Vagabond Shoes (2005) User Reviews (3)

charming, sparkling, uplifting

[Honey-Hoxley · 9/10 · 6 January 2006]

This is just a wee short film, but it's a joy to behold. Iain Glen (you'll know his face, if not his name - he was in Lara Croft: Tombraider, Resident Evil, latterly Kingdon of Heaven as Richard the Lionheart) takes the lead role, and totally engages us in his homeless man's adventure, which has us rooting for him all the way. The staging, music and lighting are stunning, making it quite a magical experience (for us the viewer as well as the character), centred by an excellent, strong performance by a humble man.

Written and directed by "rising star" Jackie Oudney, if you get the chance to see this, jump at it!

Bland effort with an insultingly juvenile twist

[d_m_s · 1/10 · 31 January 2010]

'Vagabond Shoes' is about a homeless man who picks up a suit that a party-goer has dropped and he uses this to enter a very posh black-tie do in an expensive looking hotel. He goes in, he drinks, he eats, he even gets up and sings a song about 'vagabond shoes' and then he leaves. There is very minimal dialogue and so we are just watching him do these menial things. I felt like nothing was happening and it was going nowhere. I also had a lot of questions about the veracity of the events but all queries become invalid when the 'twist' ending reveals that it was all just a daydream in the homeless man's head anyway.

If, like me, you expect a little more imagination in film story lines you might be wondering how such a juvenile idea ever got financed. If, like me, you learnt in Primary School never to write 'it was all a dream' endings then you may also feel cheated by this film and perhaps even a little annoyed that the filmmaker(s) seem to think they can hypnotise you with an expensive looking film and make you forget that a good film needs a good story. How did the writer/director get away with this?

On top of the storyline issues, the film is completely unexciting to watch. It looks expensive yes, but no amount of money can compensate for lacklustre direction. The cinematography while competent was very bland and overall it was more like TV than film. It's much more exciting to watch lower budget short films that are raw and refreshing than a polished but ultimately bland effort, such as this.

Suspicious review & rating for poor short film

[shes_dead · 1/10 · 22 March 2010]

I happened to watch this film for the second time by accident recently, on Sky TV. The first time must have been years ago sometime as I only recalled having seen it before once it got to the end. If I'd have remembered sooner I wouldn't have bothered wasting my time (again!).

This film is so pretentious; it is very showy and has no substance. The story is totally stupid and really boring to watch. The twist has the OMG factor. But not "OMG that was so clever" but "OMG these guys are really stupid."

An 'it was all a dream' ending is shameful. Shame on you pretentious lot who made this tripe!

As for the 'suspicious' review & score I mentioned well, bar this one there are only 2 other reviews on IMDb for this film. One is written by someone who has never ever reviewed another film on IMDb before or since, but seemingly felt compelled to write one for this terrible short film. Part of the crew perhaps? Maybe even the director herself? The review seems to imply the reviewer knows the lead actor as they refer to him as a 'humble man', so it would appear there is a connection somewhere.

As for the "rising star" director, on what star she is supposed to be rising on I don't know as she only appears to have directed one other film and the lack of votes on that suggest very few people have ever seen it.

The ridiculously high rate for this film can surely only be accounted for by the filmmakers themselves voting on their own film. It really isn't worthy of such a high rating.