Last Night in SoHo

[Head Gardener]

I saw this tonight and enjoyed it, I take on board the criticisms about the plot twists and Mister Six's analysis but as no great fan of Wright's films, I really thought this was his best one so far. I loved the all the neon and especially the mirror image stuff near the beginning and even though there was a lorra lorra Cilla, I thought it was a gas, baby!

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

I will say this though, never knew George Harrison's 'I Got My Mind Set On You' was a cover version.

That's the twist!

[convulsivespace]

I thought this was great until the very end. Even the twist with Ms. Collins being revealed as Sandy was fine, but immediately turning her into a sociopath who tries to kill the two main characters while the house implausibly burns down around them felt like something suddenly inserted from a lesser movie. I think they wrote themselves into a corner and didn't know how to end it. Still quite enjoyable though.

The characters are flat and implausible. Jocasta being a shallow bitch I was fine with, because Mrs Six works in fashion and has told some horror stories about the deeply toxic people in that industry and the environment that enables them. But Puppy-Eyed Boyfriend was ridiculously accommodating towards this girl he'd met, what, a couple of weeks before and been on a date with once? Not saying he should have sacked her off, but I think even the kindest-hearted person would have probably had her sectioned after she nearly stabbed someone in the head with a pair of scissors. His auntie believes in ghosts? Why not have him believe in ghosts, and be desperate for some proof of the supernatural due to his own family tragedy? Because he, like everyone else, has no real inner life - he's just there to act out the plot, like a fairground puppet.

He was the most plausible character in the movie. I was also a fey teenager who would have pretended to help hunt ghosts and/or ignored a scissors attack in order to accommodate Thomasin McKenzie.

[Retinend]

Did someone call for a wall of text?

I sincerely loved it. I can see how for some it is simply too ludicrous and full of plotholes to be convincing as a story, but it's a great film as far as I'm concerned. Wright's best film to date.

So the plot concerns Eloise "Ellie" Turner who discovers that she has a psychological connection with a woman,  Alexandra "Sandie" Collins, who lived and died in 1960s swinging Soho. She was a prostitute and was murdered by her pimp, Jack. Ellie almost goes insane with visions of the murder, and the johns, and her abusive pimp. This almost drives her to become a murderer herself, since she starts to attack visions of things that just aren't there. Finally, she is able to prove once and for all that she is not insane. Believe it or not I haven't spoiled anything and I will try to avoid spoiling anything.

I was gripped throughout. At first you are watching a Mike Leigh-esque family drama. Then you are watching a gritty 60s film like Alfie. Then you are watching a psychological thriller. Then you are watching a slasher film. There are the obligatory nudge-nudge wink-wink references all over the place: to The Shining, Pinocchio, Get Out(!) and more besides.

It's executed in such a way that obvious plotholes didn't occur to me because I was so invested in the main character's mental state. Wright does an excellent job of "making the case" that Ellie is simply crazy; that we never truly fully suspend disbelief in what we see... So when it gets to the point that she is frantically trying to make sense of her story to the police, I actually sympathized with the sceptical police officers rather than the character whose eyes I had been living through.

Then, in the last third of the film, we have the love-it-or-hate-it "twist", which reveals how the "case" that Wright has been making has been, in fact, insane. Every presumption I had been going along with had been mistaken.  What I mean is, that even if you remain skeptical of Ellie, as I was, you are still taken in by the red herring and unprepared for the truth.

Anyways, I basically liked the plot, although it was whatever you want to call it: pulpy, trashy, unsubtle. I see where the criticisms are coming from but this is just a question of taste. I personally, love it and I appreciate how much care was taken in making it. Not a hack! 😤

Mostly, what stays with me is...

1. loads of really really good music. The best soundtrack in any film I can readily recall. I just love Bacharach and Dionne Warwick, so please indulge me on this.

2. stunning performances by the two female leads (and the whole cast, really) - quite convincingly becoming one another over the course of the film, though beginning as two very distinct entities

3. connected with that, how choked up I got at the final scene in among the ruins of the place they shared pain in (I am trying not to use spoiler tags here). Anyway, the film sort of "ruminates" on various possible themes -  the quest for fame, abuse of women, historical fact vs fiction, out-of-body experiences, violent revenge, and probably others. But it ends on a note which is surprisingly tender and humbling - that we are all vulnerable people no matter how outwardly aggressive we can be - and how sometimes the heroes and villains are real life are hard to separate (this applies to both the men and women in the film).

and finally, I'm now excited to watch Scott Pilgrim and Baby Driver now when I hadn't really paid them much regard before

[Mister Six]

Both Scott Pilgrim and Baby Driver are tons better than Last Night in Soho, I reckon, although they're very different sorts of film, so I don't know if you'll enjoy them as much, or at least in the same way. Deffo worth a crack though. Maybe watch Baby Driver first, to segue into the more OTT world of Scott Pilgrim.

