The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael (2005) User Reviews

Unshockable audiences are not impressed

[Chris_Docker · 4/10 · 24 August 2005]

I am always wary of taking too instant a dislike to a film. Look at it a month later and you might see it differently, or dig it up after 50 years in a different continent and some cult followers find something stylistically remarkable that went unnoticed at first. After sitting through The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael at its UK premiere, it came as no surprise to me that I found the question and answer session afterwards more interesting than the film itself. Shane Danielsen (Artistic Director of the Edinburgh International Film Festival), aided by the film's director and producer, gave a spirited defence of a movie than received an overall negative response from the audience. Edinburgh Festival audiences are not easily shocked. Only one person walked out in disgust. The criticisms of the film included very articulate and constructive ones from the lay public as well as an actor and a woman who teaches M.A. film directors. This was not an overly 'shocking' film. There was a degree of uninterrupted sexual violence, but far less extreme than many movies (most actual weapon contact was obscured, as were aroused genitals). The audience disliked it because they had sat through two hours that were quite boring, where the acting standards were not high, where the plot was poor, predictable and drawn out, and where they had been subjected to clumsy and pretentious film-making on the promise of a controversial movie. Metaphors to the war in Iraq are contrived, over-emphasised and sloppy (apart from a general allusion to violence, any deeper meaning is unclear); and the 'fig-leaf' reference Marquis de Sade, as one audience member put it, seems a mere tokenistic excuse for lack of plot development towards the finale.

We have the story of an adolescent who has a certain amount going for him (he stands out at school for his musical ability) but takes drugs and hangs out with youths who have little or nothing going for them and whose criminal activities extend to rape and violence. When pushed, Robert seems to have a lot of violence locked inside him.

The film is not entirely without merit. The audience is left to decide how Robert got that way: was it the influence of his peers? Why did all the good influences and concern from parents and teachers not manage to include him in a better approach to life? Cinematically, there is a carefully-montaged scene where he hangs back (whether through too much drugs, shyness, a latent sense of morality or just waiting his turn?). Several of his friends are raping a woman in a back room, partly glimpsed and framed in the centre of the screen. In the foreground of the bare bones flat, a DJ is more concerned that the girl's screams interrupt his happy house music than with any thought for the woman. Ultimately he is a bit annoyed if their activities attract police attention. The stark juxtaposition of serious headphones enjoyment of his music even when he knows a rape is going on points up his utter disdain in a deeply unsettling way. Robert slumps with his back to us in the foreground.

But the rest of the film, including its supposedly controversial climax involving considerable (if not overly realistic) sexual violence, is not up to this standard. Some people have had a strong reaction to it (the filmmakers' stated intention: "If they vomit, we have succeeded in producing a reaction") but mostly - and as far as I can tell the Edinburgh reaction seems to mirror reports from Cannes - they feel, "Why have programmers subjected us to such inferior quality film-making?" Director Clay Hugh can talk the talk but has not developed artistic vision. His replies about holding up a mirror to life to tell the truth about things that are swept under the carpet, even his defence that there is little plot development because he didn't want to do a standard Hollywood movie - all are good answers to criticisms, but unfortunately they do not apply to his film, any more than they do to holding up a mirror while someone defecates, or wastes film while playing ineptly with symbols. Wanting to try and give him the benefit of any lingering doubt, I spoke to him for a few minutes after the screening, but I found him as distasteful as his movie and soon moved to the bar to wash my mouth out with something more substantial. There are many truths. One aspect of art is to educate, another to entertain, another to inspire. I had asked him if he had any social or political agenda and he mentions Ken Loach (one of the many great names he takes in vain) without going so far as to admit any agenda himself. He then falls back on his mantra about his job being to tell the truth. I am left with the feeling that this was an overambitious project for a new director, or else a disingenuous attempt to put himself on the map by courting publicity for second rate work

Andy Warhol could paint a tin of soup and it was art. Clay Hugh would like to emulate the great directors that have made controversial cinema and pushed boundaries. Sadly, his ability at the moment only extends to making high-sounding excuses for a publicity-seeking film.

"Art ", or unsubstantiated provocation?

[nick_mitchell · 5/10 · 24 August 2005]

I am liberal. I have always taken pride in my ability to keep a certain intellectual clarity when confronted by a particularly provocative work of art. I love art - whether movies, paintings or novels - and I believe that art is not art unless it provokes some kind of reaction, positive or negative.

