Urchin

With his debut, Dickinson wants us to finally see society's invisible man. It's not pretty. The even more uncomfortable truth that perhaps not everybody can be saved? That some people can't be helped?! Insane takeaways from a drama piece about a startling social issue, but you can't say it's not blisteringly real. At every point in Urchin, someone is offering a genuine lifeline. There are so many chances for redemption in this film. Kind characters try to tell him this, the SOUNDTRACK tells him this. This judgment isn't what I go to movies for, nor is it where my values lie...but it's one hell of a honest, brutal character piece. Whatever salvation is being offered in this movie, it's clearly not enough. He could've kept his job if he hadn't walked away from an employer who clearly has his back. His foster parents are described as lovely people without elaboration. His momentary love interest tries to tell him that there's more to life than money. You dismiss it at first as well, she presents as a stereotype. But she's right in that his rot isn't exclusive to his class. He would be this person no matter what hand life dealt him. He's a person with his own agency like any other. And though the ending might be truly too cruel for me in the point I think it's making? This film has more respect for the unhoused than it seems. No stereotype here. Just someone diving into said stereotype without reflection or regret. It won't infantilise disaffected people. They're still adults who deserve chances. If they don't value those chances, things get painful. Painful movie. Dark movie. More unique movies please, Mr Dickinson.

This is going to sound weird but I felt their was a slight disconnect between the homelessness I see on the streets of London and the homelessness presented in the film. Mike's clothes were pretty clean and he was pretty lean and in good shape which did not seem realistic. It was as though the filmmakers have never actually seen a rough, dirty homeless human before.

This to me overviews my general feeling, a slight disconnect between the issue of homelessness, and the polished, filmic metaphorical elements which distract us somewhat from the horrors of this daily existence. Was it needed to have these metaphorical tangents, why not simply portray homelessness for what it is, viscerally horrifiying, without the fluff.

The film on many levels was good though, it was at times subtle and you did empathise with the cyclical nature of addiction. It just felt as though if you are going to do a film on homelessness, get visceral. I felt at a distance, as though I was watching a film about the subject, not in the subject.

Urchin, which appears to be the directorial debut of Harris Dickinson, is an independent drama that delivers a surprisingly grounded and touching story despite its low-budget presentation. The film follows Mike, a young man struggling with drug addiction and homelessness, as he navigates the harsh realities of life on the streets. While the premise may sound familiar, Dickinson handles the narrative with sensitivity, presenting Mike's struggles without resorting to over-the-top dramatization or sensationalism. Instead, the story focuses on the character's internal journey and the people he encounters along the way, keeping viewers engaged and invested throughout.

One of the strongest aspects of Urchin is its realism. The film portrays homelessness and addiction in a way that feels authentic, capturing the day-to-day challenges, dangers, and emotional weight without turning the story into a bleak spectacle. Mike's experiences are raw and human, from his moments of despair to the small victories that keep him going. This makes the film emotionally resonant and allows the audience to empathize deeply with his struggles. The cinematography and direction support this intimacy, often staying close to the character to ensure viewers feel his isolation and vulnerability.

The performances are equally noteworthy. The actor portraying Mike delivers a nuanced and committed performance, making the character's journey believable and heartfelt. Harris Dickinson also appears in a cameo, which adds a subtle layer of personal involvement to the project. The supporting cast provides solid contributions, though the film remains centered on Mike's story, which is wise given the narrative's focus on character study rather than plot-driven action.

It's important to note that the film contains significant nudity, particularly of the main character, which may catch some viewers off guard. Scenes depicting nudity, including brief masturbation, are presented in a matter-of-fact and artistic manner rather than for shock value. This choice may feel unusual for a mainstream audience, but it aligns with the film's commitment to realism, portraying Mike's vulnerability and humanity in an unfiltered way.

The pacing of Urchin is deliberate, allowing moments to breathe and giving the audience time to understand the depth of the protagonist's situation. While this approach can feel slow at times, it is a purposeful choice that emphasizes reflection over sensationalism. The narrative gradually builds toward moments of hope and connection, keeping viewers invested in Mike's journey without relying on typical dramatic shortcuts.

Overall, Urchin is a compelling, low-budget independent drama that excels in character work and realism. Harris Dickinson's direction shows promise, effectively capturing the struggles of homelessness and addiction while maintaining a humanistic lens. Despite its slow pacing and explicit content, the film is watchable, engaging, and emotionally resonant. It is a solid debut that demonstrates Dickinson's potential as both a director and storyteller, providing a raw and intimate look into a life that is rarely portrayed on screen with such honesty.

Frank Dillane's raw performance gives this film a punch of realness, as if you're truly watching someone's life unfold before you. Mike's reactions towards his own ups and downs make you simultaneously sympathetic and frustrated towards him.

On that note, the same thing can be said for Harris Dickinson's direction. Perhaps this being his debut film as a director, he was overjoyed to incorporate a lot of elements into this; yet personally, when the ending credits rolled, I didn't feel the coherence as there's always some kind of duality in the presentation of this film. Is this a surrealist or a slice-of-life? Did Dickinson want his film to be a social commentary on how the government fails society, particularly the vulnerable group, by not giving them the full protection and support system that is essential to the rehabilitation process, or did he want to say that a piece of trash will always be a piece of trash?

The overall tone is just uneven for me. Nevertheless, I'll surely tune in to whatever Harris Dickinson cooks in the future.

5 mins in I felt this would be right up my street. Let's be straight, this isn't an easy watch, or much of a laugh. What it is, is beautifully shot, brilliantly acted, and a visceral journey through addiction / alcoholism.

It's artistic, thought provoking and sad. Saying I enjoyed it, would seem empty, and untrue. But it was worthy and deep. An intellectual, sometimes painful journey of an alcoholic lost and struggling to cope with life, like many with experience of addiction would recognise. Like a child trying to live as an adult in a grown up world.

I would definitely recommend this to those looking for "more" in their films. Who want and enjoy artistic, well acted, gritty and thought provoking content. If this isn't you, it will be a tough watch.