[olliebean]

I liked Scott Pilgrim but couldn't get on with Baby Driver at all. This seems like it should be more in my wheelhouse. Probably going to watch it this afternoon.

[Dr Rock]

Mister Six has nailed everything wrong with the film, apart from the London geography sometimes not making sense, and it really wants the sixties to be twenty or thirty years ago rather than 50+ year ago 

Spoiler alert

Auditioning to Downtown? Then it must be 1964 ish. Placing an 18 year old of those days being 74 these days. A main character didn't seem that old.

[close]

I really loved the first half, 60s London, clubs, dancing, it looked fantastic. Thomasin McKenzie is great. The feel of it is not overshadowed by Edgar Wright's tricks*. But there is a plot and an alleged twist,

Spoiler alert

but I totally didn't imagine the two main suspects would turn out to be what they were set up as.

[close]

And

Spoiler alert

christ, getting that amount of blood out your linen would be a nightmare (literally, metaphorically yes). And you probably wouldn't get away with it (discuss).

[close]

loads of other problems. It gets very repetitive, which leaves Elly**, well wearing. It's a real shame because it if had delivered on the first half it would be a classic. But it's not, I and would stab to death anyone who thought 'will this do?'

I don't mean I want to stab to death Edgar Wright, to be clear, it was a joke.

*Hack, someone whom makes soulless product for the money, a definition I remember is like a London taxi - a Hackney Carriage - who takes the shortest route from A to B. It does get thrown around willy-nilly though.

** How could someone called Eloise not be aware of the song? Ruined the movie.

[Dr Rock]

Oh and SoHo is in New York (South of Houston), Soho is in London.

[Waking Life]

Spoiler alert

Auditioning to Downtown? Then it must be 1964 ish. Placing an 18 year old of those days being 74 these days. A main character didn't seem that old.

[close]

Spoiler alert

Not sure if you're referring to Diana Rigg's character, but she was 82. Given she was in The Avengers in the 60s, the timeline does work pretty well (likewise, Terence Stamp with his 1960s roles).

That said, I don't disagree with your points. The obvious plot misdirection was there her mother might have been somehow involved, but it was obvious the timelines would never work for that, albeit perhaps the grandmother was a bit of misdirection.

[close]

[Dr Rock]

Just nitpicks

Spoiler alert

Ok, she may have been a sprightly 74 year old... but Terence Stamp's character? He was on Vice Squad, played by Henry Cavill (38), but lets assume he could be 24-27 at the youngest, what with job and appearance. Which would make him 80-83 (Stamp's age, admittedly). But how many 83 year olds are cruising round Soho bars at night? It's possible, but he'd be quite the outlier.

The idea was conceived in 2007 apparently, and if this had come out in 2010 and you could knock ten years off Sandy and Lyndsey's ages it wouldn't raise an eyebrow (Ol' Lyndsey would still be 73ish though). Why not set it in a vaguer time so it could be 2010? The only thing, I think, that gives it away is Elly's modern phone. Though they had similar big iPhones etc in 2010, so they could have fudged it more if they wanted to. I suppose it could be set in 2016, any reason why not?Then at least I can knock five years off Sandy and Lyndsey's ages.

[close]

[Retinend]

No one is wearing masks, so it has to be set in pre-covid times - at least 2019. Let's just say it's set in 2007, and the phone is an anachronism.

[Dr Rock]

No one is wearing masks, so it has to be set in pre-covid times - at least 2019. Let's just say it's set in 2007, and the phone is an anachronism.

I'll go with that.

Another thing,

Spoiler alert

watching again, it's clear Jack murders Sandy. Elli sees it, even if we don't. Why wouldn't she see Sandy stab Jack, like it was? Jack's still on top when the knife stabs down, and the blood squirts from below.It's not fudged enough for doubt, so they have to disregard this scene to make the ending work, and that's not good film-making.

