opiumwillow

Filmed on a relative microbudget, I was surprised this film was chosen by Slingshot as their first project, as the script really doesn't hold water and some clumsy dialogue really grates on the nerves.

As far as British films go I suppose it could have been a lot worse, and while I really didn't enjoy it the performances pull it through, right before it gets plain silly. In terms of the negative feedback that it's racked up here, most I agree with, however complaining that this film is awful because it's "like watching a play" is one of the most idiotic comments I've ever read, you're really telling us more about yourself then the film! It was based on a play which is usually no bad thing (have a look at The Big Kahuna for a good example of a one-set movie)

This was one of the best films shown at the 2007 Edinburgh Film Festival, and it was definitely encouraging to see something of this calibre produced from such minimal funding. Just goes to show if you have a strong script and lead actors then everything else becomes superfluous.

The songs are of a very high quality and really carry the film which would probably collapse without them. It's not really a musical though, as the songs played generally don't have anything to do with the plot, it's a film featuring a lot of musical performances which isn't the same thing.

It's a great project and leaves you thoroughly heart-warmed, and I hope it goes on to find the success it deserves.

I don't have particular feelings for or against the work Michael Moore does, so hopefully you won't see this as a pro-Moore attack on naysayers. The arguments and supporting evidence presented are are weak and blown-up, and in most cases hypocritical. A typical example of this is juxtaposing footage of Moore arriving at the Oscars, while nearby protesters demonstrate against the war. Trying to imply that Moore is just a glory-seeking filmmaker who would rather hobnob with celebrities than join in the protest, the point falls flat when you consider how the now infamous acceptance speech made by Moore (and the film itself) did more for the Anti-war cause than a street protest ever could. I am all in favour of films to counterbalance the polemics of Michael Moore, but please don't accuse him of manipulating footage and then do exactly that, adding sinister music. A badly-made film presenting a poorly-made case.

I too am a great Woody Allen fan, and was very nervous about seeing his attempt at a 'serious' work. I'd read mixed reviews like everyone, and went fairly open-minded. After seeing this film I can not understand how it could garner a single positive review. Featuring the worst central performance I've seen in a long time (Rhys-Meyers) who gave his most wooden performance yet (and that really is saying something). A pretty boy and nothing more. The plot was bizarrely simple and well-worn, one-dimensional and utterly unengaging. Scarlett Johansson, bless her, tries but just looks ridiculous bringing such over top sultriness - the first time we see her, lighting a cigarette and giving the camera a Look made me laugh out loud. Completely devoid of humour, Allen has made a film about English Upper Class that he obviously knows nothing about. Attempts at intriguing themes of luck etc fall flat on their face with a big thud. For God's sake, don't encourage him to make more of this kind of cinema.