Martin Scorsese is a director who immerses his audience in the meticulous details of the criminal underworld; Quentin Tarantino takes Scorsese's conventions and infuses pop culture and a wry sense of humor. Both owe a debt to Mike Hodges, who was making crime thrillers (including the original "Get Carter") before either one of them came along. Owing more to the classic film noir style of early cinema than its contemporary imitators, "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" is well-structured, tightly paced, and genuinely enthralling with a minimal reliance on flashy visuals and booming violence. When young, charismatic drug dealer Davey Graham (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) takes his life after inexplicably being raped one night, his brother Will (Clive Owen)--a former mobster gone into voluntary exile as a woodsman--returns to avenge his death, but not without finding out why first. This forces him to reconcile with characters he's become estranged from (including former girlfriend Charlotte Rampling, who still possesses a striking luminosity after all these years), to the point where his immersion back into the bustling real world is as much a part of the plot as the revenge itself. He's a man of few words, with a vague history and an undeniable physical presence--in scenes of exposition (particularly the explicit discussions of rape), Hodges conveys Will's delicate internal outrage through a minimum of means. Perhaps the key factor to the success of "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" is its graceful unwillingness to bend to the altar of crass one-liners and loud explosions, instead opting for a maturity that goes unseen in many of today's crime thrillers.
113 Reviews
Thought provoking movie!
mariawong_9917 November 2004
I have read through about 20 of the users comments after watching this movie earlier tonight on DVD. Most viewers seem to be rather disappointed with this film mainly because they had expectations of the film based on genre, director's and actors' previous work both of which I have seen very little before. The film had my attention from the beginning till the end and I found it very thought provoking.
Will was a gangster who had turned away from crime after a break down (indication of severe depression?). Sometimes when people get overloaded with negative emotions like guilt they can turn into the total opposite of who they once were. As Will mentioned himself : grief about a wasted life. I think this indicates guilt. He coped by turning his back to the world he knew, but also the person he loved most, his brother Davey whom he therefore was not able to help move away from the crime life.Imagine his anger but also the guilt he must have experienced to find his brother raped and having taking his own life! Another wasted life! He could have done something about that but HAD NOT because he ran away from life. In the interactions with former associates and ex-girl friend Helen he established who he had become. Also showing them that they played no role in his life anymore, emotional or otherwise. For his brother who was still important to him he was not able to do anything anymore (and unable via police) except to come up for him by discovering the reason for his death and revenging it. The only way to do that was to take on his former identity again, because the new Will could not do that. Imagine the horror that his brother was hated for behaving the way he himself had before his departure. (Of course this is never a valid reason to rape someone! Rape is hideous crime!) Charming, but cocksure and arrogant!! For Davey Will had always been his role model!!! Davey never got to know the new (more real?) Will. Instead he had lived like Will basing his self-esteem on Will's former reputation as well. Fancy the pain of discovering that! By shooting Boad he kills himself; by intensifying the guilt which had taken over his life. This was exactly as Helen predicted when she said that he was not getting out of it because he wanted to die himself! Nor Clive Owen or Charlotte Rampling acted stiffly out of incompetence, but merely because it was required for their roles of people who had died emotionally a long time ago already! I have greatly enjoyed this movie. It made me think deeply about emotions, motivations an behavior. The above is my interpretation of these, (which doesn't mean I am right).
Will was a gangster who had turned away from crime after a break down (indication of severe depression?). Sometimes when people get overloaded with negative emotions like guilt they can turn into the total opposite of who they once were. As Will mentioned himself : grief about a wasted life. I think this indicates guilt. He coped by turning his back to the world he knew, but also the person he loved most, his brother Davey whom he therefore was not able to help move away from the crime life.Imagine his anger but also the guilt he must have experienced to find his brother raped and having taking his own life! Another wasted life! He could have done something about that but HAD NOT because he ran away from life. In the interactions with former associates and ex-girl friend Helen he established who he had become. Also showing them that they played no role in his life anymore, emotional or otherwise. For his brother who was still important to him he was not able to do anything anymore (and unable via police) except to come up for him by discovering the reason for his death and revenging it. The only way to do that was to take on his former identity again, because the new Will could not do that. Imagine the horror that his brother was hated for behaving the way he himself had before his departure. (Of course this is never a valid reason to rape someone! Rape is hideous crime!) Charming, but cocksure and arrogant!! For Davey Will had always been his role model!!! Davey never got to know the new (more real?) Will. Instead he had lived like Will basing his self-esteem on Will's former reputation as well. Fancy the pain of discovering that! By shooting Boad he kills himself; by intensifying the guilt which had taken over his life. This was exactly as Helen predicted when she said that he was not getting out of it because he wanted to die himself! Nor Clive Owen or Charlotte Rampling acted stiffly out of incompetence, but merely because it was required for their roles of people who had died emotionally a long time ago already! I have greatly enjoyed this movie. It made me think deeply about emotions, motivations an behavior. The above is my interpretation of these, (which doesn't mean I am right).
Back to the Past
claudio_carvalho9 October 2006
After the suicide of the small time drug dealer and thief Davey (Jonathan Rhys Meyers), his brother and former powerful gangster Will Graham (Clive Owen), who is living a peaceful recluse life trying to redeem himself from his past, returns to his homeland to investigate the motives for such desperate act. Will hires an independent autopsy and the coroner informs that Davey had been raped the night before his death. Will returns to his past life seeking for revenge.
"I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" is a deceptive thriller with an absolute absence of originality. In spite of having a great cast leaded by Clive Owen, Charlotte Rampling, Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Malcolm McDowell, and a beautiful and stylish cinematography, the screenplay is very weak and confused, with a storyline similar to many other better movies. The characters are badly developed, and who they are and their motives are disclosed in a confused way. Further, the motives of Boad for the stupidity against Davey are unbelievably ridiculous. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil):" Vingança Final" ("Final Revenge")
"I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" is a deceptive thriller with an absolute absence of originality. In spite of having a great cast leaded by Clive Owen, Charlotte Rampling, Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Malcolm McDowell, and a beautiful and stylish cinematography, the screenplay is very weak and confused, with a storyline similar to many other better movies. The characters are badly developed, and who they are and their motives are disclosed in a confused way. Further, the motives of Boad for the stupidity against Davey are unbelievably ridiculous. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil):" Vingança Final" ("Final Revenge")
Dark, moody and brillant.
David_Frames8 May 2004
Mood, texture and ambiguity in a British crime thriller? You better believe it. ISWID is no conventional revenge thriller. Mike Hodges, whose Get Carter is something of a gold standard for this kind of thing, subverts auidence expectations by producing a similar setup (a ganster related death, the vengeful brother returning to the city to find out what happened) and then proceeding to wrongfoot them by concentrating on the psychological fallout from crime rather than screen violence or genre cliches.
