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.

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.

I've noticed that some people have rated this movie a 10. Others have said it's one of the worst films ever made. The truth is somewhere in the middle. If the budget of this film was actually 7K (pounds or dollars?), then it's a very impressive achievement. That said, it's not nearly as good as El Mariachi as some have suggested.The film moves slowly through the first 20-30 minutes and it's unclear what's really going on. Yes, a cop is investigating a series of murders, but what's really going on? As the film progresses, some things fall into place...but not all of the pieces. Some of the scenes are head-scratchers. What's up with the little girl and her mom? I didn't see a reason for them to be in the film.As for the technical aspects of the film, the music is very good in a few instances. For the most part, it's terrible and inappropriate to the action. The cuts back and forth do not bother me; it actually provides a fairly suspenseful climax, which was the best scene in the film. The acting is of decent quality, with no outstanding performances. Overall, the film is a 7/10. If you want to see a bad movie, skip this. If you can stand a slow-moving noir, then check it out.

"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-)