Yet I must confess that "the scene" at the end of this film pushed my own flexible limits of stomachability. I won't describe the scene in any detail - you just have to see it yourself - but let me say that I have never, or may never again, be witness to such a finger-curlingly, teeth-clenchingly HORRIBLE act of violence on the big screen.

The visual presentation of the wine bottle moment was shocking enough, yet it was it's complete unpremeditatedness, it's coming like a knife out of a dark room, (even after the rape) that really threw me.

The film finished two hours ago and my head is still reeling. I will not attempt to rationalize or explain the morality or acceptability of such a closing scene: it is a purely subjective exercise, dependant on the viewer's own values and tastes. This was a point made by the writer and director in the heated Q & A which followed. They refused in any way to give an answer to the most prescient question: WHY? And they're right. The whole point is that the film, as a work of art, which, if flawed, I believe it is, does not answer questions but poses them. Questions not about society or the causes of violence, but about art itself. You cannot watch this film without having to deeply reconsider your understanding of the scope of the much-overused term "Art".

Finally, I would like to say that it's a great shame that the only thing people will talk about is the final scene. The rest of the film is a beautifully shot, clever, and above all, authentic take on life in a debilitated British seaside town, not unlike the town I grew up in. If it had somehow ended differently, I am quite sure it would now be receiving rave reviews from those liberal-minded critics who salivate at the mention of a gritty, British, class-driven drama.

But as it is, a lot of good stuff is about to be swallowed in the growing whirlwind of controversy, and, at best, the film will be consigned to 'risque' or 'cult' territory in our cultural estimations. A shame indeed.

Loved the way it was filmed, not so fond of the ending.

[rich-peter · 5/10 · 12 January 2010]

I saw this film not so long ago, during one of my film studies lessons, instantly i thought it was going to be a rather drab, drawn out film, which for the most part i was right about,the only part that had sparked my interest was Danny Dyre's appearance, (which i didn't think was very inspiring at all) but as i watched it further the way the director had chosen to film it was very good, and i enjoyed the film on the most part, until the ending which i personally detest and was really repulsed by. I think the fact it came as such a shock made it worse, as throughout the film we saw Robert as the nicer, more controlled friend ( yeah he did drugs, but he was a good student ), also when we saw earlier he left and walked away when offered to rape the girl with the other lads, earlier in the scene. Without the 'horrific' rape scene i would have given this film a 7 out of 10, but even with the scene, i liked the way it was filmed so i gave it a 5 out of 10.

Horribly Misleading, Unfinished psychotic fantasy stupid teens might believe they can get away with

[tkaine3 · 2/10 · 23 December 2018]

This will be a quick review because this film does not warrant anything in depth. The characters are shallow with barely no backstory or progressive development. Teens maybe one could be as old as 20 who comes home from jail do a couple horrible things to a girl and a adult couple, merely because they're psychotic adolescents. I actually enjoy disturbing movies when they have substance or a storyline atleast but the problem with this is no type of penalty or reaction is shown no follow up to what just happened the movie just ends with the most moronic quote I ever read that has nothing to do with what just took place. Terrible waste of time. Crazy dummies may believe they can pull something like this off with out getting life in prison or worse.

I absolutely hated it

[annElise1007 · 1/10 · 6 August 2005]

This movie commits what I would call an emotional rape on the viewer. The movie supposedly caused quite a stir among the critics in Cannes, but for me the final scene was just a pathetic attempt for a newbie director to get himself noticed. Hardly a voice in the discussion on the issue of violence, drug abuse or juvenile delinquency (or any other issue, for that matter).

The main character's metamorphosis from good, but troubled boy to the vicious rapist is virtually nonexistent, whereas the rape scene (being an over-dragged, exaggerated version of the rape scene from "A clockwork orange") is unbearable and I refuse to comment on its aesthetic values. There are some things an artist should not do to try and achieve his/her goal. At least in my opinion.

To wrap it up: shockingly brutal, revolting and NOT WORTH YOUR TIME. See "A clockwork orange" or "Le pianiste" instead.

