Neds (2010)

Peter Mullan's film about Glasgow's Non-Educated Delinquents is not quite as straightforward as it may at first seem: there are some fairly common elements (the bright kid trying to learn his way out of poverty, the drunken father, the violent street gangs) but also some odd, surreal imaginative scenes, and an overall narrative that grows more opaque the longer the film lasts. It's the scenes set at school, which showcase the diversity of approaches employed by the teaching staff, that are most powerful, making the point that if your rear children as animals, animals are what you're going to get out the other end. The almost total absence of any positive virtues: humour, love, progress are all absent from the narrative; ultimately make for hard watching. Mullan himself is mesmeric in a small role, but the failure to make that role more central is just one of the film's narrative oddities; as a writer, Mullan could have done with some help to better shape his material.

I heard mixed reviews from my friends about this film. Some said it was OK, others thought it was rubbish. Well I watched it last night and I felt motivated into leaving my first ever review.Ultimately I thought the film was terrible. My reasons: Firstly, the plot was weak and the events and actions of the main character were not justified.Secondly, the character development was very poor. Take the father for example - he was a drunk and abusive to his wife. But that was all we saw of him. This is similar with the boy's brother who we didn't get to know or the weird auntie character. Not only were most of these poorly cast but also we were left not feeling anything towards any of them.Another point - there were loads of things that didn't really mean much or were used just to be able to allow the director to go in another director. There could have been numerous films made about individual parts of the movie. E.g. the father wanted to kill himself... What was that all about? Mullens touched on it and then we never heard about it again. In the dance hall, the main character gives his brother the w&^*r sign (you wonder what this means?) but then they are best of friends and the boy is planning leaving for Spain (another aspect of the film which is raised and then forgotten about). Same as the posh boy Jullian and his mother. Where was the police in all of this? surely Julian's parents would have phoned the police since it the firecrackers were tied to the football boots? Fourthly, the film jumps about all over the place. One minute he's an exceptional student, the next a total nut-case, then a student, the a nut-case.Fifthly, the way the violence is trivialised. Spending years in Glasgow, and also being stabbed by a little ned, I know that this sort of violence occurs in Glasgow. But Mullens plays some uplifting/light hearted music while people are fighting and slashing people's throats. I didn't think that fitted well at all.Lastly, the 'symbolism' of the ending with boy holding hands with the guy he attacked while they walked through the lions den was laughable! Again, it was very weakly put together and meant nothing. Who is the director trying to kid? I'm sure some idiots including Mullens will think this is a master piece but i found it very disappointing.Overall - could have been a great film but fell far short of it. I would advise people to not even watch it at all - I recommend very similar film called Small Faces which I thought was really good..

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning John (Connor McCarron) excels as a child in his studies, but the rough, hard environment around him soon has an effect on his personal character and, as he grows up in 1970s Glasgow, he moulds into one of the pack, as problems at home and school breed the violent character within him, going up against the hard drinking, knife wielding thugs that are the sworn enemies of the hard drinking, knife wielding thugs he's in with.Glasgow still holds the notorious accolade of being 'the knife crime capital of Great Britain', so this could have been just as hard hitting and unflinching as it was setting out to be being a modern day drama. Instead, director Peter Mullan has presented a sprawling, overlong if I'm brutally honest, exploration of a young man's despairing, senseless dessension into mindless thuggery, possibly based on his own experiences. As a result of this, it comes off as very hard to get into to start with, lost as it is in it's own mood, atmosphere and style. But it's these same things that somehow manage to make it a more absorbing experience if you stick with it long enough, slowly drawing you into the life of this troubled character and the various ups and downs he encounters as he trawls through the rough landscape of his youth. Still, this feels like quite an undisciplined effort from Mullan, which veers into outlandish, arty moments (such as the lead character duking it out with the Lord Jesus Christ) that only serve to make it an even more alienating experience than it already is. ***

NEDs: Wow, what a surprising, twisted, bold, and incredibly artistic film! I was highly impressed. The movie plays on so many levels: here you have a story of maturation set in an authentic and historical setting, you have stylistic symbolism, and scenes exploring the very core of human nature.The film has a deep and permeating soul, the thing I instantly cling to when I get a chance to see any creations of this kind. I cling to them and, through'em, get precious life fed to me.+ The main kid actually looked like a scaled-down version of Tony Soprano! With no pun intended!, as he was absolutely great.