User Reviews

... and the anger and the rage and the torment, in this exquisitely crafted modern day masterpiece whose tale mimics that of so many misplaced traditions and the voids they leave behind as they sink to the bottom of the briny. With outstanding cinematography and performances to boot - filmed in black & white, this is anything but monochrome.

Bait is a pretty remarkable film. Saw it at the excellent BFI Southbank. It's set in the present day but filmed using techniques from the old silent film era - with sound - including audio - added afterwards. No moving camera. Shot as if the person being spoken to is holding said camera (think Peep Show). Beautiful black and white. It's an extension of the dogme filmmaking mantra. The director is basically sticking two fingers up at CGI and digital technology. And the result is mesmerising. However, would the drama stand up on its own two feet if it were filmed 'conventionally'? To be honest, I doubt it. But I don't think that matters.

Giving a numerical score to a film like this is very difficult because it depends entirely upon what you want from a film like this. As a piece of art this film is a 10 out of 10. The use of a 16mm clockwork camera, bold editing, dubbed dialogue and hand-processing of the film all serve to enhance the themes of the film perfectly (miscommunication, old vs new ways of life, conflict between classes, gentle aggression of gentrification).

Having said that, if you are looking for a film that captivates you with story and plot, look elsewhere. There is a plot and but it serves as something through which to display the technical aspects of the film itself.

It reminded me of short stories by people like Raymond Carver and Flannery O'Connor: there is a lot to chew on but most of the fat lays beneath the surface, as such the film doesn't hold your hand and if you don't tend to consider the technical aspects of film making when sitting down to watch a film, then this probably isn't for you.

I have given this film a 7/10 because I think that is the closest approximation I can give it but pieces of work like Bait serve to further emphasise how reductive rating films numerically is. If you enjoy films that tell low-key, theme rich but action light plots and focus on the technical craft of film-making then I think you will enjoy this. It's only 89 minutes long and there are no other films being made right now like it.

Oh, one titbit, if you aren't accustomed to the Cornish accent, I recommend subtitles if available. Even for UK natives some characters accents may prove too thick to catch every word.

Black and white is back....'Bait' is a fine piece of visually stunning filmwork.....a bloody work of art. It also includes a cast of many first timers that pulled their weight like big Hollywood stars.

A subtle story with a huge message. As a coastal Floridian USA, I know exactly what this film is talking about, only this film says it much better. I'm not even sure I have the intellect or the vocabulary to offer a satisfactory review or critique of this film.

A simple story with complex characters. Dialog is sparse but adequate and spoken visually with few words. The old time black and white ambiance is the perfect foil to portray the flawed nature of character.

A love story shown from many perspectives. A one time fishing village now in flux and weathering out the new reality. A fisherman unwavering and unwilling to change with the times. I widowed father doing what he needs to survive for his son. The city folk looking for peace and quiet weekend. The Inn keepers building a summer business. Teenagers coming to age and looking for relationships and purpose. The bar, and owner at the center of town serving her patrons and trying to stay afloat. They all revolve each other as each character reaches for what they believe is most important. Tragedy strikes and we see what's truly the most important.

This is a must see film and direction, location, content, casting, script, audio, visual, media, production, editing, etc, etc....were all well defined and executed. I rated a 9, excellent, although this type of film might not be everyone's cup of tea.

'Bait (2019)' looks like a movie from the late twenties/ early thirties, with black-and-white cinematography and overdubbed dialogue. It's an odd decision, since the narrative doesn't demand this treatment in the slightest. The story is like something out of a soap opera, a small-town tale of tourism vs local business. It isn't just its abstract aesthetic that marks it as distinct; its plot is peppered with contextless scenes that could either be flashbacks or flash-forwards. This strange choice makes the movie much more confusing than it ought to be. It sort of comes across as an attempt to arbitrarily 'liven up' the flick's relatively straightforward story. Though it does transform the flick into somewhat of an enigma, it never really feels necessarily. The picture just doesn't quite come together as satisfyingly as it perhaps ought to. Its aesthetic is well-achieved, though, and its narrative is typically rather interesting. It's ultimately a fairly engaging experiment. 6/10

I think anyone who gave this film a poor rating has missed the point. You cannot review this piece as a 'normal' film which follows a standard narrative. It is a visual representation of sitting on a dockside watching the world go by, it is utterly absorbing, thoughtful and leaves you wanting more. It is the antithesis of the multiplex safe Hollywood cgi digital junkfest we are used to seeing. The technique of shooting on black and white film with a clockwork camera and self processing the material obviously drives how the films pace and narrative develops because the filmmakers have to make compromises, but this somehow makes it all the more interesting. Get it watched!

Bait is a lovely little film. B&W. Grainy. Atmospheric. Intense. Beautiful. Maybe, 'cos I was born in Cornwall, I enjoyed it more so? Over hyped? Probably. The acting is a little flat but curiously adds to it's curiosity. Cheers now!