Study of disconnected youths lacking spine

[fertilecelluloid · 7/10 · 13 June 2008]

A study of disconnected youths in a small town in Blair's Britain. These guys and girls are trudging through adolescence towards a foggy future. Director Thomas Clay frames their lives in single, uninterrupted takes. This stylistic choice sometimes hampers clarity, but it gives the film a memorable veneer and emphasizes the encroaching nihilism. Robert Carmichael is a gangly schoolboy existing in a variety of partitions. To his mother he's a talented musician. To his peers he's an agreeable fellow lacking a spine. The most distinct characteristic of these teenagers is their utter lack of outrage at anything. They are indifferent and numbed to the consequences of their actions. Lack of decent fathering is held up, not erroneously, as a major cause of the state of mind of these walking teenage disasters. The final outrage is a home invasion that involves the rape and murder of a wealthy celebrity couple. This sequence has earned the film its reputation. Although it is graphic, it is only a part of a film that is too slow at times but never dull. Director Clay has stated that war footage of a plane exploding is the only violence in the movie. He's either misguided or having a w**k.

Disturbing

[han9999 · 1/10 · 13 October 2010]

My boyfriend and I watched this film last night and it has to be the most awful film I have ever seen. My boyfriend asked me to turn it off after the first rape with the young girl, stupidly I said we should watch the end to see what the point of the film was. The last scene is sick and disturbing. How anyone would think of something that bad is unbelievable, I don't understand why anyone would enjoy the film. It is unnecessary and everyone involved in the making of this film (including Danny Dyer) are sick, how anyone can even comment on the cinematography is unbelievable. I am still getting over it, it has really messed up my head and I don't understand how it can be allowed to be seen. I have never been one to ban films and games etc in case of reenactment but after this film it makes me wonder that perhaps if people kept thoughts to themselves it would never become a reality. Lets hope to God it never does. Ban this film and don't ever watch it.it really does f**k Ur head up.

Pretty disturbing drama with very brutal rape/violation scene.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 8/10 · 24 February 2007]

Robert Carmichael is a gifted but socially awkward schoolboy living with his mum in Newhaven,a coastal town in the south of England.Despite his musical and intellectual ability,Robert is ostracized by most of his peers hanging out with the recently expelled Joe and schoolmate Ben.Joe's cousin Larry,a small-time crook fresh out of prison introduces Robert to ecstasy and cocaine.Robert's journey into drugs culminates into truly horrifying rape and murder..."The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael" is a very bleak and disturbing film.The acting of younger members of the cast is excellent as is the somber photography of Yorgos Arvantis.The climatic gang-rape/brutal violation and murder of a rich woman is quite graphic and truly disturbing.It rivals the anal rape of Monica Bellucci in "Irreversible" as being one of the most sadistic acts of sexual violence I have ever seen in a mainstream film.Still "The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael" made me think after it was over and I applaud it for that.8 out of 10.

Pretentious shock-cinema that tries to be relevant

[ThreeSadTigers · 29 December 2007]

It's very easy to lose perspective. Even if The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael was a great film rife with rich performances, intelligent ideas and a genuinely revolutionary cinematic design, it would still be a film that shamelessly exploits violence and abuse for the sake of shock value, in an obvious attempt to get people to pay attention. But what are we supposed to be paying attention to? The film is littered with social realist clichés, from the talented young protégé alienated from his middle-class surroundings, to his eventual descent into drug addiction, crime, rape and ultimately murder, all at the approval of his lower-class chums. If the plot wasn't hackneyed enough we then have the stilted direction, with the film borrowing heavily from the work of filmmakers such as Michael Haneke (Funny Games), Lars von Trier (Dogville) and Gaspar Noé (Irreversible), with those lingering long-takes, overly complicated tracking shots, match-cuts, spliced-in footage of actual war atrocities and much use of brooding classical music. All of this is combined with a drab and lifeless production design that is grey and pallid and only really helps to further bring out the squalid grime of the surroundings of these baseball cap wearing, track-suited stereotypes.

The film hints at the psychological depth and subversive black and white morality of the filmmakers aforementioned but really lacks any such weight or integrity, instead coming across like a Daily Mail article committed to film by Peter Greenaway's retarded younger brother. Certainly it's fine for a filmmaker to take influence from those that came before, as it is with any form of art, but instead of being inspired and influenced by people like Haneke and Noé into creating a thought-provoking and provocative drama, Robert Carmichael's director Thomas Clay has instead learned the lesson that shock sells; so we get the home-invasion theme from Funny Games played out with cynical black humour replacing Haneke's skillful attacks at this kind of film's violence for violence sake; all wrapped up in an awkward attempt justify these actions on the grounds of apathy, and then topped off with the graphic, prolonged rape-scene as central talking point concept lifted from the genuinely thought-provoking (if no less morally dubious) Irreversible.

