Human Traffic (2000) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)
Considering that this is a type of movie convention that I particularly dislike - people facing the camera and talking directly to the audience - I actually watched this, so I suspect it's pretty good, and you'll like it a lot if you're interested in the weekend party life of young, 90's, Welsh ravers.
I think the strongest element of the film is that it is anti-sensational. The characters are almost too realistic, getting so personal that you almost wish you knew less about them.

One guy rants on (pretty humorously) about his case of "Mr Floppy", and his entire life seems to consist of running into women with whom he couldn't get it up.

NUDITY REPORT
Danny Dyer's buns are seen as he masturbates.

Lorraine Pilkington's breasts are seen in several very brief peeks.
When guys talk about sex, they get right to the heart of the matter - did she come? When girls talk, they also get to the heart - so how big is his dick? None of this namby-pamby phony-baloney movie relationship violin music crap, just the down and dirty biology that really obsesses the very young and drug-addled.

Each of the five main characters has a totally lifeless existence during work and family hours. It's only the 48 hours of weekend freedom that gives them any zing.

By the way, I think the chances are that you don't want your kids to see this, because it is defiantly and joyfully pro-drugs (well, we won't be doing this forever), pro-anarchy, and pro-nihilism. It advocates a hedonistic and opportunistic living in the moment. In other words, it is probably a very accurate picture of the disaffected youth of this particular time and place. Now that I think about it, it's not so different from the carpe diem mentality of the youth of many times and many places.

DVD info from Amazon.

Widescreen anamorphic, 1.85:1, a pretty good transfer

No significant other features.
The film really goes in its own direction, and the balance between plot and character study is non-traditional, to say the least. That is to say it's 0% plot, 100% character study. It's essentially just a look at one weekend in the lives of five young adults. Those 48 hours of madness represent a typical weekend for them, not a sensationalized movie weekend. They don't have any major crises, or fight off any aliens or meteors. They take drugs, dance, move relationships forward, talk about what they like and dislike, have dinner with their parents while they fight hangovers, that kind of stuff.

If the basic premise sounds interesting to you, I think you'll find the execution quite good. I don't think it has enough crossover appeal to reach you if this is not normally your type of subject or your type of movie.

The Critics Vote

  • General consensus: two or two and a half stars. Ebert 2/4, Berardinelli 2.5/4

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it a near-classic at 7.0.
  • With their dollars ... pretty much absolute zero in the USA. It got a 26 screen trial, and even that failed miserably - total gross $100,000. It did a respectable but unspectacular two million pounds in the U.K.
My guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is between C and B, probably closer to C.

Return to the Movie House home page