A moody Clive Owen plays Will Graham, a former London gangster who became so full of loathing for his life of murder and criminality that he has rejected it totally having moved away and left behind the trappings of organised crime. 3 years on he leads a reclusive, hermit like existence, surviving on odd jobs and living in the back of a van. When his younger brother Davy is raped by local hood Malcolm McDowell, he kills himself, an event that serves as the catalyst for Will's return to his former life as he attempts to find those responsible but perhaps more importantly why they did it.
This is a dark, thoughtful piece, less concerned with the usual revenge thriller trajectory than the psychological underpinnings of it's subject matter. It's unusual for this type of film to stop and reflect on events rather than just skip to the inevitable confrontation but Hodges pulls it off not least because his London backdrop is a sinister place where social and moral breakdown are continually in the background. The city has a contaminating effect from which Owen has tried to flee. Crime dehumanises everyone here, both victim and gangster. Much of the movie is about Owen's character attempting to resist a return to his former self but as he learns more about his brother's final hours the guard slips and over the course of the film he gradually transforms back to the killer he once was, culminating in a physical and material change toward the end of the film.
It's not a movie that gives you all the answers nor it does it give you everything you expect. You never find out what single event, if any, caused Owen to leave London so you're left to share in the confusion of those around him. It's also unclear what McDowell's relationship is to Rhys Meyers but this simply adds to the sense of unease. In every scene omission suggests hidden layers which force you maintain distance from the characters, making you a less emotion but more thoughtful observer. It could be anticlimatic for those expecting an orgy of bloody revenge, but Hodges would undermine the disguist registered by Owen's character for his violent past by indulging the voyeuristic demands of the audience to witness that violence. The film cuts away from it and introspectively explores its aftermath, not to mention its occasionally tragic inevitablility. Ambiguity is the watchword here because, Hodges suggests, you can't necessarily trust everything you see and hear. "Memories can deceive" Owen's voiceover tells us in the scene that bookends the film, and as everything that follows the introduction is effectively a flashback, we have to consider the possibility that certain scenes are misleading. The focus of the film intially seems to be the rape of Will's brother but this is the hook upon which Hodge's probes the lure and ultimately the consequence of crime. It won't be to everyone's taste but ISWID will have you scrutinising the detail long after you've left the cinema, something which can't be said for too many crime thillers these days.
An unsettling, thought provoking film. Recommended.
A moody Clive Owen plays Will Graham, a former London gangster who became so full of loathing for his life of murder and criminality that he has rejected it totally having moved away and left behind the trappings of organised crime. 3 years on he leads a reclusive, hermit like existence, surviving on odd jobs and living in the back of a van. When his younger brother Davy is raped by local hood Malcolm McDowell, he kills himself, an event that serves as the catalyst for Will's return to his former life as he attempts to find those responsible but perhaps more importantly why they did it.
This is a dark, thoughtful piece, less concerned with the usual revenge thriller trajectory than the psychological underpinnings of it's subject matter. It's unusual for this type of film to stop and reflect on events rather than just skip to the inevitable confrontation but Hodges pulls it off not least because his London backdrop is a sinister place where social and moral breakdown are continually in the background. The city has a contaminating effect from which Owen has tried to flee. Crime dehumanises everyone here, both victim and gangster. Much of the movie is about Owen's character attempting to resist a return to his former self but as he learns more about his brother's final hours the guard slips and over the course of the film he gradually transforms back to the killer he once was, culminating in a physical and material change toward the end of the film.
It's not a movie that gives you all the answers nor it does it give you everything you expect. You never find out what single event, if any, caused Owen to leave London so you're left to share in the confusion of those around him. It's also unclear what McDowell's relationship is to Rhys Meyers but this simply adds to the sense of unease. In every scene omission suggests hidden layers which force you maintain distance from the characters, making you a less emotion but more thoughtful observer. It could be anticlimatic for those expecting an orgy of bloody revenge, but Hodges would undermine the disguist registered by Owen's character for his violent past by indulging the voyeuristic demands of the audience to witness that violence. The film cuts away from it and introspectively explores its aftermath, not to mention its occasionally tragic inevitablility. Ambiguity is the watchword here because, Hodges suggests, you can't necessarily trust everything you see and hear. "Memories can deceive" Owen's voiceover tells us in the scene that bookends the film, and as everything that follows the introduction is effectively a flashback, we have to consider the possibility that certain scenes are misleading. The focus of the film intially seems to be the rape of Will's brother but this is the hook upon which Hodge's probes the lure and ultimately the consequence of crime. It won't be to everyone's taste but ISWID will have you scrutinising the detail long after you've left the cinema, something which can't be said for too many crime thillers these days.
An unsettling, thought provoking film. Recommended.
Odd Freudian evaluation with a little revenge mixed in.
Anonymous_Maxine27 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I found it interesting that the first review I noticed of this movie on the IMDb claimed in the subject line that "You'll sleep at this movie," because I rented it last night and watched it at my brother's house, and he was literally asleep within minutes. His lack of consciousness, however, probably can't be chalked up to the almost intolerable slowness of this movie because I don't think he made it past the opening credits. I managed to stay awake fairly well, despite the routine story presented in the film and the almost complete lack of any action. It has to be among the most drab thrillers ever made.
Clive Owen, probably now known mostly as King Arthur in the also disappointing King Arthur, plays Will, the guy who has Returned From Retirement to avenge the death of his brother, Davey, which was a suicide but which Will believes he was driven to commit. Davey is played by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (not to be confused with John Rhys-Davies) in the brief amount of screen time that he spends alive, and for most of the rest of the movie Will Takes Matters Into His Own Hands to investigate what caused his brother's suicide.
The biggest problem with the movie is not that it's anticlimactic or even that it is such an overall cliché, the problem is that Owen snoozes though the movie in a stolid, half-lidded performance, almost like he's trying to stay awake. Kind of like Sylvester Stallone in Copland. There are times when he is confronted with what must have been extremely painful possibilities about what most likely occurred in the last hours of his brother's life, and he is completely expressionless.
This is a nitpicky complaint, I guess, but it seems to me that an ex-gangster would have registered some kind of rage while learning about how his brother was driven to sit in a bathtub for 12 hours and then cut his throat. Here's an example: in one scene Will is talking to the doctor who performed the autopsy, and he is told that there is evidence that his brother was raped, as well as a disturbing possibility that he may have involuntarily ejaculated, can I say that here? Anyway, Will stares blankly at the doctor during the explanation, then when the doctor stops talking he looks at him and says, "What are you talking about?" What, was he not paying attention?
Maybe it's just bad screen writing or maybe the way the character was written just didn't flow with me, but whatever the case, the rest of the movie is a slow plod through revenge movie clichés that never even tries to do anything new. The movie goes into great detail about the possibilities of the circumstances surrounding Davey's rape and the hours that followed, but it pays more attention to the possibilities of its psychological impact on him than it does to developing any momentum or creating interesting characters. As a standard revenge film, it at least adds depth to the meaning of the rape itself, but the rest of the movie suffers because of it. It would almost make a better educational film than a thriller.