With almost every conceited plot-device - from the drugs, to the rape, to the life of violence - we see the filmmakers striving to get a reaction out of their audience no matter how far they have to go to contrive the drama or compromise the integrity of their characters. It's less about intelligent film-making and more akin to a toddler banging a saucepan with a wooden spoon while shouting "look at me, look at me". You have to ask yourself what you hope to get from this film, because at the most all it offers is a lot of drifting shots of nicely lit locations, two-dimensional characters swearing and being angst-ridden with each other and the lurid and offencive notion that the rape sequence is the film's "unique selling point".

Many who appreciate the film like to read into it as a critique on the war in Iraq, which is an interesting idea but one that I feel gives the filmmakers far too much credit. Regardless of how many atrocities are committed in war, or even on our streets and behind closed doors, to document the graphic gang-rape and abuse of a helpless couple in their own home is irresponsible. As with violence, scenes of sex and indeed, rape, are never entirely relevant to the story at a hand, but are rather, stylistic devices that a director exploits for various dramatic reasons; be it for the sake of accuracy or to make a point. What we have with Robert Carmichael is a film that uses rape for the sake of having a controversial talking point. If the rape was central to the story, then Clay could have pulled away and cut to another scene and still conveyed the weight of dramatic tension through the subtext of the writing and the performances of his actors. Understandably realising that his script was weak and his actors were weaker (you know you're in trouble when the aptly named Danny Dyer gives one of the strongest performances in the film) Clay resorts to a lengthy fixed-camera affair, in which a bound husband has to watch his wife violated by a group of leering yobs.

So, what real reason is there to watch this film? Nice cinematography? I suppose so. I guess it also taps into the recent demonising of any young lad wearing a baseball cap, with the film probably making perfect conversation fodder for middle-class dinner parties, but really - in terms of telling an interesting, stimulating and thought-provoking story - I'm afraid to say, it falls flat.

Respect the audience!

[jackstanley · 7/10 · 2 September 2005]

As another poster has written, it's a shame that all many will talk about is the final scene. Before the last ten minutes I experienced a low-key, beautiful and thoroughly engaging piece of work.

Little gems include a shared silence between three young leads on a lonely beach, the fantastic and underused Lesley Manville checking herself in front of a mirror before going out, and the quiet disdain a father has for his eldest, just released from prison.

It also features a scene which I believe shocks the audience in an intelligent way; rather than have anything thrust into our faces, we just hear something at a party, behind a wall, and imagine what it looks like. We don't need to see. Compare that with the final ten minutes, and you have a subtle and often moving story almost completely ruined by a talented young director's need to shock.

One of the worst films I have ever seen

[Paracelsus1966 · 1/10 · 27 August 2005]

So they hyped the violence and it's been branded as sick. Well, the violence is the best bit I'm afraid, but unfortunately the characters are not developed enough to allow us to understand why they go on their (entirely predictable) rampage. This film has a truly dreadful script. We never get a chance to get to know Robert and his actions at the end are just plain pathetic. The acting isn't much better, either, the worst of them being the TV chef and the school teacher. The direction is clumsy, the pace enough to send you to sleep. And what on earth is the school film project all about? A comment on the film itself perhaps? The use of newsreel during the climactic murder is laughable. These guys obviously think they're intellectuals but are hopelessly out of their depth. How on earth they got the great Yorgos Arvanitis to light it I'll never know. And how they got the money to make it in the first place is an even greater mystery. Absolutely awful beyond comprehension.

Shocking but rich !

[pamuf · 9/10 · 4 February 2007]

I just came out of the movie and I'm still under shock. No doubt, two scenes are very hard to stand as spectator. But on the other hand, it's "just" the illustration of what we read every couple of days or weeks in newspapers and what's happening more and more frequently in suburbs - in our neighborhood. And the word "just" is exactly the problem and one of the key points of the film: we are overwhelmed by horrible news and brutalized be medias (including music videos, video games, etc). Sooner or later we risk to blind us (e.g. with drugs) and/or to loose sensitiveness. When everything has the taste of "déjà vi" nothing will touch us any more. The setting remembered me to Fargo (from the Coen brothers): an extremely boring place in the middle of nowhere. But psychologically "The great ecstasy" is much more complex with a lot of matter of discussion: lack of communication even inside families, disillusion, no future ambiance, integration, lack of fathers and Oedipus-complex, puberty and virility, etc.

