The cinematography is very much like watching a play transposed to cinema, the set (small) scenes and lighting just seems like someone has taken a moderately successful stage-play and done a somewhat lazy transposition to the screen. I appreciate that budgets might have been small, but producing for the stage vs cinema is a very different thing. don't get me wrong, I like the slightly surreal aspects (the parent's dining table) but the execution didn't quite make it, it's just a too too literal translation of the set-design and the lighting-design onto screen which just doesn't work. I don't want to be harsh, because there are precious few interesting indie movies out there but its not 'grand budapest hotel' or 'gods own country'a solid 6, but with a different producer / designer / director then it could have been better. can't really fault the actors at all.I've continued watching, after the 1st 'chapter', it does move into other directions!

Was not expecting it to be like this, but it is a very good movie! Lighting is definitely a strong point in the movie. This is a very good pick, unless you don't like art or is not willing to learn some with the movie. The storyline kept me going, nothing too mind-blowing, nor too simple, and the end was also very good.

If you're expecting the gritty, sweaty reality of rent boys in London, you'll find this movie disappointing. While there are some brief, decidedly homoerotic poses struck by the boys that replicate some of Caravaggio's paintings, the rent boys in this fantasy film are more about the cerebral than the physical. As mentioned several times in the film, they do not like the term "rent boys," preferring to be called "raconteurs."The clients are obviously drawn to the physical beauty of the boys, in particular Harris Dickinson, but (and one must be reminded that this is a fantasy) it is the boys' ability to discuss artists such as Caravaggio in depth that seals the deal, so to speak.One reviewer referred to this as "pretentious 'dibble'". Not sure what "dibble" is. I didn't notice anyone in the film dribbling, so presumably he meant "drivel." I have to totally disagree with that. I found it all to be fascinating and the actors carried it off with marvelous skill.If I attempted to explain what it all meant, I would undoubtedly descend into pretentious drivel. It was somewhat amusing and presumably intended to mentally stimulate the viewer by making it all open to different interpretations. It undoubtedly explored the different forms of exploitation, but not in a way that demands all viewers react in a singular, predictable way.I thoroughly enjoyed Postcards from London and will probably watch it again because, like a painting by Caravaggio, it contains far more than can be absorbed in one glance. I can easily see that it wouldn't appeal to everyone, but it definitely deserves attention as a thought-provoking film.

The only reason to watch this film is Harris Dickinson. He has a boyish charm that draws you into his world. Unfortunately, even he is not enough to sit through this pretension dibble of a film. The style of filming, the colours, the set designs were eye catching, but not as much as Dickinson who with the proper script will one day shine as an actor, perhaps taking on Hollywood. For now, we can hope he finds another Beach Rat where there is a storyline.