Clive Owen, probably now known mostly as King Arthur in the also disappointing King Arthur, plays Will, the guy who has Returned From Retirement to avenge the death of his brother, Davey, which was a suicide but which Will believes he was driven to commit. Davey is played by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (not to be confused with John Rhys-Davies) in the brief amount of screen time that he spends alive, and for most of the rest of the movie Will Takes Matters Into His Own Hands to investigate what caused his brother's suicide.
The biggest problem with the movie is not that it's anticlimactic or even that it is such an overall cliché, the problem is that Owen snoozes though the movie in a stolid, half-lidded performance, almost like he's trying to stay awake. Kind of like Sylvester Stallone in Copland. There are times when he is confronted with what must have been extremely painful possibilities about what most likely occurred in the last hours of his brother's life, and he is completely expressionless.
This is a nitpicky complaint, I guess, but it seems to me that an ex-gangster would have registered some kind of rage while learning about how his brother was driven to sit in a bathtub for 12 hours and then cut his throat. Here's an example: in one scene Will is talking to the doctor who performed the autopsy, and he is told that there is evidence that his brother was raped, as well as a disturbing possibility that he may have involuntarily ejaculated, can I say that here? Anyway, Will stares blankly at the doctor during the explanation, then when the doctor stops talking he looks at him and says, "What are you talking about?" What, was he not paying attention?
Maybe it's just bad screen writing or maybe the way the character was written just didn't flow with me, but whatever the case, the rest of the movie is a slow plod through revenge movie clichés that never even tries to do anything new. The movie goes into great detail about the possibilities of the circumstances surrounding Davey's rape and the hours that followed, but it pays more attention to the possibilities of its psychological impact on him than it does to developing any momentum or creating interesting characters. As a standard revenge film, it at least adds depth to the meaning of the rape itself, but the rest of the movie suffers because of it. It would almost make a better educational film than a thriller.
Repeat viewing a must for this underrated film
ekafeman10 April 2007
It's fairly easy to understand why this film gets slammed or dismissed for being somewhat difficult to get into - the truth is that this is a slow paced and reserved film. I certainly wasn't that impressed upon first viewing it.
That's the strength of this film : The ambiguity becomes quite satisfying after some decent consideration. There are numerous scenes and pieces of information revealed (or concealed) which force you to explore what may be going on story wise and ponder what the film makers are trying to convey. This film has the rare quality of getting better upon repeat viewing as opposed to the degradation of experience common with films that instantly gratify then offer nothing more.
That's the strength of this film : The ambiguity becomes quite satisfying after some decent consideration. There are numerous scenes and pieces of information revealed (or concealed) which force you to explore what may be going on story wise and ponder what the film makers are trying to convey. This film has the rare quality of getting better upon repeat viewing as opposed to the degradation of experience common with films that instantly gratify then offer nothing more.
You May Drop Off Sooner - Less Than Meets The Eye
tonstant viewer19 March 2005
This is an old master's film, in which an aged director goes back to revisit the kind of story he excelled at when young, with dubious results. A more satisfying example of this kind of nostalgia would be John Frankenheimer's "Ronin," and if you had trouble with that one, you'll hate this one.
What Mike Hodges gives us here is a great wind-up and no pitch. London at night, endless shots of almost-human cars under the street lamps, a threatening bunch of thugs who never really thump each other, it all adds up to considerably less than a whole film.
Much has been made in these reviews about the film's ambiguity. I disagree. All the characters, and I mean all, are painfully aware and articulate about their motivations. Gloomy predictions are made about inevitable conflicts that never materialize, action is either cut short or cut away from. The whole thing is like a Michael Mann thriller with all the thrills scrupulously removed. Or perhaps Hodges is trying to reclaim the genre from Guy Ritchie's jokiness.
The script for this film must really have looked threadbare on the page. The dialog is obvious and arthritic. What works is the acting, the cinematography and the director's depressed atmospherics. Clive Owen demonstrates his considerable presence in a part that is intended to be a deliberate let-down. Charlotte Rampling is fascinating as always, more so than her lines. The rest of the cast ranges from good down to OK.
But in his determination to avoid clichés, the director has also managed to avoid incident, pace and interest. So a nice wind-up, but no pitch, no runs, no hits, and some calculated, deliberate errors.
What Mike Hodges gives us here is a great wind-up and no pitch. London at night, endless shots of almost-human cars under the street lamps, a threatening bunch of thugs who never really thump each other, it all adds up to considerably less than a whole film.
Much has been made in these reviews about the film's ambiguity. I disagree. All the characters, and I mean all, are painfully aware and articulate about their motivations. Gloomy predictions are made about inevitable conflicts that never materialize, action is either cut short or cut away from. The whole thing is like a Michael Mann thriller with all the thrills scrupulously removed. Or perhaps Hodges is trying to reclaim the genre from Guy Ritchie's jokiness.
The script for this film must really have looked threadbare on the page. The dialog is obvious and arthritic. What works is the acting, the cinematography and the director's depressed atmospherics. Clive Owen demonstrates his considerable presence in a part that is intended to be a deliberate let-down. Charlotte Rampling is fascinating as always, more so than her lines. The rest of the cast ranges from good down to OK.
But in his determination to avoid clichés, the director has also managed to avoid incident, pace and interest. So a nice wind-up, but no pitch, no runs, no hits, and some calculated, deliberate errors.
What it lacks in speed and action it delivers in brooding tension
XhcnoirX1 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Clive Owen was once an enforcer for the London underground, but has since left London and is living off the grid out of his van. When he is unable to contact his little brother Jonathan Rhys Meyers for some time, he heads back to London to find him in person. He learns Rhys Meyers has committed suicide, but cannot believe it. An independent autopsy determines Rhys Meyers was raped, and Owen is determined to find out who did it and why. But his reappearance doesn't go unnoticed by his former criminal buddies nor his former boss Ken Stott.
The basic plot reminds a bit of an earlier neo-noir by director Mike Hodges, 'Get Carter', but this isn't a remake (altho I would say writer Trevor Preston was definitely inspired by it). This is also a very slow-paced movie, deliberately so... There is very little action and the few instances there are are quite brief. This movie is all about brooding tension and there's plenty of it. But action junkies will fall asleep watching this.
Hodges once again employed Clive Owen as his lead, who also starred in his last movie before this one, the excellent and a-typical neo- noir 'Croupier'. And he is great here, with his intense deadpan stare. There is a small part for the beautiful Charlotte Rampling as his former girlfriend, but her role is wasted and she doesn't seem to be too comfortable in this part, she's very static. Malcolm McDowell plays Rhys Meyers's rapist (this is not a spoiler btw) and there's some nice misdirection in regards to his activities and possible motive, also because there is also a subplot involving Owen's former boss Ken Stott who realizes why Owen is back in town.
