User Reviews

An uncompromising film, which depicts a harsh rural environment in the north of England with an uncomfortable candour. As suggested by the title, the film conveys a constant sense of ingrained griminess along with the isolation of the environment, the constant exposure to the cycle of life and death of the protagonists and their vulnerability to the whim of nature.

For this is a world reminiscent of medieval times where superstition abounds and the viewer becomes a hostage to this.

I witnessed a number of people walk out of this film, mainly due the seemingly impenetrable society featured and I must admit to having questioned my own judgment of having gone to see it near the beginning. However after a number of events in the film the viewer acclimatises to this dirty, brutal world with its crazed inhabitants and their peculiar dialect and ways.

As a rule, the intriguing story moves at a good pace and the characters are well developed. Rebecca R Palmer shines as the lead part of Francine, a woman you feel has been born into the wrong environment. Another intriguing character is that of Jesus Christ (Peter-Hugo Daly), an alcoholic idiot savant who becomes increasingly savant as the other characters descend further into madness.

Occasional moments of Super 8 and time lapse photography lend fantastic elements to the film, but it's mainly steeped in harsh reality.

As I said, it took some getting into but for the majority of it I thoroughly enjoyed this. If you want to see a film like you've never seen before and like it to make you feel altered when you leave the cinema please go and see this. If you want to see a film about a rural idyll and don't like a film to make you feel uncomfortable then give it a wide berth, or wait until it's on TV.

This is a difficult film because it challenges our expectations about the whole point of seeing a film. This is an artistic experience which requires people to engage both their emotions and their brains. It inevitably produces a reaction, normally one of physical revulsion, but combined with a strong sense of pity for the endurance required to live the sort of life lived by the characters in the film. After a while the assault on the eyes,the use of vivid colours and images to portray a sort of ugliness, becomes watchable. Surely the story of the women and children, the portrayal of racism and the uncompromising nature of a rural culture of poverty is a challenge to our modern sensibilities. Surely it poses all sorts of questions when we contrast this with our sanitised, fetishistic relationship with designer capitalism in our everyday lives. This film is hard work and you need to be in the right frame of mind before settling down to watch. This is not quick-fix entertainment, but it is a special experience and therefore to be recommended. Several people I know preferred it on second watching.

Having read the comment of the person who had to work in post-production on this film, I extend my sympathies to you! This is a very hard film to sit through and keep an unqueasy stomach. In fact, I think I got about halfway through, having been quite patient, before deciding that whatever point the filmmakers had did not justify their approach, and I left the theatre to see another film at the festival. If I had not been at a festival, I might have hung around for the ending (at this point I must say my fest friends are continually amazed by my patience with off-putting art films!) This movie is unrelentingly focused on the gross material aspects of existence. The reality we all live in is full of death, life, pain, pus, blood, mud, bodily orifices, rain, sun, and everything else our senses are inundated with, but the presentation of it in this film feels like having your head ducked into a trough full of manure. What is most unsettling is the impression that this is exactly what the film makers were trying to do...

It wasn't until after I saw the movie on Channel 4 tonight that I found out something relatively important and that is that the source novel by Emile Zola was set in 19th century France and not sometime 20th century Yorkshire . I say 20th century Yorkshire but I am very confused as to the time period because characters wear relatively modern clothes , have electricity and have access to tractors but often cut wheat with scythes . It's as if screenwriter Andrew Kotting has adapted the 19th century novel word for word in some scenes and then forgotten this when he's written his own scenes . This leads to an anachronistic feel through out the movie and while I was watching it I was expecting there to be a shock revelation at the end where it's revealed the story is set in the 24th century and there had been an Earth shattering catastrophe a couple of centuries before . This doesn't in fact happen and I felt cheated by this . I've no idea the nationality of Kotting but I doubt if he's from the North of England since he seems to be under the impression that Yorkshire is a vast wilderness . Even if the story is supposed to be set in the 19th century I doubt if the location would be as remote has made out on screen , rural Yorkshire is not like rural France . Obviously Kottering has adapted the story badly

But it's Kottering's directing style that makes THIS FILTHY EARTH a terrible experience . Within the opening couple of minutes we're treated to scenes speeded up , jump cuts , slow motion and sequences shot on 8 mm film . I suppose the director deserves some credit from audience members like myself who have never taken hallucinogenics but have wondered what a bad acid trip feels like and watching this movie now Iknow . But is there any context for doing this ? Maybe there might have been if the wheat grain the farmers had collected had been ergotised but this type of food poisoning would have been rare in the north of England ( But not perhaps 19th century France ) whatever period it's set in so it seems it was included by the director because it seemed like a good idea . It certainly makes for a memorable movie but not in a good way . I mean if a film ( That gets its TV premier at 2.30 in the morning ) starts with a close up on a bull's erection it's usually the sign of an unwatchable art house movie . We also have to endure a close up of a human erection slipping in and out of a human front bottom later on so you have been warned

As for the rest of Kottering's hand at the helm I wonder if he's a native English speaker ? It's just that I had a serious problem wondering what the characters were saying , not so much their dialect ( Though it is difficult to understand sometimes ) but the way the actors deliver their lines , they either mumble them or they scream them out very loud and very fast . Is this a conspiracy so that people will buy the DVD and watch the movie with subtitles turned on ? I wouldn't be surprised since it's the only way that you'll be able to follow the story . Despite this he's cast well and the actors involved do their utmost best to make their characters come across as hateful inbreed idiots . However it's important an audience can relate to characters in a movie and when you've got such despicable genetic mutations as the ones seen here it's difficult to connect with the story especially if you can't understand what's being said

So I've slagged off this movie and I have every right to . I can't believe that the average rating is 6.0 , but this comes from somewhere in the region of 36 voters and the credits of THE FILTHY EARTH contain more than 36 people - I think you know what I'm implying here . Let me just repeat that this bizarre movie won't appeal to anyone outside the hardcore die-hard art house brigade . It's a memorable movie for sure but for all the wrong reasons . I repeat you have been warned

is it hell.

I worked on this film in a post production sense and I have to say that with in five minutes of it I tried to avoid seeing as much of it as possible, which unfortunatly I couldnt do. Is it necessary to juxtapose 5 year old girls with bulls bits to get some kind of impact? And if so what kind of impact are you trying to achieve? This should be locked up in the modern Tate with the rest of the rubbish thats considered art these days.

Its almost like the Texas Chainsaw Massochre vs animal farm on ketamin.