Edgar Wright's Last Night In Soho

I think it’s been shown at festivals but isn’t on general release until he end of this week (at least in the UK)

This year’s Doctor Who holiday special is looking great!

I literally just walked out of a screening and I’m sitting in my car. So I don’t know that I have a proper perspective, but I freaking loved this movie. I’m not particularly an expert on Edgar Wright’s films, but from what I’ve seen this seems a bit of a departure and I loved it.

While, the iron is still hot, I’ll add that there were some weak characters and decisions in this movie, however, I’ll give it top marks for style and momentum. Some of the plot twists were not difficult to foresee, but I wasn’t spending time worrying about where the movie was going as I busy was enjoying the ride.

Finally caught this with my son last night and we both loved it. Pretty much same take as @mono: A couple of questionable character decisions, but it’s a tense, stylistically interesting, really well done movie. Once again, Edgar Wright hits it home. Surprised there’s not more discussion about this.

How horror like is the movie? It looks really, really cool, but I don’t really like too much splatter-horror unfortunately.

I watched a trailer when I was in the cinema, I had the feeling they showed off everything, not to say they spoiled it… is there anything left if you already watched the trailer? I am in the mood for punishing marketing for their trailers. I just watch the trailers and call it a day.

I saw this with my daughter, whom is a huge Baby Driver fan, and I think she thought it was good, but I just thought it was OK. I’m kind of dying to hear others thoughts. My daughter is extremely resistant to Horror, and although there is an eventual crecendo of some splatter, the majority is just creepy/spooky, and she survived. The music from the 60s was, of course, really great. It was the least “Edgar Wright” movie of his movies, I think.

Spoilers?

There were too many jump scares for me to call it “effective” horror, and I started telegraphing them after it happened twice. I didn’t like that the audience was lied to about a significant plot point, and I had guessed the end twist up until that point. I think my main issue with this was that it’s both a glamourisation and condemnation of 60s London in Soho, at the exact same time. The atmosphere, style, and music was cool as hell, but the grossest things were going on in the background. My daughter liked that aspect, but it left me too conflicted. Also, London taxi drivers are insane!

It’s not really horror, more psychological drama as things unfold. I didn’t even think of the creepy elements as jump scares, they’re just ghostly figures.

I liked the fact that it was a glamorization and and condemnation of 60’s Soho. Period movies often focus on the stylistic and cool elements of time periods, unless they’re focused on a historical negative event. We often have nostalgia for the cool while ignoring the less fun elements of our own histories.

They gave away more than I’d have liked, but there’s a lot of detail that doesn’t come across and I still found the story that unfolded interesting and mostly unexpected. Other than the fact that you’re clued in that things aren’t going to stay “fun” for the lead character.

Just saw it today and didn’t really care for it. I like the main actress from Leave No Trace and JoJo Rabbit but the film as a whole is totally forgettable for me. For some reason I always hope the next Edgar Wright film will be good but it never is. The only one I like is Shaun of the Dead I think (and maybe Scott Pilgrim).

Wow, I saw the movie last night and loved it! The whole mood started off going one direction and then it really shifted. I enjoyed how it went from a nostalgic trip and then turned into psychological horror. Edgar Wright continues to experiment with visuals, and in this movie he’s doing a lot more with the soundscapes in particular. I don’t think anything will ever top Hot Fuzz for me, but it’s great to see his style developing.

This is the second time this year I’ve been tricked into watching someone’s giallo movie! Unfortunately, the second time wasn’t nearly as fun as the first. :(

I did love the cast though. So cool to see Terence Stamp is still so very Terence Stamp. And what a lovely send-off for Diana Rigg.

Her name is Thomasin McKenzie. She’s going to be one of her generation’s greatest actors. Mark my words. The range of her expressiveness, her willingness to try different roles, her willingness to be “muted” and underplay important moments, and the seriousness she brings to even the smallest roles is something almost unheard of at her age and at this stage in her career. I don’t recommend watching M. Night Shyamalan’s Old, because a lot of decent actors embarrass themselves terribly. But watch how McKenzie is so committed to that dumb dumb script.

And take the scene in Last Night in Soho when she’s meeting the other girls with Jocasta, when – minor early plot point spoiler – her backstory is teased out and then Jocasta betrays her by one-upping the suicide reveal. It’s a five-minute scene, tops, but McKenzie’s face is an entire five-act play in that short span. She’s amazing and if Edgar Wright wants to put her through a giallo film, that’s fine by me.

