A pile of hemorrhoids, - uncomfortable crap.
There is so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start.
The direction is all shaky cameras, weird angles, mono cuts to colour etc. Nothing wrong with that you may think, expect that this is not between scenes or to add sense of perspective. This was just to say that 'my goodness, life in a newspaper office is a fast paced, chemically fuelled trip don't you know'.
I have in the past despaired at those Daily Mail types who moan every time a shaky camera is used but inducing headaches amongst your audience detracts from the content. Moving everything around constantly, and I mean constantly, only draws attention to the fact that there is nothing worth watching at the centre. By not allowing the audience to watch the actors you are forced to listen to the god awful script.
The script or lack thereof is the other major failing. The director, Mary McGurkin, informed us that the script was improvised but presumably the idea of a Fleet St editor, shagging the proprietor's wife and the ensuing power struggle for the direction of the paper was the basis for the funding. Some filmmakers can use improvisation to develop performances and create something great, Mary unfortunately can not. The problem is that the narrative is more akin to a Jeffrey Archer novel than a biting piece of satire. Armando Iannuci, Bird and Fortune etc clean their shoes with scripts like these.
I would honestly say this is one of the most annoying, self knowing and sanctimonious films for sometime, possibly (but probably not) all time. I have never seen so many walkouts, (this was a Gala premiere remember) especially when the content was not in the least bit shocking or challenging.
There is a kernel of a funny satire but it is, like most kernels of corn, it is trapped in crap. Just another rubbish British comedy.
There is so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start.
The direction is all shaky cameras, weird angles, mono cuts to colour etc. Nothing wrong with that you may think, expect that this is not between scenes or to add sense of perspective. This was just to say that 'my goodness, life in a newspaper office is a fast paced, chemically fuelled trip don't you know'.
I have in the past despaired at those Daily Mail types who moan every time a shaky camera is used but inducing headaches amongst your audience detracts from the content. Moving everything around constantly, and I mean constantly, only draws attention to the fact that there is nothing worth watching at the centre. By not allowing the audience to watch the actors you are forced to listen to the god awful script.
The script or lack thereof is the other major failing. The director, Mary McGurkin, informed us that the script was improvised but presumably the idea of a Fleet St editor, shagging the proprietor's wife and the ensuing power struggle for the direction of the paper was the basis for the funding. Some filmmakers can use improvisation to develop performances and create something great, Mary unfortunately can not. The problem is that the narrative is more akin to a Jeffrey Archer novel than a biting piece of satire. Armando Iannuci, Bird and Fortune etc clean their shoes with scripts like these.
I would honestly say this is one of the most annoying, self knowing and sanctimonious films for sometime, possibly (but probably not) all time. I have never seen so many walkouts, (this was a Gala premiere remember) especially when the content was not in the least bit shocking or challenging.
There is a kernel of a funny satire but it is, like most kernels of corn, it is trapped in crap. Just another rubbish British comedy.