what's all the fuzz about

[r0ulette_ · 7/10 · 29 January 2006]

i've seen this movie with audience and a q&a afterwards which makes it a hole lot more fun to watch. it's a realistic portrait of a couple of English kids who end up doing some really nasty things. the funny thing about this movie is that there're more movies out there with this type of scene in it (creep, pariah) but people got really offended by this one because the movie has really realistic characters until that moment. i guess it's OK to make a absurd movie with things like this in it but when it looks serious people can't handle it. i suposse you should look for yourself and prepare for a not so pleasant experience, but in the end it's a pretty good movie about a quiet boy who turns out to be the nastiest person of all.

What a load of rubbish!

[argentofan-1 · 1/10 · 13 September 2005]

I saw this at the Edinburgh Film Festival. It was awful! Every clichéd, violent, rich boy fantasy was on display, you just knew how it was going to end especially with all the shots of the chef's wife and the rape of the first girl.

The worst part was the Q&A with the director/writer and writer/producer they tried to come across as intellectuals but you could tell they're the types that get off on violence. I bet anything they frequent brothels and do drugs.

Don't waste your time. I had to keep my boyfriend from walking out of it.

The greatembarrassment of Robert Carmichael

[ad280784 · 1/10 · 29 November 2006]

Violence whether real or not always has an impact. In this film the violence is about as crass as you could ask for. In the Great Ecstacy the director has successfully demonstrated what extremes of violence people are capable of. But what was the point? The violence looks like a mix of Noë's 'Irreversible, and ' Kubrick's 'Clockwork Orange'...both of which are remarkable films. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to screen violence at all and I've seen some nasty stuff in my film-going years, but this film as a whole is totally juvenile. The story is never developed enough to offer any reason for the extreme violence, the rizla paper thin reason we are give for Robert's demise is his introduction to drugs. Danny Dyer plays the character who is partly responsible for Robert's drug fuelled demise, however he is on screen for less than 5 minutes. Lesley Manville is Robert's unable to cope mum, I am not sure what either of these actors is doing in a film of this low caliber. The acting is wooden, the scene in the kitchen with the TV-cook and his wife for instance is as painful to watch if not more so than the shocking finale- who wrote those dialogues?! Some of the comments the boys make...'looks like she's enjoying it' are so trite as to tempt one to laugh if it were not for Clay's ardent desire to bombard us with harrowing images of mutilated female genitals. Why we need to be shown such detail possibly down to the director's adolescent obsession with sadistic pornographic imagery...one can only wonder at this young man's psychology.

The 'political meaning' of the film was repeatedly brought to our attention due to the amount of scenes; in the bar, outside the TV-cook's house, war in Iraq reports, was perhaps too obvious in my opinion. Yes, war is violent, social determinism causes frustration, we're all prone to horrifingly violent acts whether you're in politics or on the street popping E. Juxtaposing all these things as part of the same underlying issue is evading the actual issue which is the meaning of violence in man. This issue is one that we still haven't managed to grasp and certainly not in this film.

My opinion: derivative, badly-made and pointless.

Honestly the Worst Film I've Ever Seen (And It Beat Some Real Bad Ones)

[phillamg · 1/10 · 24 August 2005]

First a technical review. The script is so slow, it is really a 25 minute story blown up to 1 hour 40 min. The dialogue is so flat and truly one-dimensional. The "acting" is pathetic, they seem to really have lifted schoolchildren out of class to read a few lines from an idiot board. As for the whole "point" of the story, namely "war is bad" (oh, there's a shock!) is really non-existent. Without out the "lets shock 'em and get great publicity" scene nobody would be talking about this film. It is so bad it actually bothers me to think what better things the money used this could have gone on. Believe me I've seen some bad "emperor's new clothes" films but the one thing I can say for them is at least they were well shot and well made while the camera wobbled during two scenes in this! Read all the other reviews - avoid at all costs and don't talk about it.

Well I liked it...

[tiarings · 1 October 2005]

It's a shame that more people who like this movie have not yet commented on it. If you do google the film, however, you will find some more intelligent responses to the film, even ones which are critical of the film's ending. It's clearly a love it or hate film, but I find the lack of any intellectual engagement with film's themes demonstrated in these comments a bit disheartening. If the IMDb is a democracy, people should still think before they write something. One comment in particular seems like it might have been written by a person who may not have even seen the film. I did like and have seen it, so I'll offer my two dimes worth.