I just wish Wright had the bat-shit crazy inventiveness of James Wan. Instead, we get a love letter to a bygone era that also wants to indict the sexism of that bygone era? I’m a little confused, but at least I got two hours with one of my favorite actors.

-Tom

Cool I will have to check out Malignant.
I’ll definitely keep an eye out for anything Thomasin McKenzie is doing. I think her parts (especially early college dorm stuff as you said) are the best thing about this movie. I wish I had the knowledge like you do to recognize things like “ok this is this director doing a giallo movie” and look at it through this lens right from the get go. Otherwise it’s not as interesting I guess. I remember you did the same with Crimson Peak where Guillermo del Toro was doing a classic gothic ghost story (meanwhile I, not knowing that, just couldn’t believe that someone made this film in 2015). Sometimes it’s more fun when you know what genre you are watching.

I also completely forgot this was Diana Rigg! I knew this going into the movie (and was excited for it!) but somehow forgot about it.

To be fair, I might be pushing the definition of giallo here. To my mind, the cornerstone of giallo is playing up the sexual vulnerability of the heroine in a colorful and playful style, but without any humor. Basically ratcheting up the anxiety with fancy stagecraft and adding plenty of titillation while the mystery unfolds. But giallo is very serious about trying to titillate the audience with the prospect of something terrible happening to the pretty young ingenue. And it always just felt so blatant to me, such an utterly transparent ploy.

Which is why I enjoyed Malignant so much, because it was so utterly outrageous that it couldn’t avoid being humorous. It was so absurdly over-the-top. And I think James Wan knew that.

But I don’t get the sense that Edgar Wright was intentionally making a nod to trashy Italian movies in the same way as James Wan. I think it just turned out that way.

You and me, both! I think it was just because I was so used to seeing her wrapped up in that headdress in Game of Thrones. But about two thirds of the way through, I was all, like, “Oh, that’s Diana Rigg!”

-Tom

I enjoyed Last Night in Soho quite a bit. It’s a real gorgeous piece of filmmaking, everyone’s terrific in it, and given how nostalgia everything seems to be now, it’s nice to see some skewering of that obsession.

Even if it doesn’t quite reach the operatic chair-throwing heights of Malignant.

Wright 's enormously knowledgeable about movies, and I think the odds of being unaware of the parallels or having an unintentional reference are about the same as they are for Tarantino.

(Also, he’s talked about going back to the the movies that inspired the giallos for Last Night in Soho, so the parallels are very much intentional, even if it’s not riffing as explicitly on them as Malignant is.)

The nightclub dance scene, and many of the mirror effects were done practically. Looked gorgeous. The dance scene when the women are spun on the floor was super cool.

Wright did an admirable job both inflating and popping the balloon of 60s nostalgia.

I agree, McKenzie is an up and comer, but all the main characters knocked it out, including old-timey London.

I was able to rent this for streaming on Row8 for $6, so did…

I’m a pretty huge Edgar Wright fan, but this film was a misfire for me. The first half was fantastic, but the horror stuff was not great, and just streeeeettttcccchhhed out.

Agree with Tom that McKenzie is pretty great. On the other hand, ATJ is also a fantastic actress, but she’s given very little room for expression here, which is tragic, since in order for the story to work we need to be deeply empathetic with her character and we don’t ever get the chance.

Edgar Wright just posted how they did a Texas Switch (Soho Switch?) for that dance scene:

https://twitter.com/edgarwright/status/1586009897375866888?t=ISpJfeeHmHED4igEDi65dw&s=19

It’s pretty remarkable!

That is so cool to watch! Thanks for sharing!

Watched this a while back and enjoyed it. It was a lot of fun, great performances all around. Got a little sad seeing Diana Rigg, but she got to have a lot of fun in this one.

I think that part of the disappointment in this one is how the movie kind of ended up being a traditional horror/thriller in the end, and didn’t take some wild swing like you would expect from someone like Edgar Wright.

The plot, around the school is a bit done-before, and doesn’t end up serving the story greatly in the end. Like, there are a lot of problems with the movie, but overall it is definitely worth watching, for the cast’s performances, and Wrights camera wizardry and directing flair alone.

Yes, very cool! But that digital wipe effect at 0:34 - 0:38 is a distraction from the choreographed, in-camera magic.