Out of Hodges's 3 neo-noirs, this is the least of the three, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Far from it, but I can see how the movie's pace and lack of action (even in the 'climax') will turn off some people. Having said that, I really enjoyed it, and I would still recommend it. 7/10
The basic plot reminds a bit of an earlier neo-noir by director Mike Hodges, 'Get Carter', but this isn't a remake (altho I would say writer Trevor Preston was definitely inspired by it). This is also a very slow-paced movie, deliberately so... There is very little action and the few instances there are are quite brief. This movie is all about brooding tension and there's plenty of it. But action junkies will fall asleep watching this.
Hodges once again employed Clive Owen as his lead, who also starred in his last movie before this one, the excellent and a-typical neo- noir 'Croupier'. And he is great here, with his intense deadpan stare. There is a small part for the beautiful Charlotte Rampling as his former girlfriend, but her role is wasted and she doesn't seem to be too comfortable in this part, she's very static. Malcolm McDowell plays Rhys Meyers's rapist (this is not a spoiler btw) and there's some nice misdirection in regards to his activities and possible motive, also because there is also a subplot involving Owen's former boss Ken Stott who realizes why Owen is back in town.
Out of Hodges's 3 neo-noirs, this is the least of the three, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Far from it, but I can see how the movie's pace and lack of action (even in the 'climax') will turn off some people. Having said that, I really enjoyed it, and I would still recommend it. 7/10
why not have a plot
loganbell17 December 2004
After making movie magic in Croupier, Hodges and Owen thought they'd give it another try. Sadly, they fail.
The movie tries to be the usual cold and aloof Hodges who controls the screen, like his heroes control their rage and emotions. If you want to understand what it means to master the tone of a film, I rcommend seeing the original Get Carter. And with Croupier, it seemed Hodges was back and in Owens, he had found his muse.
Alas, this movie has the attitude of those earlier films. But it keeps its distance, not by elucidated characters, but by eluding plot. The first 45 minutes is all disjointed setup. When it finally does come together and the pieces of a revenge drama are put in place, there simply isn't enough story to make it work.
The movie tries to be the usual cold and aloof Hodges who controls the screen, like his heroes control their rage and emotions. If you want to understand what it means to master the tone of a film, I rcommend seeing the original Get Carter. And with Croupier, it seemed Hodges was back and in Owens, he had found his muse.
Alas, this movie has the attitude of those earlier films. But it keeps its distance, not by elucidated characters, but by eluding plot. The first 45 minutes is all disjointed setup. When it finally does come together and the pieces of a revenge drama are put in place, there simply isn't enough story to make it work.
broody Clive
SnoopyStyle3 November 2020
Davey Graham (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) sells a bit of drug at a party. He is hunted down and brutalized. He stumbles home and is found dead in his bathtub. His brother Will (Clive Owen) returns into the underworld seeking revenge.
This starts with a muddled story telling. It goes on a little too long but it does get there eventually. Some may call it a broody mood. I do like what Clive Owen is doing. At a certain point, I want him to John Wick this world. He needs to brutally murder a lot of people. It's pulling it back until the final confrontation. Malcolm McDowell helps make the ending work and in the end, the movie does work.
This starts with a muddled story telling. It goes on a little too long but it does get there eventually. Some may call it a broody mood. I do like what Clive Owen is doing. At a certain point, I want him to John Wick this world. He needs to brutally murder a lot of people. It's pulling it back until the final confrontation. Malcolm McDowell helps make the ending work and in the end, the movie does work.
Swan song for Mr Hodges
lamps11 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Whatever Mike Hodges meant this film to be is completely lost on me.
Presumably the very articulate Mr Hodges would try convince us of it's deeper meaning. A statement on the state of the nation or perhaps a journey in search of the nature personal morality, a vision into a corrupt world of lost innocence. If this is the case, then it would demonstrate an even greater similarity to Get Carter than the obvious "revenge for death of brother" storyline.
Get Carter was a masterpiece. This is not. If the film had been a sculpture it would have sat well alongside Tracey Emin's tent at the Tate Modern.
The very thin storyline is beyond credibility. The composition and dialogue is just a collection of disjointed scenes and monologues. Linking the whole thing together seems to have proven to be far too much to accomplish so we are expected to use our imaginations and accept a belief in ghosts! The action takes place in so many on site locations you begin to think that location bagging is the main priority. The use of startling loud noises to accompany virtually every scene cut begins to irritate very quickly.
We see some guy being viciously beaten and kicked half to death. It takes on the dimension of a sub plot when Will picks him up, takes him home and almost goes in for tea and crumpets. And how does this all fit in? It's just to let us know that Will is a nice guy now!
Hard man Will has turned his back on the old ways and gone native but the nasty system wants to know his National Insurance Number and he ain't got one so poor Will gets the sack. Brilliant! Thoroughly fed up he decides to catch the ferry to sail to happyland but who should he see in the ferry waiting room. His brother. But of course we all know his brothers dead but he doesn't. He's had a vision and so he goes home. This bit is a pity because had he not done so we could have all gone home (as I almost did at this point)
There is one particularly moody sequence where Will meets his old muckers, three very hard looking men. The scene is well set for some serious action and we wait for it to happen. What follows is some very tough talking. Judging by their excellent use of profanities, these really are tough men! And then it happens. Nothing.
What I like to see in even the most serious movies a little bit of humour. We are not let down in that respect. I had assumed that Helen (Charlotte Rampling) was Wills mother but nearly fell off my seat on discovering she was his girlfriend. Unkind of me perhaps but one has to question the casting here. Moody, Charlotte rampling certainly is, but a gangsters moll? I ask you.
I like to see a fast moving movie but the speed he gets another autopsy sorted out on his brother is impressive by any standards. Not only that but the incredible skill of the medical man by describing in minute detail the exact nature and manner of the assault. Not only that but the extraordinary insight provided by the psychologist. One can only be further impressed in the certain knowledge that neither had been present at the time of the rape.
One thing we can safely ascribe to Hodges is a liking for a certain style. A big handsome guy in a smart stylish suit is his thing. A bit like Jack Carter. A bit like Croupier. Well, thoroughly sick of the sight of seeing scruffy Will in his beard and lumberjack shirt, he gets an instant makeover. Will, the guy with a breakdown, gone native and turned his back on his old ways, suddenly remembers, fortuitously, that he happens to own a smart suit. Even more fortuitously the suit is in the boot of a mint condition classic Mark II Jag stashed away in a lock up with a suitcase full of dosh. Whey-hey, that was handy! Where would a Brit gangster film be without a Mark II Jag!
The camera dwells on Will, clean shaven, square jawed and chiselled features. We might suspect the image could just be to enhance Clive Owen's chances for the currently vacant James Bond role. Was this what the film was all about? Certainly not! Far too cynical a conclusion.
Malcolm McDowell is cast as Boad, the vicious "bugger" who, in his death plea, attempts to tell us what the film has been all about. No wonder Will changed his mind about not shooting him in the head. Mike Hodges should consider himself lucky at that point in the proceedings.
The only reason I went to see this film was because Mike Hodges directed it. What I saw was a film which could have have been written and directed by a second year film media student. The old guy just about managed to get away with Croupier, but not this time. If you are taking us for mugs Mr Hodges, then I suspect this is the last time.