I think it is an unusually unfettered and savage critique about the hypocritical way we represent and deal with casual brutality in our society, and the kind of selfish values which are currently in operation. The small coastal town in which the film is a microcosm used to explore and exemplify broader trends in Britain and the West generally. For example, this film talks about the simplistic and dishonest way in which the British tend to view both contemporary and past military conflicts. Through scenes with a well-intentioned, lefty media studies teacher and then later through the juxtaposition of WWII newsreel footage with a savage ultra-violence, we are asked to question the standard version of the Second World War as a glorious fight between good and evil. Through similar juxtapositions of political speech-making and ultra-violence we are also asked to question the official line on the Iraq conflict. In it is totality, (e.g. through its music - Elgar-Birtwhistle - or its downward spiral narrative) the film systematically asks us to question all manner of lazy assumptions about Britannia and the British, and what both supposedly stand for. In a wider sense, I feel it effectively questions our assumptions about civilized people and nations being essentially good.

I also think the film-making is generally excellent, particularly for a first film. The boys in it are very convincing, and the film is a good watch even if a person misses some of its thematic concerns. Only one of two of the side characters are a bit less convincing, it does have a lengthy build-up. It's very, very different from mot British cinema of today which is generally sentimental, conservative and gratingly populist or else falls into the no-longer radical or interesting category of politically correct realism. This is a film which dares to be different, and challenges its audience with its stylish long takes and its uneasy combination of terrible violence and savage satire. If you're not squeamish or intellectually lazy, it's also very compelling. It never falls into the art-house ponderous-dull trap. Its says interesting things about morality and politics without being didactic or using self-consciously high-brow dialogue.

A strong work , but not strong enough to avoid being overshadowed by its final scene

[harrymanback · 6/10 · 16 July 2007]

Its sad to see how many viewers have given this film the lowest possible mark purely on the basis of the final scene. Their knee-jerk response to the unquestionably horrific act is interesting in itself though, as it raises the same question I had to ask myself after the film - namely, what is it about sexual violence, as opposed to other forms of violence, that makes it so overwhelmingly unconscionable? There are mainstream films far more gory than this, yet the manner in which the woman is murdered left me feeling physically sick to a degree that I have not experienced before. It cannot be claimed that the film does anything to explore this question, however the (admittedly unsubtle) references to the ongoing war in Iraq reminds us that such brutal acts occur daily, many the result of our own 'civilised' democracy.

Its a shame that this debate has overshadowed what is otherwise a strong work. The film certainly has its problems - I for one struggled to warm to the director's staid style, which at times left me feeling like I was watching a play not film. Also certain scenes were so cringe-inducingly amateurish that I have to wonder whether they were deliberately like they were, to point up the fakeness of some of the characters - the kitchen conversation in particular between the TV chef and his wife felt like some European air freshener advert that had been poorly dubbed into English. The manner too in which the director cuts from the rape to archive shots of war was incredibly crass - the presence of the sword in the house as a decorative item (itself a tool of war), and its usage in the attack, could have been enough to make this link if a more skillful director was in charge.

For all its mistakes though, there were as many positives. The scene in which the boys share a joint on the beach in near silence is one of the highlights, a wonderfully subtle suggestion of their dislocation. I felt too that the narrative was far more ambiguous than to suggest simply that Robert's acts were simply the outcome of his drug use. For me the final message was that Robert was a cypher for all of us that live in western societies - apparently civilised in our behaviour (cf his musical accomplishment), and yet part of a system that relies on the subjugation - often violently - of outsiders.

Basically if you come to this film expecting 'entertainment' then you'll be disappointed, or worse. If you look on it as 'art' you might find a flawed, but still compelling piece of film making. Perhaps ultimately though the film simply isn't good enough to justify the taboo-challenging final act.

Appalling

[drunkit · 1/10 · 16 January 2006]

There is just one word for this film. Appalling. The director clearly has talent but like his character Robert Carmichael he throws it all away.

Carmichael has potential, but like Cray he can't be bothered to use it. Being drawn into petty crime and then descending into depravity is Cray's vision of British youth. Like the British tabloids this film portrays young people with no aspirations or respect. Cray cries out for attention, but deserves none.

I was appalled by the act of violence that Cray chose to shove in the faces of the audience. He assumes the audience are ignorant of world atrocities. Like a piece of obscene graffiti on a toilet wall he shows us male depravity with adolescent glee.

