**An interesting film, with qualities, but it could be much better.**

I think that, at this point, anyone who reasonably knows cinema already knows that Danny Boyle's films are not for all audiences. Perhaps “Slumdog Millionaire” is his most commercial film, capable of reaching more easily the general public, but we only need to think about “Trainspotting” to get an idea of how raw and intense he can be as a filmmaker. He seems to enjoy it, and there's no denying that there's a niche audience for these films.

The script takes us to Edinburgh, to the apartment where three young friends live. As often happens among impoverished youth, they divide the rent between them so that they can remain there, and they are looking for a fourth companion because there is still space for another roommate. However, after about a week, the guy they have chosen is found dead next to a huge suitcase full of money. And they are left in a dilemma: should they call the police and tell them everything? After all, they didn't kill him! Or would it be better to hide the body somewhere and keep the money? They really need it… is it worth it?

As you can see, the film explores the themes of greed and pettiness, friendship and the way in which something can transform the way people relate, putting an end to friendships and leading to brutal paranoia that feeds on the unconfessable fears of each one. There's something that reminds me of Alfred Hitchcock here. I believe this would be enough for the film to be interesting, but Boyle added a subplot where a group of criminals knows about the money and are looking for it, leaving a trail of bodies wherever they go. The film didn't need this, and it would have been better to invest in the central plot.

The biggest problem with this film is that it is not beautiful nor does it have likable characters. On the contrary! They are petty, cynical, unsympathetic and their friendship seems artificial, forced by circumstances. However, this is exactly what the film could explore to the limit. It tries to do so, the tension gradually increases as this happens, but the sub-plot I mentioned introduces itself blatantly and ruins things a bit.

In the cast, Chris Eccleston and Ewan McGregor stand out with inspired and slightly insane performances. Their characters called for this expansiveness and both knew how to rise to the challenge, although they sometimes exaggerated. Kerry Fox is not that good and just exaggerates. Boyle has style, but he is not a director skilled at guiding his cast. In addition, we have Keith Allen, who has very little to do, and Ken Stott, relegated to a secondary position and of no great interest to the plot.

Technically, the film has frankly positive notes: the set is very well-thought-out, with the production looking for every means to cope with the Franciscan poverty of its budget. The cinematography is good, but not enchanting, and the camera work has its moments of creative inspiration, with original perspectives and some unusual framings. The fast pace reasonably covers up the weaknesses, making the film more fun and palatable. The ending is an effort, but the twist was predictable.