The Low Down

This movie was horrible. It was not interesting at all. They should have paid me to see it -- it was otherwise a waste of my time. There were a few funny bits in the movie, but that is all. The highlight is one of the main characters exploding in a fit of rage, and even that is grabbing for a high point.

This is a suprisingly affecting, and understatedly powerful portrayal of growing up. Its a about the need for answers, finding our way and some role in life, as we begin to explore ourselves making the transition from young adulthood to the next unknown. Personally, to me, its about finding our place in the world and being contented with that. The film doesn't provide any answers though, just a breathtakingly poignant, some might say pointless examination into that stage in our lives. The film is stylistically directed. Certainly there are similarities to the work of the 50-60s by the french new wave of Truffaut, Godard and co, in its simple yet effective (and seemingly) improvised use of creative camera technique i.e. freeze frame, slo mo etc. The performances (apparently improvised - well some of it) are absolutley astonishing in their realism. All the characters have an amazing rapport and chemistry with each other - you really do believe they have been friends for a lifetime. Thraves is marvellous but no more so than the other cast. So realistic are they, that no doubt you will have met similar individuals at some point in your life.

A mini masterpiece of a debut from a promising director. 9/10

The lives of a group of lonely London losers comes under the spotlight in Jamie Thraves' film 'The Low Down'. As a director, Thraves is very keen on breaking up the flow of images, and disconnecting them from the dialogue, a trick annoying enough when Soderbergh does it, but frankly plain odd in this film, which is otherwise unassuming and generally low-key. The script is good at the sort of dialogue spoken by people who don't really know each other very well, or like each other very much, but who pass the time in each other's company for the want of anything better to do, and there are some funny moments. But there's little real warmth on show, and little explanation provided for the characters's disaffection: pointless moody shots of overflying aircraft aren't really adequate for this purpose. Overall, it's a bit of a waste of the beauty of Kate Ashfield, and a forgettable movie.

Best summarised as middle-class kidults slum it in NE London, this film would really have benfitted from a script which explored the characters rather than indulged their essentially predictable and uneventful lives. Relying far too heavily on improvisation, the director and the cast have forgotten that, although they might well like each other's company, it really isn't sufficient to record great stretches of repetitive, dull conversation and present it to the world as entertainment. It may sound realistic but anyone can sit on a bus in Hackney and tune in to snatches of dialogue - doesn't make it interesting. And this film desperately needs a point of view that highlights the evident absurdities of its protagonists, rather than accepting them at their own evaluation.

The actors look older than the immaturity of their roles would suggest. The female lead is passive to the point of pure stupidity - it's exasperating to watch. Could the actress really have had any input into the development of her character? Any self-respecting woman beyond the age of 15 would have put the male lead (her boyfriend) in his place for endlessly failing to show up and throwing chairs about when he can't have a drink - what a jerk. And why does the male lead have such difficulty in moving into a vast and expensive-looking flat? Most of us in NE London are still renting at 30 and would give up cheapo accomodation any day. Seems something of a spoilt boy dilemma as opposed to the rights of passage moment I think we are supposed to view it as. And where's all his money coming from? These blokes are supposed to be commercial artists - of a sort - but this aspect of the script is totally unconvicing. Anyone who works in that line of business would be baffled by the length of time (framed by the central relationship which we assume lasts a few weeks?)it takes two men to produce a couple of papier mache models.

As for the other characters, we learnt whether or not they were having a cup of tea and where you cold buy dope/coke. That's it. And honestly, there's better conversations going on in any pub in Dalston, any night of the week, and you don't have to pay to take part.

The sad thing is, the genre the director is working in is very interesting and the British film industry urgently needs to develop an identity of its own. So, we do need dramas that explore our own way of life in an inventive way. But this isn't going to be the start of the revolution.

This has a fresh "new wave" feel to it. It's filmed in an inventive and original style that makes it very watchable for most of its duration,

though there are influences, most notably Ken Loach with a hint of Mike Leigh on the acting side and Nicolas Roeg on the experimental way it's directed. It's not a total success it does seem to run out of steam towards the end, but it's still a very impressive first feature and hopefully the start of a long and interesting film career for the director. (7/10)