The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael

source: The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael

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

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.

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.

A Lot of people have disliked this film because of a certain scene.I agree the scene is a bit strong .This scene seems to have wavered people views on the film,but you have to look past it. The film has great characters who come from different backgrounds and all seem to have a connection of some sort with everyone else in the story .The film portrays drug culture amongst teens of Britain, it shows the consequences of doing drugs .There are strong messages in this film that people have looked past.The directing is superb..nice shots..and cleverly done in a scene where they are round a dealers flat,who is playing on some turntables when they arrive ..Basically see this film ,yes its shocking but life can be shocking.If Kubrick had directed it ,a lot of people on here would be praising it.Go see this film ..

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.

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.

Ahh, why? Why are films like this being made by dumb middle class males? Do we really need another "look at me look at me" film. I was warned and I should have listened. The film follows the life of Robert Carmichael, a talented yet alienated young man. His friends introduce him to drugs and his life spirals out of control. Blimey 2 hours of extreme boredom then a ten minute burst of pure sick jack ass standard purile violence in which a woman is raped and murdered. Are directors in the uk really so unimaginative? The thing is I couldn't believe any of it. It was all so contrived. Sex and violence for the sake of it, so I guess it will become a boys must see movie. The reality is the movie is sick, violent and without any meaning or message. I am wondering why we need to be reminded that boys are such jerks.

it isn't necessary to humiliate female like this I do reed the commentary on newspaper about this film, although it is referring to the war issue and the rape happened in Iraq which done by American military, the movie only hurts women again and again by it's repeated broadcasting. The artistic cello player Robert refers to Bush, and the news played on TV, which shows his graceful side in the appearance, but than we can see the movie reveals the true violence under him, just like the true violence under the war. The director might really have something to say, but it is still a very harmful piece for female. If the war is that terrible, one should try to scare and warn men in the movie, but not women who'd never wanted the war.

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.