A very tricky film, not destined to become a mega hit. In my opinion it is a great success, but if someone doesn’t appreciate developments under the surface, it is perceived as boring and pretentious. It concerns a love triangle between an accomplished man and a younger woman and the same man and heroin. The woman is not unattractive, but heroin wins. We are familiar with this scenario with pretty famous protagonists in the past like Jimi Hendrix or Janis Joplin. The movie succeeds because the information is supplied in ways that we participate in the disaster. The main character is played by a very fine young actress who has inherited the best genes of Tilda Swinton. Her mother has a supporting part and is not easily recognizable without her trademark blonde/platinum hair. There is excellent color photography and some inventive elements like showing the bedroom window view during the few sex scenes. Sex and drug use occur off screen. The viewers witness the consequences. Some guy called Martin Scorsese is one of the executive producers and Neil Young appears as a radio interviewer! Watch the credits people.

Joanna Hogg’s The Souvenir sounds like pretty standard fare on paper – a young film student, Julie (Honor Swinton Byrne), finds herself in a dysfunctional relationship with an aloof heroin addict (Tom Burke). Early in the film, Julie and her fellow students discuss the shower scene from Psycho, touching on the fact that not all has to be seen in order to understand what has transpired, a technique used throughout Hogg’s film, where time appears to be elastic and exposition is rarely used to explain a situation or develop a character. Based on its slow tempo and unusual rhythms, this probably isn’t a movie for everyone, but is worth watching for anyone interested in a unique approach to a seemingly mundane storyline.

Were I objectively rating this, 1-star would perhaps be harsh. There is interesting raw material here in terms of theme and form. The latter, using a fragmented, transitory and opaque style, was by no means unsuccessful. Unfortunately it was a bit too pleased with itself for doing it. It deliberately jumps through time, requiring the viewer to fill in the gaps. This is fine but, given the film is style over substance, it makes the emotional aspect feel self-indulgent and detached. The film also does the pathos in a way that is simultaneously light yet heavy-handed, the film equivalent of spending two hours to look like you've 'just thrown something on'. Overall it's a film that's far less than the sum of its parts. By the end I positively despised it and I rate it accordingly.

Wonderful acting - reminds me of some good French movies - I love the subtle interaction between the characters

The story's presentation is mediocre, failing to reach the attainability of a profound statement and pulling together enough of its production elements that would alienate my attention as a viewer. My interpretation of the movie is a semi-biographical account that wants to swim in the deep end of the pool of emotional feelings and intellectual thought. Still, it hasn't been fully developed yet and can only reach the waist-high end of the swimming pool.

Id rather watch Mr. Bean.

Sometimes I'm reminded that professional reviewers get paid to sit through a film, and even if the film is bad (and this one is bad,) the fact that it's different than most films is significantly interesting enough that it piques the interest of the professional reviewers. But as a consumer, I have to admit that I would like to have the 40 minutes of my life that I invested into this movie refunded. It was just so painfully boring, I gave up. And I can really enjoy slow moving thoughtful films - this one is just slow moving.

I found it difficult to follow what was going on. It often wasn't clear how much Julie knew about Anthony's manipulations. E.g. all of a sudden she's bursting into tears in a hotel room; is it because she suspects something? Then why did she agree to go in the first place? Later she accuses him of something and he goes on some tangent about a car bomb and I have no idea what he's talking about or if she's falling for it. I appreciate that the film didn't heap on exposition like we're complete idiots, but this went too hard in the other direction.

Solid if predictable film about multiple kinds of addiction.

Being co-dependent with a heroin addict is not love. And the protagonist never learns her lesson.

The critics might like it. I didn't.

Hogg isn't playing by the typical rules of a coming of age drama, which makes "The Souvenir" feel more raw and honest than you'd expect.

A very conflicted 3 stars. It's self indulgent, but engaging for other self-indulgents like myself. A plus is Hogg's expressiveness in cinematography and script validation of a privileged, passive, conflicting self-abusive female character who would be completely overlooked in any other context. You will not see a character like this so thoroughly drawn in any other film. It's legitimate to question this focus - until we look at the self obsession and misogyny of the staple of almost all movies available. Her overuse of visual cues (the kissing of her lovers hands, for example) became frustrating in context - but maybe that was the directors point? My main issue was with the ultimate pseudo martyrdom of a narcissistic abusive character for a passive, female foolish one in the end. Multiple times Hogg presents a counterpoint to the passive acceptance of this financial emotional dedication abuse, through the contrasting alive-ness of her hosted parties, in the kind concern of her fellow students - which she carries through right to the end - and in the hints of the friends of her 'boyfriend'. The seeming redemption-martyrdom ending foils it all. She's learnt nothing, she's lost everything, her ego has given in to her sincerity. Ironic then that this is Hogg's most successful mainstream film. Her main character is privileged and wants to acknowledge that, but the film is still about this privileged, self-defeating character... And in her - as what seems to be semi-autobiographical reflection -Hogg seems to want to eat her cake and to have it too.

