying to make. Use of the french language for no other reason than trying to sound "fancy".

Some pretty shots, like the recurring theme of water, that was good.

Extreme manipulation of the events that happened in 1992. Conservatives win the election and right after the IRA bombing is shown, almost suggesting that the bombing was a response to the result.

Constantly criticizing the monarchy and conservative supporters. Making it hard to classify this as an excursion film. If it was up to me, I would put this in the "*Author complains for 1 hour and a half straight through its characters about the world he lives in and blames SOCIETY" genre. Yep, its one of those wE LIvE in A sOCieTY BS movies.

Filmed during the election year of 1992, this poignant film presents a very personal, politicised portrait of London as John Major replaces Margaret Thatcher and all seemingly tilts further down into depressing times. If the Conservative government are paralysed with fear and doubt, the IRA certainly are not and add to London's woes on a more frequent basis than I remember. Watching this downbeat, socialist view of London some 15 years after it was shot makes one so aware of just how much has changed for the better. The streets are brighter, people spend more time on them, transport has improved, tourism has roared and confidence and success have replaced the tired old dormitory like city. Ironically, given the tone of this film, it is a little bit of the Labour party, quite a lot of Ken Livingstone, as London Mayor but a whole lot of capitalism at work that has rejuvenated this great city.

I used to visit London since the mid-70s. From mid 70s through the 90s, London was more or less the way Patrick Keiller presented it. Beautiful, charming and dangerous. The Beauty and charm of the city lurked in its history, lore, architecture and diversity of its inhabitants among many other things; while its dangerousness came from its wild and lawless youth and thugs. I recall how risky it was to walk alone into certain parts of the city at night. Whereas London in the early 21st century is totally different from its 20th century version. I remember London in 2005 or around when I visited it last, clean, tidy and safe with all sorts of surveillance devices everywhere. I have no intent to relate this to party politics; but for sure it is high tech, and the will to use high tech to tame and discipline the wild in a huge and beautiful metropolitan, that transformed the city from the Jungle it was to the park it is now.