Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address

1. What I learned from watching a range of short films at the festival is that even within a genre, you can still have a variety of ideas and concepts that still relate to the genre. There were a lot ideas explored in each genre, and each had their own way of being linked back to the genre. Also within a short movie, you can create a large impact in such a short time by just knowing what to include to carry your narrative along. I also learnt a lot about films that were set in different periods of time and how you can show this with your characters and mise-en-scene. I also found that short films are very experimental, and their storylines/what we see is often unexpected, and pushing the boundaries of the normality of feature films.


2.1. Liked the simplicity of the storyline - we didn't take it too seriously but it still had elements of drama, which was a nice quality

2.2. Like the role-reversal in the two characters, and each character was different at the end to how they started.

2.3. Like how we only have two, distinct characters in the film. These characters are very interesting and lively, and we interacted with them more.

2.4. At the beginning we thought we had the narrative sorted, but it completely flipped about halfway through and gave us an unexpected surprise

2.5. I thought the acting was good and that they really took the narrative into perspective when acting it.

2.6. I think the whole thing was quite simple (shots, editing, mise-en-scene, location etc.) which really made us focus on the storyline and what the actors were saying, and it also gave a simplicity to the film.


3.1. I thought the acting on screen was good but at sometimes it felt a bit staged and unnatural.

3.2. The slow cinematography contradicted with the dramatic storyline and almost enhanced the tension. The camera enhanced the audience's experience as everything was detailed and linked together.

3.3. The storyline was brilliant - and we're not revealed the truth until the very end and it leaves the audience guessing.

3.4. The end resolution wasn't a good one. This film is subverting the idea of a happily ever after and leaves the audience what's going to happen after the end of the film (could be led to a sequel).

3.5. I like how the ending didn't exactly tell us what had happened, they just presented us with a pair of baby's shoes so the audience has to guess what that means. It makes us think rather than presenting us with the whole storyline/idea.


4.1. The music really enhanced the film and fitted in nicely with the context and location. I like how the digetic sound became synchronous sound as it fitted in with the context and what's happening in the film.

4.2. The mise-en-scene in the film was brilliant, as there was nothing that looked out of place. Everything looked as if it could have been there in 1959, which really added to the audience's experience as it made it all the more believable.

4.3. The mise-en-scene told a lot of the story - the fallen tub of pills and the cigarette slowly burning out showed how his life was ending (because he commited suicide).

4.4. I like how we had some context of what period in time this film was set, as it showed us what life was like in 1959.

4.5. I thought the narrative.storyline was brilliant. It was a bit expected when he started talking about the son that he's never met, but the cruelty of what happens at the end is heart-breaking.

4.6. The acting was brilliant, as it wasn't overdone (because they could have made it so dramatic) and it looked believeable. They could have been placed in any time or place and it still would have been believable.

4.7. I like how we had some context


5.1. The comedy was enhanced by the very long shots. Because the character was running somewhere, the long shots made us see how long he is running (almost feel like time is stretching on forever) which might have been how the character was feeling.

5.2. The funky, electronic music, stupid questions and alcohol contrasted with the tense atmosphere of a job interview which was pretty comical.

5.3. The jokes seemed to carry on for a long time (helped by long cuts). This was comical in some circumstances, but in others it just seem to drag on for a bit.

5.4. Because the film was in French, we only received the humour by the subtitles, which kind of took away some of the verbal comedy

5.5. I thought the narrative was pretty simple, which was good as it had more time for comedy

5.6. I thought acting was quite good, although everything was over-exaggerated because it was a comedy. Some of the circumstances were only there for comedy (so they weren't very realistic) but the acting made it comical.


6.1. I loved the concept/narrative of this film. It was dramatic with some amazing ideas and shots involved and good to watch.

6.2. I think it was very clever how they filmed this, but at the same time it must have been a challenge. Capturing London with nobody in it truly amazes me because I keep on wondering how they managed to film it.

6.3. The end shot where the man stands on a building and overlooks London was beautiful.

6.4. The drama was heightened when the two characters reversed roles and the supposedly bad-guy died, and there was only one man left.

6.5. I enjoyed the acting as it was believable but dramatic. The characters really intrigued us, and even thought the storyline is pretty un-realistic, we still believed it because of the actors.