Neds

source: Neds

This is the story of a boy who goes of the rails due to a destructive home life and the fact that he lives in a deprived area of Glasgow . I usually love gritty movies like this , they remind me a little of my own childhood and i can relate to a lot of what happens to my namesake , John in this movie but i have one big problem with Neds. I couldn't understand the accents. The Glaswegian accent was so strong i desperately needed subtitles to understand what they was saying. It spoilt it for me. The biggest plus point from this film was the fantastic soundtrack. Pure 1970's glam throughout and it gave a welcome respite from the harsh accents. Neds is far from perfect but i appreciated the acting and the authenticity of it looking like the 1970's. I'm interested to see Director , Peter Mullens previous films to see how they compare.

Like zanderd69 from Scotland I feel compelled to writing my first IMDb review with this superb film and to give it 10/10. I had to travel into London to watch it as it was not playing at my local cinema. It is classed as "special interest" meaning less UK screenings sadly. Watch out in the future for Conor McCarron who plays young John McGill, the bright schoolboy who has so much hope ahead of him as he leaves primary school. He is a top performer, only to be sucked into the violence of 1970's Glasgow which is shown graphically. It is hard to watch sometimes but very accurate. I found myself really sympathising with the lead actor (I rarely do this). He really was on his own in so many ways in this film and bravely took (in his own mind) the whole world on. The film has lots of twists and turns. I want to talk about the ending which I have strong theories on, but that would mean ticking spoiler alert which I do not want to do. So many wonderful young amateur actors in this film. Look out too for Steven Robertson, who play the teacher Mr Bonetti. He is pure class. Top marks to Director Peter Mullan and all who took part in this wonderful "real" & "no holding back" film of a time in Glasgow's history which is not known about by many outside of the area.

Although the first hour is controlled and captivating, the second hour becomes script-messy, loses intensity and is too long: the movie should have been 15-20min shorter. As for John's character, though there was material, he lacks depth, his psychology and increase in power are not enough controlled, and I failed to feel strong emotions towards him. Neds can be compared to This Is England, and though the latter was a little different, I preferred it because everything was better described: script, character, psychology, message. Neds, still, is a fair movie.

First I have to admit that one reason that made this film more appealing for me was that at the moment I live in Glasgow, right in the area, where the film was filmed and here the "neds" are a part of daily life, only in different uniforms that in 70's. So to say, if living elsewhere I would not find this film as interesting as now. How ever it is still quite good movie. Some say that the language is difficult. Probably yes, if you are not glaswegian. Though even I understood almost everything with a background of three years in Glasgow (English is not my native language). Surprisingly there were even a few moments when everybody laughed (I was not expecting comedy), but still it was not awkward. Few shocking moments, but no unnecessary gore. Though it might have been good to show little bit more the gruesome results of stabbings as it feels here, and in that movie too that sadly many of these young "neds" do not even realise the fact that knife can kill and is not a toy. The characters are a little bit hollow. In Neds everything just is how it is, some further explanation and reasons would be really fruitful. I would have appreciated some deeper view of the main characters thoughts and reasons for his actions. I was looking for some explanation to the whole ned-culture, gang fights and meaningless violence. From this movie I learnt only that things were the same in Glasgow 40 years ago.

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..

The film successfully exposes the frustrations and impotence of failed systems in religion, education, friendship, families, government and employment. Scenes that are funny one moment take on deeper and darker meaning the next. Excellent acting, writing and direction. What is referred to by one reviewer as the Jesus scene, I felt is central to the thread of religion that runs through the movie, though each viewer can interpret it as they wish. It is just as appropriate as Rentons withdrawal scenes in Trainspotting for comparison. It seemed to me that the characters could deal with the physical beatings, but the subtle, and silent violence was more brutal, insidious, and damaging. It is one of those films that will keep you thinking long after the credits finish.

Im left feeling frustrated and empty after 2hrs in the cinema. The worst part being the ending which was just insulting. This movie had all the ingredients to be utterly fantastic but instead it was a completely weak portrayal of what can only be described as a psychopath. Mullen tries and fails miserably at convincing the audience that the lead character is a product of his environment. As an early review stated, it was an exercise of join the dots. As stages, I actually thought I'd drifted out of conscientiousness and missed parts of the movie. I can only believe that the character had serious mental issues and absolutely nothing to do with his upbringing which is supposed to be the sole grit of the movie because Mullen was unable to translate the main triggers in McGill's life that made him what he turned out to be. He skirted about the issues and put the stereotypical father, poverty, intimidation, fight or die etc etc in but it was limp, unconvincing and incomplete. I do, however, understand Mullen using the terms NEDS for a story set in the 70's. Although the term itself only arrived in the late 80's / early 90's, he used it to show the irony in that the lead character himself was in fact an intelligent individual with huge potential. If it wasn't for my own hope while watching and for filling in the the blanks throughout I would give this movie a 2 out of 10, otherwise I give it a 3. Such a disappointment

Saw this film as part of the Tribeca film festival in New York yesterday My biggest concern with this film is that it's too White washed. I have lived in that part of the country and now living in New York with friends from that part of the world I find it hard to digest that everyone in the movie was white. I do understand that its not set in current day but even back in the day ethnic groups existed. They would have called for a greater conflict had they been represented. The movie doesn't seem to a true representation. Also the has moments of being too cheesy or calculated. The Jesus scene is completed uncalled for and it almost feels its a scene belonging to a different genre. I was extremely disappointed to see this film part of Tribeca's programming because there is nothing unique about this film.

First off, let me point out a few things, to people who obviously didn't get this. People who complained about the silly music, you really couldn't see that the director was trying to show how ridiculous the violence was? People who didn't get the Jesus thing, well, you've obviously never come from a dark enough culture, where solvent abuse is rife, and people have extremely vivid hallucinations. I was raised in the area the movie is set, and the time it was set, and i can tell you, its very accurate. Yes, they have accents, its set in Scotland, did you expect them to say "Kwoffee?" and no, there are no bothers in this movie, but take it from me, i never seen anyone of African descent until i was in my teens, and even then it was quite a rare thing in Scotland, and a real minority. The movie itself is very well done, and tells a cautionary tale, that could translate to anywhere in the world. The production values of the movie are good, and its certainly way better than average and keeps you entertained, i watched this as a piece of "World Cinema", even though i come from the area, and had no trouble at all with the dialogue, but then again, thats me, i can see who others would find it difficult, then again, i would moan about this spoiling the movie, when in Rome ... i would accept it for what it is. If you get the chance to see this, then do so, with an open mind, its entertaining, moving, shocking, and everything a good movie should be. :)