Presumably the very articulate Mr Hodges would try convince us of it's deeper meaning. A statement on the state of the nation or perhaps a journey in search of the nature personal morality, a vision into a corrupt world of lost innocence. If this is the case, then it would demonstrate an even greater similarity to Get Carter than the obvious "revenge for death of brother" storyline.
Get Carter was a masterpiece. This is not. If the film had been a sculpture it would have sat well alongside Tracey Emin's tent at the Tate Modern.
The very thin storyline is beyond credibility. The composition and dialogue is just a collection of disjointed scenes and monologues. Linking the whole thing together seems to have proven to be far too much to accomplish so we are expected to use our imaginations and accept a belief in ghosts! The action takes place in so many on site locations you begin to think that location bagging is the main priority. The use of startling loud noises to accompany virtually every scene cut begins to irritate very quickly.
We see some guy being viciously beaten and kicked half to death. It takes on the dimension of a sub plot when Will picks him up, takes him home and almost goes in for tea and crumpets. And how does this all fit in? It's just to let us know that Will is a nice guy now!
Hard man Will has turned his back on the old ways and gone native but the nasty system wants to know his National Insurance Number and he ain't got one so poor Will gets the sack. Brilliant! Thoroughly fed up he decides to catch the ferry to sail to happyland but who should he see in the ferry waiting room. His brother. But of course we all know his brothers dead but he doesn't. He's had a vision and so he goes home. This bit is a pity because had he not done so we could have all gone home (as I almost did at this point)
There is one particularly moody sequence where Will meets his old muckers, three very hard looking men. The scene is well set for some serious action and we wait for it to happen. What follows is some very tough talking. Judging by their excellent use of profanities, these really are tough men! And then it happens. Nothing.
What I like to see in even the most serious movies a little bit of humour. We are not let down in that respect. I had assumed that Helen (Charlotte Rampling) was Wills mother but nearly fell off my seat on discovering she was his girlfriend. Unkind of me perhaps but one has to question the casting here. Moody, Charlotte rampling certainly is, but a gangsters moll? I ask you.
I like to see a fast moving movie but the speed he gets another autopsy sorted out on his brother is impressive by any standards. Not only that but the incredible skill of the medical man by describing in minute detail the exact nature and manner of the assault. Not only that but the extraordinary insight provided by the psychologist. One can only be further impressed in the certain knowledge that neither had been present at the time of the rape.
One thing we can safely ascribe to Hodges is a liking for a certain style. A big handsome guy in a smart stylish suit is his thing. A bit like Jack Carter. A bit like Croupier. Well, thoroughly sick of the sight of seeing scruffy Will in his beard and lumberjack shirt, he gets an instant makeover. Will, the guy with a breakdown, gone native and turned his back on his old ways, suddenly remembers, fortuitously, that he happens to own a smart suit. Even more fortuitously the suit is in the boot of a mint condition classic Mark II Jag stashed away in a lock up with a suitcase full of dosh. Whey-hey, that was handy! Where would a Brit gangster film be without a Mark II Jag!
The camera dwells on Will, clean shaven, square jawed and chiselled features. We might suspect the image could just be to enhance Clive Owen's chances for the currently vacant James Bond role. Was this what the film was all about? Certainly not! Far too cynical a conclusion.
Malcolm McDowell is cast as Boad, the vicious "bugger" who, in his death plea, attempts to tell us what the film has been all about. No wonder Will changed his mind about not shooting him in the head. Mike Hodges should consider himself lucky at that point in the proceedings.
The only reason I went to see this film was because Mike Hodges directed it. What I saw was a film which could have have been written and directed by a second year film media student. The old guy just about managed to get away with Croupier, but not this time. If you are taking us for mugs Mr Hodges, then I suspect this is the last time.
Character Study of criminals in intertwined stories that slowly comes together
markusws1 April 2006
This story starts with several sets of mostly low life characters in various settings and slowly shows how the characters relate. Davey(Jonathan Rhys Meyers) is the self absorbed party animal, low level drug dealer whose tragic events form the glue to tie the characters together. Will (Clive Owen) first appears as a hard working back to nature recluse, but we soon learn he is Davey's brother. We learn that this morose woodsman was some kind of crime boss. His return to deal with Davey's tragedy kicks off the pivotal events that make up the rest of the movie. What looks at first like several disjointed stories slowly starts tying together. This is not your glorified crime life like the Godfather, or the Sopranos. This story is not about action, it's about how criminals think and feel and act based on those thoughts and feelings. It is a dark world, full of bad choices and painful consequences. It is a somewhat complicated story like these kinds of things are in real life. There are old relationships: loves, friends, enemies that must be dealt with in a time when emotion is hard to control. If you want something fast, are looking for clear cut plots, and easily understood characters you will be disappointed. I personally like movies sometimes that are not afraid to break with clear cut formulas and don't feel compelled to explain everything in clear terms. I found the movie very intriguing. This is a movie about how characters, in this case, criminals, process tragic events. These dark characters living in this dark world had to deal with something that was especially dark to them. The story moves slowly because it is not about action, but the dark setting, the subtle effects on the characters as the story progresses and so on. In reality tragic events are often not clear cut, and the movie is real in its development of the story. I found myself feeling for the characters, albeit mostly sadness and a little pity with a little admiration, compassion, and understanding thrown in. If you enjoy film noir I think you might like this film.
Great film Noir
elderpterrell27 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The movie was worth watching. Good acting across the board. The plot Was excellent. The ending was different.
Clive Owens performs a metamorphosis in appearances in this movie. Clive Owens gives an outstanding performance, but is ruined by the script.
Great supporting actors.
I enjoyed the movie, but was a disappointment.
One discouraging aspect of the movie was that it painted London as a dreary crime corrupted town.
Nice display of fancy European cars.
Malcolm McDowel plays a really grimy criminal.
Clive Owens performs a metamorphosis in appearances in this movie. Clive Owens gives an outstanding performance, but is ruined by the script.
Great supporting actors.
I enjoyed the movie, but was a disappointment.
One discouraging aspect of the movie was that it painted London as a dreary crime corrupted town.
Nice display of fancy European cars.
Malcolm McDowel plays a really grimy criminal.
I wanted to like it, but couldn't.
Duellist4 July 2004
Clive Owen was great in his role, however, he was not enough to carry this painfully dull picture. What masqueraded as taut and gripping came across poorly and wound up being a very slow paced movie. There are many great movies built around conversations ("Reservoir Dogs") and the stories that the conversation revolve around; this movie has neither great conversations or a great story to build upon. None of the audience I was in even seemed to be caught up in the movie (I even heard someone snoring behind me). The scene that caught the most gasps and comments was when he uncovered his Jaguar. That should tell you something about the rest of this boring, overly talkative movie.