I've no idea what to expect from this - I have a sneaking suspicion I'm going to roll my eyes at the superficial artiness of it all, but let's see shall we? Hmmm - "superficial artiness" is a bit harsh because it's basically a true story, but it doesn't feel very relatable ("extraordinary and excoriating" is pretty accurate). Julie (Honor Swinton Byrne) is at film school when she starts up a relationship with Anthony, a charming older man (Tom Burke) who turns out to be a bit of a wrong 'un - it takes us about five seconds to realise this, but it obviously took Julie/Joanna considerably longer to cotton on because of her sheltered/privileged upbringing. And basically that's all that happens as we dip into various aspects of Julie's personal, family and school life as the relationship progresses. And well, it's generally all rather dull. I think it's "true to life"ness is part of my problem with it. The detail is well observed, but it's just not of interest. And in the interesting bits, Julie is just so naive and manipulated that I felt very uncomfortable watching it - if only half the details are an accurate portrayal of Joanna Hogg's life then it's certainly a brave choice to put them on screen and I hope she found the process therapeutic. I, on the other hand, did not and spent a lot of the time feeling either uncomfortable or bored. I do think it's well acted, but not really in a style I appreciate. It's the first major role for Honor Swinton Byrne (Tilda Swinton's daughter) and she looks comfortable in front of the camera, even though she's often called upon to look uncomfortable. Tom Burke is also good - Anthony's an interesting character because you just don't know whether you can believe anything he says. There's also a very young looking Richard Ayoade in it - seeming somewhat more natural than he normally does (but the bit he's in is extremely boring!). And the good news is that Tilda actually does some normal acting in this - unlike another of her films I've very recently endured. It also features Tosin Cole (Ryan from Doctor Who) but I totally didn't recognise him! I know there's a phrase for this style of film but I don't know what it is - I'm pretty certain it's not going to be "blurry, 'look at me being true to life' nonsense" though. And yes, I'm being harsh but I really struggled to keep interest in this or to like any of the people in it and it all feels very "art school". I can see the argument that it's a "good" film though - in addition to being well acted it feels very artfully designed (whilst at the same time being true to life) and Joanna Hogg obviously has a good eye for a shot. All in all, this really hasn't put me in the mood for the film I've got to watch next - it was a massive struggle to complete which has taken me about ten sittings over six months. I do hope it worked as therapy for Joanna, because it certainly didn't work as a film for me - it feels like one for the art critics and no-one else. But if you're still determined to watch it after that ringing endorsement, it's available to stream on Netflix or to rent in all the usual other locations.

This film was good 👍🏼

Notting Hill crossed with Jeanne Dielman, with all the joy of the later and the depth of the former.

This is very much a subtle and arty kind of a film. The scenes move slowly and its mainly a sort of depiction of the main characters sense of personal isolation and their ability to open up to one another, thus its about secrets and trust to a if but small extent. I can certainly understand why some may feel this is a bit bland and dull - its not the sort of film that exactly grabs you visually, its safe to say. This will only really appeal if your ok with dialogue heavy and perhaps introspective type films, I'd have thought. There is a fair bit of talk about film, i.e. film analysis, although its a drama rather than a documentary, of course. I can also see why its regarded by some as rather self indulgent. I thought it was ok, slightly good and perhaps thought provoking but not entirely captivating. Its a thoughtful watch which won't appeal to all but for what it is, its ok.

Many frames look like paintings in this movie, but nothing remarkable though, nor anything revolutionary. The story is quite simple in itself, however we don't get much access to the characters' feelings, what a shame ! Music is used quite poorly even though it is nearly absent from the movie

Hogg paints what she knows; clipt, brooding, beautiful aristocrats who know their rules and the need for secrets, stiff upper lip and the need to quietly stray. Here two bright young things find their way in life and to a neatly suppressed authentic voice. Hogg makes the clearly autobiographical point through Julie, joining film school, aspiring to give authentic voice to the people of Sunderland she's never met (but has photographed some art conceptual work there), and sets up this pretence to be ridiculed. Julie's counterpoint is Anthony, who knows who he is and his voice. Dressed in a wonderful heirloom dressing gown, perfect suits, bow ties and cuff links at all times; he's foreign office old school with a proper old school habitual heron addiction, as one does; a Patrick Melrose for the diplomatic corps. The heroin provides the mild tragedy in this otherwise comforting world, a world where Julie's film teacher knows she doesn't have to think about budgets. It's beautiful, arrogant and libertarian; who doesn't want to be found passed away in the toilets by the Wallace Collection?

Pretentious twaddle. The whole thing is just very beige - nobody says or does anything interesting. The courting couple are unconvincing - why would anyone be interested in them? They just mumble a lot of the sort of pseudo-intellectual piffle that you'd be unlucky to hear at a 'stayed-up-all-night-first-year-of-uni' experience. Very tedious.