Some actors of quality have small parts in this film. Danny Dyer and Leslie Manville both make short appearances. The acting is otherwise amateur, the young men Joe and Ben are cringe making. Carmichael played by Daniel Spencer is creepy. Miranda Wilson plays Monica, the attractive wife of celeb chef Jonathon (Michael Howe); how she was able to subject herself to such an ordeal is beyond belief. The film is never subtle and Monica is treated to the most gratuitous violence which is cut with war action. War imagery is used to convey the idea that young men cannot help themselves, that acts of violence will occur within even "civilised" countries. This is most certainly true and is symptomatic of our altered society where males have an increasingly less important position, but Cray descends to the level of the barbaric males he seeks to expose through his use of such brutal and violent images. The female characters in the film offer no relief. They are either victims or in Manville's case a washed out mother. The community is represented as dysfunctional.

This is Cray's first film. I listened to what he had to say during a Q and A session at Edinburugh and he is not unintelligent, he simply lacks experience and his film exposes his naivety. The film is due to be released later this year, but I hope the company goes bust cos the public really don't need this kind of messed up material.

an empty film about empty people just brilliant

[speedybea · 8/10 · 5 December 2006]

i would like to say i think this film is soulless empty and devoid of any emotional depth, i don't know if that is the point but i thought it was stunning.

For me the whole point of it was this is what life is like for many, the uber violence of Kubrick clockwork orange was about the future, this is the same in this film but it is about the present.

Those who hate it for this, is a good thing. I personally recognise many of the characters in this film, the fact that they are emotionally underdeveloped is the point.

I thought this film was nothing short of brilliant. It was horrible to watch at times but that doesn't make it a bad film and as for people complaining about a weak supporting cast well ffs i don't think they had a Hollywood budget.

the more films like this the better

Well done Thomas Clay

immature.

[russell-140 · 7/10 · 9 December 2013]

Not a bad film, not a fantastic film. Slightly biased as large parts of it were filmed in my neighbour's house, but even watching it now - eight years later - you genuinely get a sense of what they were trying to do.

I won't rehash all the other reviews on here, but perhaps with a decent budget and a better second act they would've had a superb movie on their hands.

It's a gorgeously-shot film, but the storyline is rather... crashy. Just pretend there's smooth transitions between the various disjointed bits of it and it's actually pretty good. I'm guessing there's a whole lot more flesh of the back story that never made it into the finished movie, which is a shame.

Uncontrolled schoolboy fantasy?

[Brixton75 · 1/10 · 20 June 2005]

I have seen it. It's not "good" but interesting in an understated way. The boys in it are quite naturalistic but................the graphic/gratuitous final gang rape scene is repugnant and -oh yes- the arbitrary insertion of second world war footage is offensive in the way it attempts to compare real horror with this misogynistic contrivance. Real atrocity is real- this film is just atrocious. However, the film has a look which can draw you in. But it seems to me that is the "Emperor's New Clothes", but in fact in reverse. The film looks good, but the direction, story, content and final feeling you take away from this film is vacuous. If a feeling can be vacuous-this is it.

If You Can't Find The Meaning, You're Not Trying

[Brakathor · 8/10 · 11 October 2007]

I was instantly pleased to see "music by Elgar, Harvey, And Purcell.", bizarre because the non classic music is not given credit here, but immediately recognizable to me were these 3 names in classic music, which does play a strong role in this film,

This is really quite a remarkable film in it's stylistic presentation, which admittedly will not be to everyone's taste, but once accepted, which shouldn't be hard to do as it is a fairly unique style of shooting, a lot can be derived from it. In terms of shock value, you have to respect this film which has clearly overlooked the clumsy and obvious (showing lots of scenes of blood and gore) Most of the movie is filmed with very long wide shot screens, quite similar to the cold surgeons precision style of filming by michael haeneke, and by this, virtually all violence is obscured. Clay took the style into great perspective, giving it strong meaning combined with the material.