I don't review many films on IMDB but was moved enough by BAIT to write something. The visuals are always interesting, shot in black and white it reminded me of some of the British WW2 propaganda films, especially with some of the performances that are by their nature very realistic and not showy. The performance of Edward Rowe is mesmerising as a tortured man, his livelihood threatened, his culture undermined, his sheer frustration with what life has dealt him. I really didn't know what to expect from his character with each twist and turn. I also really appreciated the non-romantic view of Cornwall, it wasn't idolised and showed the impact of the decline of traditional industry with the growth in tourism. I hope a lot of viewers won't be put off by it being in black and white as it deserves to be seen widely

As others have suggested, Bait is a lot more interesting as a film artefact than for its narrative themes. It's a shame that the bracing originality of Mark Jenkin's approach is in the service of such a banal, nuanceless story about the impact of second-homers on a Cornish fishing village. At times it's hard to distinguish between studied anti-realism and amateurism, particularly in some of the performances.

Imagine this. Taylor Swift releases a bunch of new songs on a 78 rpm shellac record, and before selling it she adds some scratches to make it sound really old.

'Bait' is the cinematographic equivalent of this imaginary album. It's a movie set in the present, but made with the equipment and filming technique from a century ago. The result is that we see a modern story on grainy celluloid with lot of white flecks, and an image sometimes suddenly becoming darker or lighter. Even the sound is special: everything is dubbed, resulting in a certain stiffness we know from movies made in the 1930's.

It's a gimmick, and it's brilliantly done. 'Bait' is different from all other films you will see this year. And that in itself is a great quality. But is is the only one. The film is worthwile because of the gimmick. Take it away, and imagine the same story, filmed on an ordinary digital camera with great colours and good, natural sound, and it would be nothing special.

That's why the film didn't really appeal to me. It's not that I didn't appreciate the effort to make something out of the ordinary. I did, but halfway I wanted more than juist the gimmick. Also I had sometimes trouble following the logic of the story, and in my opinion the quick cross cutting scenes were a bit too much. If the 1930's style of the film would have served a purpose, for example in flash-backs or found footage, it would have been different. But now I was left with mixed feelings. I admire the audacity of the experiment, but I wasn't carried away by the overall cinematic experience.

This film should make a lot of people squirm. Yes, you with the prosecco.

Brilliantly shot, cut, interesting and occasionally surprising juxtapositions of scenes keep the interest in a relentless, slow burning story that could erupt into violence almost anywhere in the 89 minutes.

We had great sympathy with the Cornish characters, you feel this film, you know it is the truth. In this respect, in addition to the incredible noir, graininess it is a real triumph.

Mark Jenkin's 'Bait' is a striking movie, but not a particularly subtle one. A portrait of run-down Cornish village is captured on damaged filmstock; uncommunicative characters spend a lot of time just looking at each other with speaking (but what those looks have to tell us!); the disconnection of people is conveyed through splicing together short sequences with obvious discontinuity. It's arftully done, but in some senses Jenkin has limited himself: we couldn't discover that a fisherman loves Shakespeare, or that the tourist is on the run from the police, or anything else unexpected - the visual language constrains the movie, and also renders it somewhat cold, even as its impressive how much is conveyed through scowls and silences. 'Bait' is ultimately a one-trick pony; but Jenkin's future work would seem something to anticipate eagerly.

A very strange and a bit of a lacklustre film. Shot in a 4:3 aspect ratio in black and white on 16mm and with very little dialogue this film is I suppose intended to be a real throwback to the days of silent cinema, it's pretty jarring then to see it at 23fps in a modern world with all our appliances and so on. The film features these huge sound effects every time anything happens, even a glass being placed down on a table. The camera angles are very point and shoot and some of the dialogue is hard to follow. There's a strong theme of locals v newcomers, our main character is an embittered fisherman who's seen his village change beyond description, subtly is not a strong point in this film, the main characters daughter literally says she can't understand what the posh new youths are saying, meanwhile our main character is another one of these ticking timebomb characters who we're just waiting for him to go off. The film takes itself very seriously trying to establish a moody atmospheric quality. I appreciate it was probably very low budget and made with care and love but it didn't work that well for me. Rows erupt over parking, noise, changes to buildings and so on, our main character is a man who doesn't understand the modern world and probably voted for Brexit thinking that would sort it all out. There's an almost class war being waged in this film. There's lots of characters but not much happens, after lots of threats and anger, Hugo one of the posh young men decides to hit back with some shocking results. I was also quite confused though about why that never comes up again. I wish they'd made our main character less of a threatening bully. The film doesn't even seem to be prepared to give it's view on whether changes happening to Cornwall are for better or worse. I guess that would take to much clarity of thought. In this film conflicts are just set up but then not resolved, it's very frustrating.

