IF you want to avoid spoilers, read no further...
.
.
.
Atlantis Corporation UK presents a Pleased Sheep film, Diary of a Bad Lad, directed by Michael Booth. This picture stars Jonathon Williams (who also has a writing credit), Tom Miller, Roxanne Gregory, Paul Birtwistle, Joe O'Byrne, and Michael Booth. This film is not MPAA rated, but the content would clearly get at least an "R" rating for language, drug use, sexual situations, and violence. This film is for mature audiences only. Diary of a Bad Lad runs 90 minutes.
University professor Barry Lick finds himself on administrative leave. He takes this opportunity to film the makings of a documentary about a local underworld figure for whom he creates the pseudonym, Ray Topham. This film, presented as the final documentary cut, opens with Producer Tommy Morghan (played by O'Byrne) explaining that the film we are about to see is the result of over 30 hours of original DV footage.
Well-filmed for the intended purpose, Diary of a Bad Lad is a well-edited presentation. Given the intent of the film, the grainy and low-lighting cinematography generally gives the intended impression of unrehearsed hidden-camera and DV documentary footage. Also, generally, the acting performances are convincing. The plot line goes somewhat beyond the ability to suspend disbelief. One also wonders, given the seemingly linear story, what footage might have been cut.
Diary of a Bad Lad presents a somewhat convincing Blair Witch Project-like "documentary film" about a filmmaker named Barry Lick seeking to tell the story of a local underworld figure and somewhat small-time hood that he names Ray Topham (so as not to use real names, the voice-over explains). Without any knowledge of the genesis of the film, one can easily take the introduction on face value - the picture is a documentary that is edited down from over 30 hours of original footage. Further, it is a documentary about a local hood made by a university professor who has found himself on administrative leave and thus, with time to work on this long-desired project.
This film, it seems, has two purposes. First is the presentation of a Blair Witch Project-like "fake" documentary. The problem with the presentation of the documentary is that the plot goes too far, way too fast. In less than fifteen minutes, I was thinking to myself, "This is like Blair Witch - a fake story". Then I thought, "well, wait - let's give it another chance". Unfortunately, that did not last too long either. Besides the film showing things one would not expect, lingering in the back of my mind was the opening statement that this documentary was the result of editing thirty hours of original footage. With that in mind, I have to wonder what was cut when the film shows the crew using illegal drugs and disposing of a dead body. This is the makings of a teenage criminal trial slam dunk. It's not like the police have to dig too hard when you produce a feature film showing you and your crew in the execution of felony criminal activities.
The second, somewhat more successful, purpose seems to have been to show that a successful feature film may be made on a limited budget inside the UK but outside of the costly arena of the city of London. Well, if you leave off the descriptive phrase "successful feature film," then this is more accurately stated to be a successful purpose. I don't mean to be too hard on the film, however it is almost as if the filmmakers worked so hard to show what they could do outside of the UK production norms that they lost sight of what a good or successful film actually is. The result is a valiant effort that only moderately succeeds. I will suggest that this film should be seen - particularly by aspiring filmmakers - as it demonstrates some traps into which one may fall.
P.S. I did not create a movie link to The Blair Witch Project as I think this would create a spoiler without having to read the review.