Obviously, this style of long shot scenes, never showing us EVERYTHING that's going on in terms of action, but showing us more in terms of the scene, will not appeal to some and become boring. I LOVE long shots as there is no camera trickery involved like in most mainstream films. I also love long scenes. The most fascinating aspect of this style is the way each scene is prepositioned, slowly driving forth a plot sequence where you are unsure of where it is going or if it even has a purpose, giving rise to your own instincts, but you feel very much a part of the scene yourself until finally the purpose is shown, which to me, leads to suspense. For example, a scene near the beginning where a woman is getting gas, and a man seems to be looking at her. All is unclear and seems pointless, but the next scene she is in the car and says "bastard" implying that he was veering at her in a creepy manner, Which first off is an ingenious way to let you put yourself in a woman's shoes, as much of the violence in here is directed against women.

The very best scene to me was the party scene where you have the 3 characters, the dj, Robert, and the Spanish owner (who was like a Harvey Keitel clone from Taxi Drvier) in the same room, as something horrible is happening in the room next. (What are they thinking.... will they do something? ...and then 8 minutes later it happens.) In this scene he shows slight surrealism as the lights dim slowly before the scene ends and the 2 advance as does the camera. Genius

The few bad points are, I think at times he got too involved with this style (the long shot of Robert jacking off with the door open) I also thought it was denying the viewer something without showing us the lads breaking into the house. Instead it was just suddenly "BOOM.... we're in your room... sorry to wake you, but now you're in hell." Also, though it is definitely plausible, it was pushy to have the search party for the missing girl to cross paths with the 3 boys who were drugged out in a park and about to soon commit a very violent crime themselves.

Another aspect is every time the TV is on, there is news reports of the war in Iraq, which is very interesting because this was around the time where the message was "We just toppled Saddam, we're heroes of the world." We know how that went. This can be interpreted tons of ways and people have said it seems contrived and indeed it is, but as it does not inherently have anything to do with the story it doesn't matter, and is simply interesting to have in there, gets our thoughts going, and adds to the bizarre way that this film seems documentary-like.

Untimately this film is a very strong and innovative character study, and I cannot understand how the acting can be criticized. If the dialogue seems trite in places, then it is, but it is not unrealistic and neither is the prospect of a teen, who seems to have a good future and good grades, falling out to violence or mediocrity, like others have said, likely simply because they have never been in that situation. I knew a girl in school who was a straight A student until the very last year where she couldn't handle the pressure. I'll never forget the phrase one of the "IN" kids said to me, who had made me an object of humour, but really was only in it for himself and not trying to degrade anyone. "are you going to let people push you around your whole life." It is a phrase very relevant to me and perhaps everyone, and certainly in this film, as the desire to be SOMEBODY, to not be pushed around can often lead to painful and senseless violence that will be regretted. Robert punching out the kid hogging the video camera, who is getting his own way when the teacher won't step in, was very exemplary of this and foreshadowing of the true crime to take place later.

In short, if you cant handle teens swearing, if you take no interest in their troubled lives and ultimately cannot handle the IDEA of sexual violence, as it is not even brutally shown, you need to give this film a miss and watch a film about grannies, or James Bond who has a hilarious wisecrack every time he brutally kills someone. These teens are 100% realistic, effectively giving us a lesson too strongly crafted for this film to be dismissed, as it's frankly much more intelligent, much more coherently put together, and had a much more plausible plot line than most films made, including some in the top 250 on this site.

Quite Brutal

[owjan-45979 · 7/10 · 14 September 2020]

The whole movie was nothing just a warm-up for the last 15 minutes of it, where the softest looking member was actually the hardcore and a massive build-up anger just erupted with no control. I quite enjoyed watching it and highly recommend it to fanatic crazy sick cinematography enthusiasts.

Extremely violent and disturbing for no apparent reason

[KelsoKing · 1/10 · 14 March 2006]

This is the most disturbing film I have ever seen. It makes "Requiem for a Dream" look like a Disney film. Although, technically, it is reasonably well made, acting, cinematography, music, directing, etc., are good. However, the concluding gang rape scene is the most appalling and violent thing I have ever seen and I really wish I had not seen it. I am afraid that it will haunt me for the rest of my life. Although I think anyone would find the film extremely disturbing, my wife and some of her friends were victimized in a very similar manner and I really didn't need an explicit reminder of the horror that they experienced. I saw the film at the SXSW film festival in Austin, TX and none of the cast or crew were in attendance. I would have liked for them to have had the opportunity to defend the violence in their film, which I felt was excessive, gratuitous and unnecessary. An earlier scene successfully conveyed the mood they were apparently striving for, but without rubbing your face in the extreme and explicit sexual violence. This film should have a big WARNING label on it. For these reasons I would not recommend anyone seeing it. You've been warned.