SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

charlytully Unlike the Anglophobic negative reviewers who've spewed their venom all over SOHO SQUARE earlier, I will offer a comment on the basis of having watched the whole movie TWICE (the second time with rookie director Jamie Rafn's solo commentary, which is just as succinctly intelligent as the film he made). I easily rated this a 7 after my first viewing, and was only intending on following the director's commentary for five minutes, but Rafn had me hooked for the a 77-minute repeat which was better than deja vu. In the interest of full disclosure, my wife just watched this once and gave it a 4, but I think she only rated MEMENTO 5 or 6 at best. It is galling to see some of the same people who probably degraded this neo noir novella of a flick elevate artsy fartsy crap like Steven Soderbergh's equally experimental SCHIZOPOLIS to a 7.2 average. After all, with a quarter-million dollar budget, much of Hollywood, and an actual nationwide release aiding him, Steve still lost 96% (!) of his working capital on that misbegotten mishmash (going by the sub-$11K U.S. box office). Brownie points should not be heaped upon excruciatingly boring pretentious BS simply because someone is afraid they are too dumb to "get" it!Anyway, aside from the thriftiness of miracle-worker Rafn's $10K total expenditure, a knowledgeable viewer would think there's MORE money being spent here than meets the eye, even given an AVERAGE direct-to-video filming budget. (If you do a quick survey of these sort of titles on IMDb, you'll see they run about a million bucks each.) What the director has done is to use his extensive knowledge of location possibilities in England generally (and London, in particular), plus a lot of friends in right places, along with a canny knowledge of what can and cannot be done with his resources, to milk two thousand per cent more entertainment from his material than Soderbergh did four years earlier with his. Couple this with Rafn's Mac editing wizardry, with a nod to an equally experimental, dissonant soundtrack from Chris Read that perfectly fits the images on-screen, and you end up with something I enjoyed more (at least on a minute-by-minute basis) than the ENGL1SH PATIENT. I've viewed a dozen directorial debuts in the past month, and this is by far the most promising.

tarbox-3 I couldn't really come to care about the filmic aspects... I was too distracted by the script. The script--if there was one-- was so completely devoid of a ANY merit, I soon couldn't get past it. I quit noticing a nice looking or well framed shot here and there because I was too busy agonizing over why such poor choices in both the script and production had gone unchecked. In the meantime, there are enough hokey but still creepy bits that it was generally a downer -as I guess it was supposed to be--but not through any mastery, just through really bald clichés.After I watched it, I went to find out more about why it had ever made it to my local rental place; I wanted to know who was to blame. I signed up for this account specifically because I'm so angry with this movie.yuck!(I've thoroughly enjoyed, with some reservations, any number of Dogme95 movies... I wasn't expecting a Hollywood Blockbuster)

danielleh-1 I was going to give this a seven, but after re-watching it with the director's commentary I give it an eight. Its VERY hard to believe that it was made for £5000... it certainly doesn't look, feel or sound like so cheap a project. It doesn't have the 'floating fuzziness' of other DV features I've seen (this may be, as the commentary suggests, because some of it is film?) Whilst the performances are occasionally creaky and the exposition filled with ellipses, it manages to make a merit of its weaknesses as it moves further and further into willing abstraction. Its ultimately a film all about Mood and, in a way that belies its budget, it makes its tight-framed abstract photography, eerie score/sound design and thoroughly non-linear approach to its narrative its strength. The result is similar to the style of Don't Look Now, both use the flimsiest of thriller conventions (and this one is pretty weak) to launch off into fairly abstract film making territory. A masterpiece it is certainly not, but as a no-budget B-film, I found it remarkable. Confident enough in itself to relish its slow dark mood in the face of narrative necessity, film students take hope here.

George Parker "Soho Square" is a British drama which follows a troubled homicide detective as he sorts through personal issues while working on a serial killer case. An unfortunate piece of work, the only redeeming thing I could find between the credits of this flick was the shorter-than-usual 78 minute run. A choppy mess of poorly lensed and poorly edited scenes with horrible color and music, "Soho Square" seems to be an attempt at art house fare which just went wrong. The story is muddled and confused and sorts itself out only when it's too late to care. Character depth is superficial, nothing scenes are dragged out for no apparent reason, plot holes are everywhere....I could go on...and on. However, suffice it to say, this film is not recommendable. I happened to rent it mail order by mistake and only stuck with it because it was in English and I could type these comments while it was running. (C-)