Yetman
Cheesecar Fucksquad #1
I just can't be fucked to respond to this thread...
So what did you write that for then?

I just can't be fucked to respond to this thread...

None of the people I've ever seen in Shane Meadows films can act. They are all crap actors, apart from that rubbish Midlands cowboy one, which actually had Ricky Tomlinson and a half-decent cast wasted on dreck. He either has a decent story ruined by ham-fisted amateurs, or a half-decent cast wasted on... oh, wait I've said that bit.
One day he will make a decent film.
Until then he is an underachieving, tremendously, unfathomably overrated tosspot.
Er, Paddy Considine?
Dead Man's Shoes?
Why am I even bothering to reply?
Rubbish!
Only kidding.
Nothing special (him) and rubbish (it).
Because you deep down suspect you have got it all wrong and want me to tell you why?
The way Meadows uses his "actors" (quite a few are just untrained lads/lasses) and the made-up dialogue, ad-libs etc can put some people off I find. Personally I like the style.
this might be it.
the acting in meadows' films is unlike anything i think i've seen on film - including loach/leigh. it's epitomised by considine's half-swallowed east mids drawl - there are some accents you hardly ever hear (Fens, is another), partly because the diction is really indistinct. the performances meadows gets are a strata of realism beyond anythiing eles - which sometimes gives scenes an awkward pace, or makes significant dialogue under delivered.
but that isn't bad acting. that's truthful - and it's the holy grail for actors - but one that you're rarely encouraged or liberated enough to pursue.
Some of the scenes in his films are as near to perfect as I've ever seen. Particularly the bridge scene near the start of This is England. But tons of bits.
Look at my tears. I mean just fucking look them. There's one over there, another one there - i think there's one rolled under the fridge as well.

Yep agree with all of this.It was like a devised theatre-in-educaiton piece with decent actors but with no real understanding they are trying to address or the social historical context in which the film is set.
The main proble i have with it is the utterly unrealistic depiciton of the skinheads.
We have woodys gang of touchly feely skins who talk freely about their emotions and are totally non-racist. Suddenlty into their midst comes psyco racist skin and it as if hes from another planet.
Badly, with a trowel and a big fist of ham.Basically I think meadows is doing a totally rose tinted spectacles job

On the longer thread as well there were people criticising Meadow's film about his personal experiences in the East Midlands for not being the same as their experience in the South East. Seems a bit of a pointless criticism to me.
The psycho skinhead was an integral part of the plot. I like the way the film changes when he turns up. I like the fact that the psycho is quite smart and manipulative as well, it would have been too easy to make him thick. It would have been a fairly uneventful film without the psycho.
We have woodys gang of touchly feely skins who talk freely about their emotions and are totally non-racist. Suddenlty into their midst comes psyco racist skin and it as if hes from another planet. There a particulalry cringeworthy bit where he shocks them when he says 'the're was this fucking ... I'm gonner say it! .. fucking paki!' . But 'paki' was an everyday word in those days - and still is in many parts of the country.
As a coming of age film it wasn't a patch on kidulthood though. Which was supringly brillient.


What struck me about that character was that I knew several blokes like that - made me shiver in recognition
LOL![]()
kidulthood was one of the biggest crocks of shit i've ever seen![]()
![]()
![]()

So we're not allowed to like Meadows on this thread?Oh yeah? Well I hate him and he sticks in my craw.
The OP defines this as a 'Meadows is crap' thread.
All you eulogisers should go elsewhere.

Yes it seems that much of the naysaying is from people who are nitpicking about its precise historical 'accuracy'. But in my view, the film was never attempting to be accurate in that way.
I didn't see this film when it was released in the cinema although i meant to catch it and was please when i saw Film 4 was showing it.
I started watching it, it seemed to be in the style of Ken Loach, a modern-day "Kes", a coming of age film, good pace, good editing touching little stories some funny bits,i thought i was going to really enjoy this film but then we have the abrupt introduction of the psycho skinhead from prison and the film suddenly becomes about him, all interesting bits and humourous bits gone, just pretty boring, the original central character pushed to the back-ground, unrealistic story-lines, just crap.
The film seeemed to be pretty inaccurate, this film was set some time after 1982 after the Falkland's War, yet i remember, 1980 as being the year of Skinhead, by post 1982 we were all into Boy George and New Romantics, not a skinhead insight, the NF completely dead, perhaps "up North" were in a fashoin time lag, or perhaps this film was just crap and inaccurate. i seriously don't know what all the fuss was about!
Another totally dull and unrealistic film from Shane Meadows. 1out of five.![]()

Er, Paddy Considine?
Dead Man's Shoes?
Why am I even bothering to reply?