Dimensions: A Line, A Loop, A Tangle of Thread reviews
Review by on 25 Sep 2011
Some reviews seem to be overly favourable towards 'Dimensions' (perhaps because they know they film makers and actors?), when this film should be criticised more.
Yes, it was made for a low budget, but that does not excuse the poor script, the poor quality of acting, and the lack of attention to detail in terms of the mise en scène of the time period it is meant to be set. A feature film made for little money should not be the only thing to praise it for, nor should its local setting give it an instant advantage for its Cambridge festival audience. It could have been set anywhere and it wouldn't have made any difference.
The themes and subject matter were not beyond my intellect. There would have been more thoughts to provoke in my mind if the ideas that had so much potential for a film were not turned into an unoriginal narrative, an unbelievable internal logic, and with characters that I didn't care about. The only thoughts it did leave me with were ones of disappointment.
i really wanted to enjoy this film and I had such high hopes for it, but it just didn't work for me. At best, it seemed that it could pass for an average episode of Doctor Who. Maybe I was in another dimension, or maybe you need to be in another dimension for this to ever be considered a good film.
Yes, it was made for a low budget, but that does not excuse the poor script, the poor quality of acting, and the lack of attention to detail in terms of the mise en scène of the time period it is meant to be set. A feature film made for little money should not be the only thing to praise it for, nor should its local setting give it an instant advantage for its Cambridge festival audience. It could have been set anywhere and it wouldn't have made any difference.
The themes and subject matter were not beyond my intellect. There would have been more thoughts to provoke in my mind if the ideas that had so much potential for a film were not turned into an unoriginal narrative, an unbelievable internal logic, and with characters that I didn't care about. The only thoughts it did leave me with were ones of disappointment.
i really wanted to enjoy this film and I had such high hopes for it, but it just didn't work for me. At best, it seemed that it could pass for an average episode of Doctor Who. Maybe I was in another dimension, or maybe you need to be in another dimension for this to ever be considered a good film.
Review by on 25 Sep 2011
Although it is received wisdom that ‘I can’t be in two places at once [or at the same time, in a variant]’, not only is that usually just an excuse, but it also might not stand up to examination in the light of developments in cloning.
All that apart, more or less, the immense popularity of Dimensions, which has seen it (after having screenings in Screens 2 and then 1) shown again this afternoon meant that I could go through the wormhole of watching again: I know that the phrase does not sound favourable, but this is my review, and I am in a whimsical mood, in no way intended to detract from viewing twice to see what happened to something that I thought fine the first time.
Why did I think it fine? It is an extremely intelligent film that uses the concept and theory of time-travel to say something about what I described in my Festival blog as longing. I still think that it is longing, not just obsession – I think that one can be obsessed about something (e.g. my head being cut off by Jackie Chan) that (unless we are being psychoanalytical), on the face (pun intended!) of it, one does not long for, and long for something that does not obsess one.
I said that it is longing for something that one cannot have or that may not do me any good. In this film, that turns out not to be true on either count, and also to involve a paradox. The events are separated by a period of fifteen years, but, in some respects, the characters seem unchanged, seem stuck in some childish ways (as we all probably are – now who wants to play the psychology card, after all!), seem full of what I want to call longing. (I call it longing not only because I can’t use the German word Sehnsucht, and, because of the connotations, I don’t want to use yearning.)
I asked a question about that at the premiere – the younger actors had had a chance to speak to their counterparts (and vice versa). What I find myself thinking, this time around, is that there is a generational as well as a dimensional character to all that we see, a temporal distortion that, as much as Alice’s worlds reinterpret the present from which she enters Wonderland or the other Looking-Glass House, ripples (a key word in the script) as water, particles or time do with their differing wave-fronts. Which is why Ant Neely’s brother’s house on the river at Cambridge is such a benefit to and feature of this film.
This Cambridge-driven film – Ernest Rutherford split the atom here in 1917, which was then done under both his direction and controlled conditions in 1932 - buzzes with that innovation, but buzzes in the direction of feelings, and Olivia Llewellyn’s acting beautifully embodies the spirit of a bright and clear academic mind, seeking to help Henry-Lloyd-Hughes as Stephen achieve his brilliant aims.
All that apart, more or less, the immense popularity of Dimensions, which has seen it (after having screenings in Screens 2 and then 1) shown again this afternoon meant that I could go through the wormhole of watching again: I know that the phrase does not sound favourable, but this is my review, and I am in a whimsical mood, in no way intended to detract from viewing twice to see what happened to something that I thought fine the first time.