Too many unanswered plot questions
nhillyer7 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I was really hoping this movie would be good, but the plot left way too many unanswered questions. One gets the impression that the script was a LOT longer and tons of the movie was just trimmed away, or they ran out of money while making it. A lot of screen time is wasted on scenes which go nowhere to further the plot (brutality scene in the woods, at the rural victim's house, taxi scene, etc.) while the rather significant scenes are left undeveloped. Before one knows it, the credits are rolling, and some very big questions are raised and left unanswered, like: who the hell is McDowell's character and what makes him hate this kid so much that he wants to rape him (the rather flimsy scene describing why is hardly sufficient), what happens to the woman being held hostage (or killed?) by the thug from Belfast, what happens to Will's old gang and to Will himself in the end? I hate to say it, but this movie feels like film that either ran out of money or time or most likely both because I certainly hope the original script had a lot more content than is presented. This one for me was a rental that actually annoyed me when the credits rolled because it felt like buying a pint of beer only to have it spilled after only drinking a quarter of it.
A different kind of British gangster film
NateWatchesCoolMovies3 February 2016
If one looks at each British gangster film as a cup of tea, Mike Hodges's I'll Sleep When I'm Dead is the stale leaves left at the bottom, void of any kind of robustness. I don't mean that in a bad way, as it's a very well made film, but it's also bleak, bitter and populated by characters whose lives have derailed into ditches branching off from what their lives used to be. A shaggy, unkempt Clive Owen plays Will Graham, a former gangster who has relegated himself into obscurity, dwelling in a caravan situated in a rural forest, and peeing into milk jugs. For whatever reason, he's a ghost of his former self and would have it remain that way. Life (and the necessities of plot) has a funny way of turning plans on their head, though. Will has a brash, cocky younger brother (Jonathan Rhys Meyers), an upstart hoodlum who peddles pharmaceuticals at shitty nite clubs and fancies himself top dog. One night he's kidnapped, sodomizes (yes you read that right) and set free, after which, consumed by the trauma, he takes his own life. The perpetrator is a shady automobile tycoon named Boad (Malcolm McDowell) whose reasons for such a nasty and frankly odd act aren't revealed till the third act. Will forced out of recluse and heads to London to rendezvous with his former pal (Jamie Foreman) as well as an old acquaintance (Charlotte Rampling). Owen brings a tired, worn out presence that sometimes flares up with the violent resolve his character no doubt used to have. McDowell steals the show in a role that's really a tough one to get your head around, for both audience and actor. He's actor twisted guy who has committed a heinous act, and Malcolm is kind of a go to guy for creeps and villains. And yet.. in the blistering final confrontation, he lucidly lays down his logic with unnerving gravitas, sticking it to anyone that was expecting his performance to fall back on perverse theatrics (this ain't no clockwork orange). It's and wonderful final scene given the time to breathe and play out before the inevitable violence happens. As far as crime films go, this one trades in energy and attitude for a frayed narrative in which the lines of good and evil are slightly maimed to shed light on humans with the capacity for both in equal measures, and often all at once.
Take sleeping pills Will!
jotix10015 July 2004
The only reason for seeing this film was the allure of Mike Hodges direction. Mr. Hodges is a director that has always delivered. On those merits, alone, we went to see the film, and frankly, even if the film has it's Hodges style, it is an obscure and enigmatic look at the English underground, but a confused look, at that. The screen play by Trevor Preston doesn't make it clear either.
If Mr. Hodges was going for symbolism, he certainly got it. At the end of the movie, things are still not clarified and they remain a puzzle in our minds. One never learns, for instance, about the relationship between Will and Helen. The fact that Helen is an older woman, is in contrast with a much younger Will; it makes us wonder: was she his mother, or was she his lover, or none of the above? (Of course, we realized it was the second choice!)
The reason for Will going away, also, is never fully understood. We assume he was a wanted man, but whatever made him go is never found out. In fact, the character of Boad, at the beginning of the film in the famous rape scene, is gratuitously presented. What was the reason for the buggery? It is highly unlikely that such thing would happen in real life in that circle, even a sick one, where Boad inhabits. Maybe it could be interpreted as the way the country was buggered by higher forces into going to a no-win conflict?
Clive Owens' Will is hard to get to like. He is a man on a mission, once he knows the fate his brother Davey suffered, but before that, his 'good guy' front doesn't make much sense, for a hard core criminal. Charlotte Rampling's Helen doesn't fare much better. She's only in a couple of scenes; it's clear she and Will are through and it's a cop out at the end that she could even contemplate going away with him, at all!
Malcom McDowell has only a few scenes. His confrontation at the end with Will doesn't add drama to the story. We know that he has to die, but Will hesitates in doing so, until he thinks otherwise. Jonathan Rhys Meyers' Davey is only seen at the beginning of the film. We don't care for him from the start. There's a couple of scenes with Sylvia Syms, who is not seen much in films these days.
With all that in mind, I still will go to see another Mike Hodges film, even a flawed Mike Hodges one, because this man has a vision. He has a panache for presenting his stories, we might like them a great deal, or not as much, but Mr. Hodges will never bore the viewer.
For a very balanced account of the film, there's an excellent comment by "lambs" among the viewers that have sent opinions in this forum. Read it!
If Mr. Hodges was going for symbolism, he certainly got it. At the end of the movie, things are still not clarified and they remain a puzzle in our minds. One never learns, for instance, about the relationship between Will and Helen. The fact that Helen is an older woman, is in contrast with a much younger Will; it makes us wonder: was she his mother, or was she his lover, or none of the above? (Of course, we realized it was the second choice!)
The reason for Will going away, also, is never fully understood. We assume he was a wanted man, but whatever made him go is never found out. In fact, the character of Boad, at the beginning of the film in the famous rape scene, is gratuitously presented. What was the reason for the buggery? It is highly unlikely that such thing would happen in real life in that circle, even a sick one, where Boad inhabits. Maybe it could be interpreted as the way the country was buggered by higher forces into going to a no-win conflict?
Clive Owens' Will is hard to get to like. He is a man on a mission, once he knows the fate his brother Davey suffered, but before that, his 'good guy' front doesn't make much sense, for a hard core criminal. Charlotte Rampling's Helen doesn't fare much better. She's only in a couple of scenes; it's clear she and Will are through and it's a cop out at the end that she could even contemplate going away with him, at all!
Malcom McDowell has only a few scenes. His confrontation at the end with Will doesn't add drama to the story. We know that he has to die, but Will hesitates in doing so, until he thinks otherwise. Jonathan Rhys Meyers' Davey is only seen at the beginning of the film. We don't care for him from the start. There's a couple of scenes with Sylvia Syms, who is not seen much in films these days.
With all that in mind, I still will go to see another Mike Hodges film, even a flawed Mike Hodges one, because this man has a vision. He has a panache for presenting his stories, we might like them a great deal, or not as much, but Mr. Hodges will never bore the viewer.
For a very balanced account of the film, there's an excellent comment by "lambs" among the viewers that have sent opinions in this forum. Read it!
