Shank

I really really try to view a movie on it's merits and go into seeing one with an open mind and watch it to the end. With this i couldn't, what can i say, it's a dog, simple as that, a dog with 4 broken legs would be more apt.

Combine a poor plot, poor acting, great British stereotypes and you have Shank. The director must have been asleep and the editor obviously only did this project for the money, don't ask what the actors did. This would border on some of the worst, if not very worst piece of British cinema i have ever had the misfortune to see. I felt like i was parted from my money under false pretenses.

It's not possible to rate this a 0 but i will anyway. Save your money and rent something else

Walking out of a film half an hour before the end is a gesture I used to abhor. No matter how rancid a film appears to be, you should always see it through once you've started. Otherwise you're not quite in a position to properly criticise it.

I've changed my mind innit. Shank was profoundly unwatchable. I saw it in a theatre with maybe another 50 people; I could hear sighs and groans coming from all directions throughout the picture. Every macho posture, every tedious shouting match, every useless camera jerk, every inept stylistic manoeuvre seemed to audibly destroy a part of someone in there. Myself included, which is why I got the hell outta there.

I haven't seen Bullet Boy or Kidulthood, two other London-set youth violence epics which apparently bear a resemblance to this dirge, so I cannot compare them. I can only say that Shank is a stain on the good name of film. It consists of scene after scene of fantastically unappealing teen anti-heroes yelling at each other in grimy surroundings, punctuated by the occasional flashy chase scene or, in one instance, a dogfight captured in outdated computer graphics. Despite the digitally-enhanced nature of this scene, we don't actually see the dogs fighting, just about 5 minutes of close-ups of the deliriously screaming spectators - the film actually goes out of its way to be boring and repetitive; I simply cannot believe that this was an accident or oversight.

I kinda have a thing for Kaya Scodelario, and the promise of her presence may have been the deciding factor in making me go to see this mush. But she couldn't save it for me; she didn't even show up until the film had battered me senseless for over an hour, and by then I had already accepted that the useless script wasn't gonna give her a chance to display the spunk and sex appeal she delivered in Skins. This useless film wouldn't even let Kaya be spunky and sexy! I walked out shortly after she showed up, when it became clear she was there only for the lead actors to harass her a little bit.

I'm pretty much finished now. Thank you for reading. And please don't give the makers of Shank any of your hard-earned, or even hard-benefited cash. They must learn to try harder.

London 2015. Society has split in two leaving the economy and most basic services in the hands of private corporations. The city itself has been split between the well-off and the rest. Within the cut-off squalors of the capital's streets gangs of hoodlums divide and rule the limited wealth. Food has become the most important commodity: munchies are worth life and death. The Paper Runners, led by Rager (Ashley Bashy Thomas), is a small gang of misfits with a knack for getting stuff without bloodshed (don't cause any harm and no harm can come to you). Rager is a role model for his little brother, Junior (Kedar Williams-Stirling), a get-away specialist, as well as the remainder of the crew: Kickz (Adam Deacon), Craze (Michael Socha) and Sweet Boy (Jan Uddin). However in this dog-eat-dog world not everyone has such scruples and youngling Tugz (Jerome Holder) is the worst of the lot...

"Shank" is an explicit orgy of sound and images pasted together with an initial headache reaction. After the initial onslaught the fast editing and video-clip montage on acid does recede a couple of notches, so the story can be fleshed out. But even than we are input sequence after sequence of rapturous music and occasional computer-inspired scenes drowning out the plot and most of the character development. At times the movie actually feels more like a filmed video game (or more like a singular mission/level of it), where occasional power bars and animations fit effortlessly as part of the experience. This all-action approach did however cause many key moments of the movies to lack enough contemplation - Mo Ali was unable to take a breath and let the moment sink emotionally into the viewers. The occasionally uninspiring derivative plotting and/or dialogue don't help to overcome this obstacles either...

Nonetheless this unrelenting storytelling isn't all amiss, as in between this overzealous approach to innovative methods of telling a film story, you find a decent amount of subtexts and brilliant ideas. Unfortunately for Mo Ali his incapability to show restraint (and unwillingness to use some more classical artistic tools) hindered the intriguing concept of a boy being unable to properly identify feelings of emptiness and anguish, instead channelling them into revenge and anger. Also several scenes were extremely inspiring in their capability of mixing emotions or simple storytelling with a modern cutting edge freshness to them. Despite being uneven and at times lazy it does however warrant a look, as there are several gems hidden inside its chaotic shell.