Bait is quite an extraordinary film . Set in Cornwall , it's about the influx of summer tourists and how the fishing industry is dying , but that not the half of it .

This look and sounds absolutely amazing . Shot on 16mm wind up cameras , it could have been filmed in the 40's or 50's , If it wasn't for the obvious signs that it's set in the 21st century . It was also filmed with no sound which was added later and for me , this is what makes this film so brilliant .

The sounds are clumsy and exaggerated and the dialogue feels like they are speaking a different language at times , yet it's clear what is being said and why .

Some of the footage of the ocean is breathtaking and it being shot in black and white makes the different light look almost Bronte-ish and the same goes for the facial close ups .

Bait is full of symbolism such as Martin the fisherman's old house that now belongs to tourists is full of nets and fishing regalia despite them being partly the cause for why the industry is dead on its feet while the fridge is packed with Prosecco.

The only movie I can compare this to is the Lighthouse. Both are very similar and both are amazing movies .

In fact I think I like this better .

Highly recommended.

Sorry but i don't get the hype

Why do critics call this film an original masterpiece?

Haven't they watched anything by Abel Gance or Eisenstein?

This film has nothing to say except:

Look! We edit our film as good as an Eisenstein film!

Look! In 2019 we use damaged 16 mm film and dub the sounds just like the 30s!

Some call it original and some call it experimental but to me it's neither It's just an ok film with little substance

A rare stylistic masterpiece with a strong message against the Modern World.

A battle between Local Tradition and Cosmopolitan Modernity plays out in a Cornish fishing village.

Strong performances and a film-making aesthetic fitting of such a tale, not often seen in cinemas today.

It's a sad reflection on modern culture that this film is relegated to smaller art-house cinemas.

Technically a fascinating piece of film making using B&W and unusual choice of shots to provide an elliptical view of the narrative with space for the viewer to consider. As with reality there is no absolute truth here. As a story about the interaction between the characters it has considerable subtlety and shows all the participants as essentially flawed and very human. As a story about the major issue of the way the tourism "industry" trashes our communities, distorts our home lives, and creates massive suppressed resentment against those who come across the Tamar for two weeks or two months and make no contribution it is a powerful contribution. By and large the behaviour of all of the visitors is at best deeply patronising and arrogant - just like real life. The sooner we get rid of these parasites the better. And I imagine that the same feelings exist everywhere that tourists go, it is not a problem peculiar to Cornwall, although it is probably at its worst in the UK here.

In a Cornish fishing village, tensions arise between the struggling locals and the invading tourists.

A very low budget film, shot in black and white. It almost seems like an amateur or student film. However, it's extremely credible with strong characters.

The lead, Edward Rowe, is excellent.

The plot is interesting but takes some time to get going. The pace is fairly sedate. I really like the modern theme about the challenges of rural Cornish fishing communities and the impact of tourism.

Overall, a bit of a slow and arthouse style with an interesting modern plot.

This is a classic example of a film I just can't see the point of. Not that I want to discourage Mark Jenkin, or even claim that the film doesn't have a point, but the theme of gentrification is brought up and made obvious about 15 minutes in, and 74 minutes later the only thing that's really changed is that I have a new favourite insult that I can't quote within IMDB guidelines.

I also can't for the life of me tell what the purpose of filming it on a silent camera and dubbing all the sound in post-recording could have possibly been, or the reason for the weirdly eerie soundtrack and editing, because for me, the effect just ended up being that this feels like a Ken Loach-ian drama with the tone of a horror film.

Despite all that, the film is pretty well acted, directed and shot, but the story is really generic and never seems to go anywhere, and the presentation just makes the whole experience feel like it was made for an entirely different type of film to me.

But fishing, innit?

I love the texture in this, every shot is beautifully framed. A recent film, using old techniques (shot on 18mm).

Shot and edited by Mark Jenkin. All of the sound is done in Post-production. So much effort behind this, and it looks amazing.

Well, it is arty in some ways (and I mean VERY arty) but, at its heart, it's a reasonably straightforward tale of conflict between locals and incomers in a Cornish village - but that's about the only thing about this film that I could describe as straightforward.

The source of the conflict isn't always what you'd expect and, although I'd struggle to say any of the characters are fully fleshed out, they don't always act as you might expect. The vast majority of the film takes place (as we're helpfully told by a screen title) "BEFORE", so you know (or at least suspect) that the tension is going to spill over at some point and you are given hints as to how that might happen, but in a very unexpected fashion these happen via "timey wimey" flash forwards - however, some of these flash forwards never seem to actually happen in the timeline we see, which is an odd choice. Either that or they did, and I missed them - which was just as confusing for me!