Why did I think it fine? It is an extremely intelligent film that uses the concept and theory of time-travel to say something about what I described in my Festival blog as longing. I still think that it is longing, not just obsession – I think that one can be obsessed about something (e.g. my head being cut off by Jackie Chan) that (unless we are being psychoanalytical), on the face (pun intended!) of it, one does not long for, and long for something that does not obsess one.
I said that it is longing for something that one cannot have or that may not do me any good. In this film, that turns out not to be true on either count, and also to involve a paradox. The events are separated by a period of fifteen years, but, in some respects, the characters seem unchanged, seem stuck in some childish ways (as we all probably are – now who wants to play the psychology card, after all!), seem full of what I want to call longing. (I call it longing not only because I can’t use the German word Sehnsucht, and, because of the connotations, I don’t want to use yearning.)
I asked a question about that at the premiere – the younger actors had had a chance to speak to their counterparts (and vice versa). What I find myself thinking, this time around, is that there is a generational as well as a dimensional character to all that we see, a temporal distortion that, as much as Alice’s worlds reinterpret the present from which she enters Wonderland or the other Looking-Glass House, ripples (a key word in the script) as water, particles or time do with their differing wave-fronts. Which is why Ant Neely’s brother’s house on the river at Cambridge is such a benefit to and feature of this film.
This Cambridge-driven film – Ernest Rutherford split the atom here in 1917, which was then done under both his direction and controlled conditions in 1932 - buzzes with that innovation, but buzzes in the direction of feelings, and Olivia Llewellyn’s acting beautifully embodies the spirit of a bright and clear academic mind, seeking to help Henry-Lloyd-Hughes as Stephen achieve his brilliant aims.
Review by on 24 Sep 2011
The best film i have ever watched. I loved every minute of it and have now seen it twice. The acting was great and I especially liked the animal appearances! I would definitely recommend everyone to watch it.
Well done on such a great film Ant & Sloane :)
Well done on such a great film Ant & Sloane :)
Review by on 24 Sep 2011
A work of art - unbelievable what you can do with a limited budget, a bunch of dedicated friends and a great story. Dimensions is the film to see at this year's Cambridge film festival. The story grabs you in the opening scene and never disappoints. I loved the costumes, drama, scenery and acting. Great the film is showing again on Saturday. The fact that the film is outselling Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy but was made on a fraction of a budget is a testament to the skill and vision of all those involved. Go Dimensions! Go!
Review by on 23 Sep 2011
Loved it! I found the film graceful, thought-provoking and thoroughly enchanting.
For me, the best films are ones that stay with me after viewing - ones that I spend time thinking about and ruminating on. All day (I saw it last night) I've been contemplating time and reality, and what it actually means.
Dimensions looks stunning and the cast were wonderful! I understand that for some people, it might be a bit too 'brainy' (although it really isn't - you just need to engage and make an effort), but I would highly recommend it. In fact, I am going to go and see it again on Saturday if I can get tickets.
For me, the best films are ones that stay with me after viewing - ones that I spend time thinking about and ruminating on. All day (I saw it last night) I've been contemplating time and reality, and what it actually means.
Dimensions looks stunning and the cast were wonderful! I understand that for some people, it might be a bit too 'brainy' (although it really isn't - you just need to engage and make an effort), but I would highly recommend it. In fact, I am going to go and see it again on Saturday if I can get tickets.
Review by on 23 Sep 2011
The idea for DIMENSIONS apparently came to Ant Neely when he “watched a video that told you how you could visualise ten dimensions”. Fortunately for our heads, his characters focus on just the one in the film, which he and director Sloane U’Ren sold their house to make.
The film primarily follows Stephen (Henry Lloyd-Hughes), a gifted young scientist and academic in 1920s Cambridge, who may well be close to achieving time-travel, inspired by the words and ideas of an aged professor. Troubled by an event in his childhood, he is obsessed with returning to that moment to the cost of his relationships in the present.
Ant Neely feels “it’s that clash of [sci-fi and period drama] that makes it more interesting”. Although the film deals with time-travel, time dilation and parallel universes, cast member Edward Halsted points out these “are really just a gateway into the love story at the centre of it, rather than it being about time travel itself”.