Despite everything said the movie is at least a brilliant score to the movie, which shows that England remains the epicentre of adventurous music.

OK, this will be a very short review.

Only watch this movie if you are really, really into gang-type movies and just have to watch them all.

And then do so with full knowledge that this might just be the worst you ever saw.

Otherwise, save yourself the waste of time, I wished I had.

And yes, the basic idea of a city like London being extremely divided in a poor and a rich segment is not that bad. But they could have made a way better movie about that if you ask me.

Nothing good then? Well, the camera-work is not too bad, and use of colour is reasonable. But that really is it, in my humble opinion.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "All the gear, no idea"? This film is the definition of what it means. The idea of Shank is a great one and it could have been a brilliant gritty movie but it's executed very poorly. While the movie questions you to ask yourself "what if this decision was made and this happened" and tries to send strong messages about anti-violence and such, it fails to do so and succeeds in doing the opposite, just like 1 Day. So the movie is set in 2015 and the gangs have taken over, the story revolves around Junior who witnesses his brother Rager being murdered by Tugz and so he goes out on a vengeance mission to find Tugz and kill him. Shank had a brilliant idea and it was interesting that it was a British gang culture movie set in the near future but everything about it was just terrible, from the acting to the directing. Let's start with the plot, it's very thin and has been done loads of times before and done much better, you only have to watch Kidulthood or Adulthood as evidence to this. Shank starts off okay with Junior narrating about how tough life is on the streets of 2015 and how he's part of a non-violent gang known as The Paper Chaserz and how his brother, Rager, and his other 'brothers' don't condone the 'postcode war'. That is until Tugz, the leader of a rival gang, stabs Rager, the leader of The Paper Chaserz, and Junior wants to kill Tugz. That was when the movie started to go downhill. It just felt like an excuse to make a movie involving teen gang violence, stealing, drugs and sex. This movie is basically the Daily Mail reader's worst nightmare.

The characters in Shank were just uninteresting, everything about them was unlikeable. Yes they may have did one or two things that the characters did that made you laugh a little but other than that, you weren't bothered about any of them and they remain unlikeable throughout the movie. Also, it seems that they can't make up their minds whether they want to be violent or not. One minute they're saying they don't want to stand and fight and the next, they're threatening other gangs and dog fighting. While we're on the subject about the characters in this movie, the names given to them are terrible and sound a lot like nicknames a ten-year-old would give to look tough. Junior is alright but Rager? Kickz? Tugz? Craze? Whisper? They sound a little bit childish. Also, the gangs were named a bit ridiculous as well: Slaughter Gurlz, Paper Chaserz…what's wrong with the letter S? Is it against the law to use S on the end of names? Personally, changing Kickz to Kicks looks better to me. Another thing that annoyed me about Shank was when Junior introduces characters, he'd always say they're tough, mean or psychopaths. This is supposed to be Broken Britain when gangs are extremely violent and killing people, you'd think you get the picture without him telling us they're mean.

The cast of Shank aren't the best actors in the world and they don't do the best job with their characters. Adam Deacon and Michael Socha do a couple of entertaining scenes as their characters Kickz and Craze but other than that, the rest of the cast doesn't bring much to the screens. The acting isn't terrible but it is quite bad, especially Kaya Scodelario which came as a surprise considering she's a good actress in Skins. The direction wasn't really great either, the whole movie just felt like a feature-length music video (well, it is directed by music video director Mo Ali, what do you expect?). Shank should have been serious, what with the story and the messages but there were a few things in the movie that took the seriousness away. This is because there were some scenes including a dog fight with computer-game beat-em-up energy bars (you don't see the dogs fight, just spectators screaming at the camera) and a confusing Grand Theft Auto-like scene when Junior steals a BMX. Another thing Shank didn't have was a decent script, the lines were very lazy and didn't aspire or mean anything bar a couple of scenes. Shank is a good idea and, in the hands of somebody like Noel Clarke who had written Kidulthood and Adulthood, could have been a great movie but in the end, it was dull, boring in most parts and offers nothing new. I really wanted to like this movie because I thought the idea was brilliant but unfortunately, I was very disappointed with this monstrous mess. Teenagers will probably love this movie but I doubt adults will like it. If you want to watch a better movie than this, watch Crank, The Warriors and Adulthood since it's those movies combined together. I pray British movies do better than this attempt from now on! Read more reviews at: www.dudedazzmoviereviews.wordpress.com