[close]

[Retinend]

The plot is fairly ludicrous. I think it's inconceivable that Elly would never have learned the names of certain characters (a contrivance necessary for two separate plot twists in two completely separate cases)

But the effect of watching the film was completely immersive for me. I went along with it. You say that Elly should have seen what was really happening, but perhaps her visions were exactly as unspecific as what we saw on screen?

[Dr Rock]

Well what we specifically saw on screen was

Spoiler alert

Jack still being on top, stabby stabby, blood spurting upwards because the victim was on the bottom. Then we again see Sandy on the bottom (looking dead-eyed at Eloise).

[close]

[beanheadmcginty]

Henry Cavill isn't in this film

[Mister Six]

Yeah it was the bloke who looked a bit like Cilian Murphy.

Would have been impressive if he could get Cavill for a one-scene performance though.

[Dr Rock]

Henry Cavill isn't in this film

No? Who's this then?



And if it's not Cavil, who does play Young Lyndsey? It seems an uncredited role.

[Retinend]

Well what we specifically saw on screen was

Spoiler alert

Jack still being on top, stabby stabby, blood spurting upwards because the victim was on the bottom. Then we again see Sandy on the bottom (looking dead-eyed at Eloise).

[close]

ahhh well you see there's a line of dialogue that has echoes of Obi Wan Kenobi about metaphorical death that covers the reason behind such a "vision"

(I'm still not explicitly spoiling anything, but if, dear reader, you're this far down in the thread and you mind indirect spoilers, then it's your problem)

[Talulah, really!]

No? Who's this then?



And if it's not Cavil, who does play Young Lyndsey? It seems an uncredited role.

Sam Claflin.

"Punter #5"

[Mister Six]

No? Who's this then?



And if it's not Cavil, who does play Young Lyndsey? It seems an uncredited role.

According to Wikipedia, "Sam Claflin as a young Lindsay (credited as Punter #5)".

EDIT: Bollocks, beat me to it.

[Mister Six]

Apparently he did play Henry Cavill's brother in Enola Holmes, though, so you're not the first to spot the similarity.

[Dr Rock]

It's a fair cop.

[Mister Six]

I see what you did there.

[Dr Rock]

The point stands, Clofflin is 34. Playing at youngest 25. Making his character 80plus when he's wandering around Soho at night.

[Mister Six]

It doesn't seem entirely unlikely to me. Old cop with nothing else in his life, wandering around the old haunts until he drops.

What bothered me was his characterisation - why was he being such a creepy, evasive old bastard to an innocent, clearly upset young girl? But I'm just repeating myself now.

[lipsink]

I remember seeing Sam Claflin in 'Their Finest' a few years ago and being 100% sure throughout watching that it was Nicholas Hoult. Maybe he just has one of those faces.

[Small Man Big Horse]

It doesn't seem entirely unlikely to me. Old cop with nothing else in his life, wandering around the old haunts until he drops.

What bothered me was his characterisation - why was he being such a creepy, evasive old bastard to an innocent, clearly upset young girl? But I'm just repeating myself now.

The barman called him "Handsy", which suggests that he was now (or always had been?) quite dodgy, perhaps not as bad as the other men Sandie encountered but still likely to be unpleasant in some circumstances.

[Mister Six]

Mm, true, but being gropey with women, while obviously horrible, doesn't really explain why he'd act the way he did around a girl who's accusing him of murder.

Like, just go "Actually, Sandie survived and had been murdering blokes for years, but I was never able to prove it."

[Dr Rock]

Mm, true, but being gropey with women, while obviously horrible, doesn't really explain why he'd act the way he did around a girl who's accusing him of murder.

Like, just go "Actually, Sandie survived and had been murdering blokes for years, but I was never able to prove it."

Doesn't he say 'Sandy got just what she deserved'

Does he mean 'she got away with it?' JUST SAY SANDY DIDN'T DIE.

[13 schoolyards]

All the plot points that don't quite fit together and contrivances the characters have to go through to provide the shock twists wouldn't really have mattered if Wright was the kind of film-maker who really does make delirious visually excessive films that just carry you along. It's part of his marketing that he does, but in reality he's much better at low key stuff - he's a really good comedy director because he can set up and sell small gags in an entertaining and coherent way. It's when he tries to stage big crazy sequences where you're like "what a wild ride!" that he fumbles.

This is clearly meant to be some nutty euro-gallo freak out film (how many times did we need to see Elly breaking down in public while those around her looked shocked?), but he's just not the director to convey that level of insanity - or any level really - and if you don't have that then the plot holes are really obvious.