So when the denouement does finally come to pass, you're not 100% convinced that it's actually happened and the aftermath isn't explored in the slightest, so I was very confused - I think in a good way, but I'm still not entirely sure. The film also ends in a particularly bizarre way, with the "action" (which is a close up on a man's face) just stopping abruptly - so much so that I thought my iPad had frozen.

So how else is this film confusing? The sound style is very reminiscent of a WW2 public education film - all very stilted and not always aligned with the characters' mouths, which Wikipedia explains as being the result of all the lines being re-recorded and dubbed in afterwards ("non-diegetic", The Guardian tells me). And when I say "all the lines", I also have to tell you that there are vast swathes of this film with no dialogue at all - you don't always notice it immediately, but you do find yourself going "I wonder who's going to speak next?".

So that's covered plot and dialogue - what about the film style? Yup, there's some interesting choices made there as well! The whole film is shot in black and white, which adds a certain style but given that there are a lot of shots of the sea and the countryside in this, then maybe colour might have been a better option at times. That's not the weirdest thing though because the film has been developed in such a way that there are scratches and glitches throughout and, of course, is uses a weird aspect ratio (16mm) - all of which very much adds to the feel of a WW2 public education film.

So, in the midst of all of this confusion, how do the actors do? Pretty well, I'd say - provided they've been given a role they can work with. Edward Rowe plays it well as Martin, a local fisherman (without a boat, so he's somewhat down on his luck) and he is a well written character with a strong sense of both fairness and frustration - you root for him, but he's certainly no angel. Isaac Woodvine as Neil, his nephew, is also an interesting role providing a bridge between the two worlds. The newcomers are less well positioned for our sympathy but Mary Woodvine as Sandra does at least show some consideration for the locals.

So, we've established it's all very confusing, with some interesting style choices - but does that ruin the film? No, I don't think it does because I found this surprisingly watchable and I wanted to know what happened at the end, especially after I'd watched it all and still didn't really know what had happened (the good news is that the internet isn't entirely sure either).

It makes quite a few choices I wouldn't have made and it's very clear where its sympathies lie, but I can accept these as artistic choices by the director and I enjoyed the journey he took me on. I struggle to imagine it would be for everyone, but if you fancy an arty film then this does at least have some plot and some decent performances which make it watchable. At time of writing, it's available to stream on BPIPlayer (whatever or wherever that is) or to rent at all the other, more normal, channels.

I guess some people will see this as a masterpiece because it's edgy and bleak. I agree that there's enough going on to keep you watching, but that's partly to see if it will get better. The necessary style this movie is imitating belongs to a bygone era, where such technical effort and prowess would only be worth investing in a good story. There's no good story here.

The Lighthouse, for example, is comparable in genre but is a far better movie.

There's a 'concurrent arguments' script in one scene that's good, but for the most part it's kind of dull and punctuated with lame tropes (such as Londoners are all ignorant, Cornish fisherman are rugged and angry). The knot-tying and net fixing shots are weird and one can only guess it's a metaphor.

Then there's the acting. Patchy at best; melodramatic retro in one shot, low key contemporary impro the next. It feels cobbled together and disjointed and ponderous. There's a reason, you can't help thinking, why they don't make 'em like this anymore.

The ending in particular is unsatisfactory. I have no clue what happened.

If you're looking for something different, you are patient and earnest, and want to find out if the Mark Kermodes are right, give it a whirl. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

Steer clear however if you want something shiny and engaging and think you might be a potential one-star, one-review person.

I enjoyed this film. It is original and creative. It wears it's influences well, paying good homage to older films which I enjoyed earlier in life. The narrative, sound and image; ultimately the story, emerge from the masterful use of limited technology that is wonderfully mastered. I didn't mind that I found the story, and the idea of life in Cornwall, somewhat rooted in a romantic view of fishing as a heroic labour which is here seen as almost the peak profession. As if only it is an authentic job, and others are somewhat less for not being fishing people. I don't even mind the anti big city narrative, or the view that locals can park anywhere because they are locals. The story rattles along. The characters are flawed. It's great to see a different idea for what a film might be.

Bait

Made in a style of a documentary from the days of Pathe News and the 1940's. This black and white movie feel gave a greater intensity to the really very slim story.

The various themes were

The juxtaposition of blue collar and white collar money.

An industry dying due to the EU permitting over fishing by industrial trawlers in British waters that has led to the destruction of this industry.

The abject poverty and hand to mouth existence requiring the influx of monied tourists to support any industry.

The role of community and us and them.

The difference between a real home and temporary home.

The elevation almost reverence of a skilled and "honest" trade.

Overall this was a very good movie but is claustrophobic feel, limited variety of image, and an unbalanced viewpoint that took the side of the fishermen always was somewhat of a politically driven movie. The format of an entertaining movie is not best placed to preach at anyone.