Oh Dear
pjrs41 May 2004
Mike Hodges new film boasts an excellent cast. Unfortunately the actors, like the whole film, look better in theory than in practice. To say that this film doesn't deliver would be kind. In fact, it rarely threatens to even engage the viewer. The dialogue is perfunctory and poorly delivered, characters seem to pop into the movie in order to develop the background to the leads, and then disappear after one, disappointing line. The character development is clumsy at best, for example in the scene where we find out that Will is a merciful man, because he has helped someone who has been beaten up for no discernible reason. Hodges has tried to make another Get Carter, and failed in every regard. If you want revenge, watch Kill Bill 2 again.
Get Graham
tomsview11 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
When I realised that this was a remake of Mike Hodges own "Get Carter", I couldn't help making comparisons. "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" is surprisingly slower but drugs and male rape raise the nastiness ante, despite the fact that "Get Carter" was one of most violent films of the 1970's.
A problem in making a crime drama these days is the sheer amount of competition from brilliant, movie length crime series and one-off dramas on television – British ones such as "Lewis", "Wallander", "DCI Banks" and "Vera", and "Jesse Stone" from the US. Interesting plots, characters with depth, and great locations, they have set the bar high.
A precursor to them all was "Get Carter". Although Michael Caine's Jack Carter was definitely on the other side of the law, the film featured real locations and characters whose faces revealed their backgrounds before a word was spoken. Although well made, "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead"comes too late to add much to the genre.
In "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead", Clive Owen's Will Graham returns from a long absence to visit his brother, Davey. He discovers that Davey committed suicide after being brutally sodomised by a sadistic gangster. Will, a former criminal hardman, has been working as a logger in the country. He lives in his van and has no wish to return to his former life of crime. However, he seeks revenge for his brother and causes a disturbance amongst his former criminal associates.
Both films have a strong sense of journey. In "Get Carter" Jack Carter travels from London to Newcastle on the train and then drives through narrow, grim looking streets to attend his brother's funeral. Will Graham travels to London in his van through forests, tunnels and nighttime streets. Both Carter and Graham are violent men, but in Will Graham's case, this is established more by reputation; he only kills one person in "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead", while Jack Carter's body count in "Get Carter" is significantly higher.
A big difference between the two films is the underlying humour Michael Caine brought to his role. In a scene at a racetrack, Jack Carter intimidates an old adversary, Eric Paice, played by Ian Hendry. "Still got your sense of humour", Eric sarcastically observes. Carter replies straight-faced, "Yes, I have always retained that Eric". It's an observation that Eric makes twice; the last time is just before Carter clubs him to death. There are no exchanges like that in "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead", Clive Owen is far more serious; his Will Graham is more introspective than Jack Carter, and he doesn't do humour, black or otherwise.
Charlotte Rampling plays an old flame of Will's. Even in her late 50's she still brings her enigmatic quality to the film – she never has to do much to make an impression.
Both films end on an ambiguous note although "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" takes ambiguity to a new level. While "Get Carter" ends along the lines of live by the sword, die by the sword, "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" leaves us completely up in the air. It's a far less satisfying ending, annoying really, because after a slow start the movie does gets you in – a resolution would have been nice.
A problem in making a crime drama these days is the sheer amount of competition from brilliant, movie length crime series and one-off dramas on television – British ones such as "Lewis", "Wallander", "DCI Banks" and "Vera", and "Jesse Stone" from the US. Interesting plots, characters with depth, and great locations, they have set the bar high.
A precursor to them all was "Get Carter". Although Michael Caine's Jack Carter was definitely on the other side of the law, the film featured real locations and characters whose faces revealed their backgrounds before a word was spoken. Although well made, "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead"comes too late to add much to the genre.
In "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead", Clive Owen's Will Graham returns from a long absence to visit his brother, Davey. He discovers that Davey committed suicide after being brutally sodomised by a sadistic gangster. Will, a former criminal hardman, has been working as a logger in the country. He lives in his van and has no wish to return to his former life of crime. However, he seeks revenge for his brother and causes a disturbance amongst his former criminal associates.
Both films have a strong sense of journey. In "Get Carter" Jack Carter travels from London to Newcastle on the train and then drives through narrow, grim looking streets to attend his brother's funeral. Will Graham travels to London in his van through forests, tunnels and nighttime streets. Both Carter and Graham are violent men, but in Will Graham's case, this is established more by reputation; he only kills one person in "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead", while Jack Carter's body count in "Get Carter" is significantly higher.
A big difference between the two films is the underlying humour Michael Caine brought to his role. In a scene at a racetrack, Jack Carter intimidates an old adversary, Eric Paice, played by Ian Hendry. "Still got your sense of humour", Eric sarcastically observes. Carter replies straight-faced, "Yes, I have always retained that Eric". It's an observation that Eric makes twice; the last time is just before Carter clubs him to death. There are no exchanges like that in "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead", Clive Owen is far more serious; his Will Graham is more introspective than Jack Carter, and he doesn't do humour, black or otherwise.
Charlotte Rampling plays an old flame of Will's. Even in her late 50's she still brings her enigmatic quality to the film – she never has to do much to make an impression.
Both films end on an ambiguous note although "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" takes ambiguity to a new level. While "Get Carter" ends along the lines of live by the sword, die by the sword, "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" leaves us completely up in the air. It's a far less satisfying ending, annoying really, because after a slow start the movie does gets you in – a resolution would have been nice.
Just a really bad movie
okieindian11 June 2005
The plot was shallow at best, the dialog weak and "unconnected", the scenes too drawn out and no-one ever explains why the bad guy wanted to teach his victim a lesson. In other words, why would some power hungry powerful dude want to teach some petty player a lesson?? Why did the main character leave town in the first place?? Why was the power still on in the closed club after 3 years?? How did the car start after being hidden for three years?? What exactly was the purpose of dressing the bodyguard in bra/panties and putting him in a body bag??..the list goes on and on.. It was so boringly jumbled that I watched the entire movie (quite a bit of fast forward)to find out if things were tied together at the end.. They were not. If video rental outlets had a money back guarantee, this one should qualify for a double refund.
Get Carter by way of Melville, though ultimately not much more than about loss
Quinoa198416 May 2008
I'll Sleep When I'm Dead - the title alone averted my eyes in drama section at the video store. It sounds like some obscure late 40s noir out of Fox's back catalog, and with an intense-but-calm look from Clive Owen on the front cover giving it the air of what appears pure homage. As it stands, the film is a revenge-genre picture, but it lacks any of the action of what might be its obvious ancestor, Get Carter, also about a gangster who comes back to town to see after the death of his brother and exact payback on those responsible. In fact, the violence is kept to such a minimum it might disappoint those looking for a nifty sleeper of Owen kicking 'arse' and taking names in a small English underworld.