Sloane U’Ren had to “pull every trick in the book” and rely on people being incredibly supportive to achieve the look and style of the film. DIMENSIONS has achieved the visual quality and aesthetics of a film many times its £180,000 budget as a result. It is appropriate it should premiere at Cambridge, as the creators felt the Cambridge setting “permeates the whole thing”. Already a hit with Cambridge Film Festival audiences, you don’t need a time machine to know it will continue to be.
Jim Ross
The film primarily follows Stephen (Henry Lloyd-Hughes), a gifted young scientist and academic in 1920s Cambridge, who may well be close to achieving time-travel, inspired by the words and ideas of an aged professor. Troubled by an event in his childhood, he is obsessed with returning to that moment to the cost of his relationships in the present.
Ant Neely feels “it’s that clash of [sci-fi and period drama] that makes it more interesting”. Although the film deals with time-travel, time dilation and parallel universes, cast member Edward Halsted points out these “are really just a gateway into the love story at the centre of it, rather than it being about time travel itself”.
Sloane U’Ren had to “pull every trick in the book” and rely on people being incredibly supportive to achieve the look and style of the film. DIMENSIONS has achieved the visual quality and aesthetics of a film many times its £180,000 budget as a result. It is appropriate it should premiere at Cambridge, as the creators felt the Cambridge setting “permeates the whole thing”. Already a hit with Cambridge Film Festival audiences, you don’t need a time machine to know it will continue to be.
Jim Ross
Review by on 23 Sep 2011
A film that promised so much, yet delivered so little.
Where to start? As I took my seat in a packed house on Wednesday night, I could feel the electricity rippling through the theatre. The audience bristled with anticipation for a film that had been tipped as one of the highlights of the festival. This was buoyed by the discovery that the cast and directors were present, some sitting just behind me! I felt rather privileged.
The lights dimmed, the film rolled and a swirl of numbers filled screen two. This was it; here was the tangle of threads! This, however, was where my enjoyment ended. It was clear from the first scene that the child actors in this film were not up to the job. In fact, I have seen better performances from a Saturday morning drama club. I thought okay, stay with it, they’re young. it’s not their fault. A few moments in, I heard a loud whispered comment behind me revealing what was going to happen in a few scenes time. I turned round to see that the culprit was none other than one of the cast. He gave away a major plot device to his own film, in his own premier! I simply could not believe it.
From that moment on all was lost.
Poor acting, plot holes the size of my ego, an unbelievable love triangle involving three actors with no chemistry whatsoever. All these and so much more combined to create a film that I didn’t believe, nor feel any connection with.
The only saving grace was a fine performance from...the ducks on the River Cam. Their quacking was excellent and their flapping sublime, clearly they will go on to greater things.
I could go on ad nauseum, but it will just make me cross again.
Please don’t waste your time with this film, stay in on a Sunday night and watch an ITV Period Drama instead. It’ll be far more satisfying.
Where to start? As I took my seat in a packed house on Wednesday night, I could feel the electricity rippling through the theatre. The audience bristled with anticipation for a film that had been tipped as one of the highlights of the festival. This was buoyed by the discovery that the cast and directors were present, some sitting just behind me! I felt rather privileged.
The lights dimmed, the film rolled and a swirl of numbers filled screen two. This was it; here was the tangle of threads! This, however, was where my enjoyment ended. It was clear from the first scene that the child actors in this film were not up to the job. In fact, I have seen better performances from a Saturday morning drama club. I thought okay, stay with it, they’re young. it’s not their fault. A few moments in, I heard a loud whispered comment behind me revealing what was going to happen in a few scenes time. I turned round to see that the culprit was none other than one of the cast. He gave away a major plot device to his own film, in his own premier! I simply could not believe it.
From that moment on all was lost.
Poor acting, plot holes the size of my ego, an unbelievable love triangle involving three actors with no chemistry whatsoever. All these and so much more combined to create a film that I didn’t believe, nor feel any connection with.
The only saving grace was a fine performance from...the ducks on the River Cam. Their quacking was excellent and their flapping sublime, clearly they will go on to greater things.
I could go on ad nauseum, but it will just make me cross again.
Please don’t waste your time with this film, stay in on a Sunday night and watch an ITV Period Drama instead. It’ll be far more satisfying.
Film details
Dimensions: A Line, A Loop, A Tangle of Thread
United Kingdom, 2011.
99 mins. English
Back to the film page
