Mojo

'Mojo' is a story of fifties London, a world of budding rock stars, violence and forced homosexuality. 'Mojo' uses a technique for shooting the 1950s often seen in films that stresses the physical differences to our own time but also represents dialogue in a highly exaggerated fashion (owing much to the way that speech was represented in films made in that period); I have no idea if people actually spoke like this outside of the movies, but no films made today and set in contemporary times use such stylised language. It's as if the stilted discourse of 1950s screenwriters serves a common shorthand for a past that seems, in consequence, a very distant country indeed; and therefore stresses the particular, rather than the universal, in the story. 'Mojo' features a strong performance from Ian Hart and annoying ones from Aiden Gillan and Ewan Bremner, the latter still struggling to build a post-'Trainspotting' career; but feels like a period piece, a modern film incomprehensibly structured in an outdated idiom. Rather dull, actually.

Well it's true. This could have been really good. Most of the cast are good actors, the setting and plot were intriguing, the characters interesting and the score was good but for some reason it failed to come together.

A few comments about the good things first - the music over the opening credits was beautiful, really beautiful. The actors' performances were all good, Hans Matheson especially surprised me with how good he was given how bad he'd been in Dr. Zhivago.

The bad things - the plot didn't really hang together, the script was badly written and even the characters that weren't supposed to jabber did at times. It was also unfortunate that there was only one sympathetic character in the whole story and that the characters as a whole were a little underwritten. The directing was a little flat and if you can get Harold Pinter into a film at least use him for more than five minutes.

I like crime films, gangster flicks, those sort of things but this is definitely one not to recommend. Except for the first fifteen minutes which I would watch just for the music over the beginning credits and the appearance of Silver Johnny I would avoid this unless you're a fan of one of the actors since all of them get a decent amount of speaking time.

A clever, economical play founders and collapses in its author's adaptation, in the most obvious way-- Butterworth indulges a character's psychotic eccentricities until a viewer cringes each time he re-enters the picture. Too bad he knocks the film so badly out of whack-- the two stooges whose interplay so delighted NY stage critics become spear-carriers in this rewrite. Harold Pinter has a talent for playing creeps, but the films one redeeming feature is Ian Hart, a good actor who here has gravity and authority, but he can scarcely keep the camera, so inclined is Butterworth to let the nutcase role to show off some more.

I watched this film on late night TV and I was hooked. I didn't know Aidan Gillen at the time but his presence was dominant in the film. Whenever he laughs in the film, his eyes never laugh. His character is totally unpredictable - you never know what he's gonna do next. Gillen's acting makes the film tense.

And personally, it was a fun to watch Ricky Tomlinson playing his father.

Worst film ever made?! I think not! It is different, I'll give you that, but the performances and feel of the film is quite haunting and stay with you long after. Jez Butterworth has great vision and this was (originally) from a stage play (which is always a risk) but it comes to screen very well. I feel its an underrated movie which needed more attention when it was released at the cinema. I do hope it gets the DVD release it deserves. The cast do a great job, it has become a kind of cult film to people I know have seen it. I am disappointed by the only review there was of it, so felt compelled to write my own. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but if you like films which are a bit different, try it.