As it stands it's definitely the opposite of something like the recent Shoot em' up: here Owen is brooding, shaggy with a beard and long coat (the slang used is a "piker" or something like that), who finds out his brother David (Jonathan Rhys Myers) has committed suicide in a bathtub of water. What happened? Signs lead eventually the notorious killer- out of town now for over three years living in a van and working as a lumberjack- to some wealthy bloke (Malcolm McDowell, who is in his own right is as intense-looking-without-doing-much as Owen) who raped David. As this tale of vengeance unfolds, there's some of the old 'trainspotters' about who want Owen back in their gang like old times, others who want him to bury his brother and get out, and some old friends who may or may not help (i.e. Charlotte Rampling).
A lot of this leads to expected terrain, but within these folds of this neo-noir are some interesting allusions to the kind of style of film-making, or at least performance, that one saw in Jean-Pierre Melville's French thrillers. The vibe is more existential, of 'how can this happen, I will do this, I will stew about, etc', which done right can be some of the most compelling cinema imaginable in the right mood and setting. Hodge hasn't crafted any grand work, but there's some more than meets the eye within the limitations of the plot and characters. What it ends up amounting to, through the subtle sensibilities of the material and the nature of grief, is something a little more substantial than the average genre piece, and not just because of the lack of usual violence. Also, as mentioned, Owen has that quality that's similar to Sin City- you know more is going on under the surface, and at first it seems like a 'blank' performance but a more grounded, haunted possibility rests in his eyes and mannerisms.
As it stands it's definitely the opposite of something like the recent Shoot em' up: here Owen is brooding, shaggy with a beard and long coat (the slang used is a "piker" or something like that), who finds out his brother David (Jonathan Rhys Myers) has committed suicide in a bathtub of water. What happened? Signs lead eventually the notorious killer- out of town now for over three years living in a van and working as a lumberjack- to some wealthy bloke (Malcolm McDowell, who is in his own right is as intense-looking-without-doing-much as Owen) who raped David. As this tale of vengeance unfolds, there's some of the old 'trainspotters' about who want Owen back in their gang like old times, others who want him to bury his brother and get out, and some old friends who may or may not help (i.e. Charlotte Rampling).
A lot of this leads to expected terrain, but within these folds of this neo-noir are some interesting allusions to the kind of style of film-making, or at least performance, that one saw in Jean-Pierre Melville's French thrillers. The vibe is more existential, of 'how can this happen, I will do this, I will stew about, etc', which done right can be some of the most compelling cinema imaginable in the right mood and setting. Hodge hasn't crafted any grand work, but there's some more than meets the eye within the limitations of the plot and characters. What it ends up amounting to, through the subtle sensibilities of the material and the nature of grief, is something a little more substantial than the average genre piece, and not just because of the lack of usual violence. Also, as mentioned, Owen has that quality that's similar to Sin City- you know more is going on under the surface, and at first it seems like a 'blank' performance but a more grounded, haunted possibility rests in his eyes and mannerisms.
A really dull old fashioned film....
nerkin_uk-115 August 2005
Watched this last night and was surprised how awful it was. This is the kind of film that shows why the UK film industry is in such decline. The BBC and Film Council seemed to have paid for this. Did anyone read the script?? on the specials of the DVD the screenwriter says its been in his desk for years....it shows!!! Did he write it in the 6o's/70's while being a hack on the Sweeney etc....
The quality of the whole thing looks like really bad, old TV. The camerwork and art direction is awful. it all looks so old and dull. Good actors are wasted by poor direction and terrible lines....
When there is so little money about why is it spent on this rubbish??
The DVD is covered with glowing reviews...don't believe them...unless you want to watch a rather dull thriller.....if this was made in the early 70's then maybe it would be OK...but the director keeps banging on about his excellent film 'Get Carter', this ain't get Carter.
Hes had an interesting career the director.....not one good film since Get Carter...not one! and i include Croupier...which was average.
The quality of the whole thing looks like really bad, old TV. The camerwork and art direction is awful. it all looks so old and dull. Good actors are wasted by poor direction and terrible lines....
When there is so little money about why is it spent on this rubbish??
The DVD is covered with glowing reviews...don't believe them...unless you want to watch a rather dull thriller.....if this was made in the early 70's then maybe it would be OK...but the director keeps banging on about his excellent film 'Get Carter', this ain't get Carter.
Hes had an interesting career the director.....not one good film since Get Carter...not one! and i include Croupier...which was average.
good movie
myrasloan2 June 2005
Not predictable like most revenge dramas. Nice to see Clive Owen's character actually in love with someone his own age. Interesting music, if a little distracting. Very dark. Not a family flick. Not a date flick. Well written. Great acting by most characters. It was too short. It was a big build up to a very short denouement, but I guess that suits the tone and the theme of the film. Not sure why people gave this such low marks. I guess they were expecting Lock stock or snatch seeing as its kind of in the British gangster genre. If you go in expecting that, then you will be disappointed. What was great about this movie was that we slowly got to know the characters without much of significance being said about them outright. It was slow in creating a mood without ever being boring.
Ambiguous revenge drama? I guess so.
dave-sturm1 May 2010
Huge talent on display here. Trenchant dialogue. Nicely filmed. A little slowly paced, but the story unfolds nicely. Peek inside the British dark side? For sure.
So what's wrong with this excellently acted British revenge drama? It arrives at an ambiguous ending. On some level, that is interesting. But only if we understand who is doing what at the end. We do not know.
Am I an idiot, or is it important what the identity is of the man driving golf balls on the beach? Ambiguity is the hardest thing non-art-movie audiences have with art movies. Twisted they can take. Irony they can take. Bitter they can take. Political they can take. But unclear outcomes are, and remain, the one issue that audiences, including dumbass Americans like me, have trouble with. What just happened?
Nice seeing Charlotte Rampling. Still sexy after all these years.
So what's wrong with this excellently acted British revenge drama? It arrives at an ambiguous ending. On some level, that is interesting. But only if we understand who is doing what at the end. We do not know.
Am I an idiot, or is it important what the identity is of the man driving golf balls on the beach? Ambiguity is the hardest thing non-art-movie audiences have with art movies. Twisted they can take. Irony they can take. Bitter they can take. Political they can take. But unclear outcomes are, and remain, the one issue that audiences, including dumbass Americans like me, have trouble with. What just happened?
Nice seeing Charlotte Rampling. Still sexy after all these years.
A Bugger's Life
Dave Wilson2 December 2004
Jaw-droppingly bad stuff. Anal rape has some sort of fascination for the maker of this movie, and the dwelling upon it in scene after scene doesn't come off so much as a meditation on brutality so much as a display of prurient fascination and revulsion for "anal penetration".
The director seems to have thought that a little low-rent atmosphere would compensate for inadequate characterization, mediocre acting, and a climax that has the emotional impact of a hiccup.
Normally, I'd forget I'd even rented such a thing, but putting this down at least keeps me from thinking I hallucinated such an oddly awful hour and a half.
The director seems to have thought that a little low-rent atmosphere would compensate for inadequate characterization, mediocre acting, and a climax that has the emotional impact of a hiccup.
Normally, I'd forget I'd even rented such a thing, but putting this down at least keeps me from thinking I hallucinated such an oddly awful hour and a half.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
