Shank

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.

If you believe the marketing that is what this is. And in a way the marketing guys got it right. This is actually what you should expect from this movie. Maybe they also should have mentioned, that it is an extended music video. Every 3 to 4 minutes there is a song coming up, sometimes played as a story evolution or as a montage piece. But you will hear quite a few music pieces before the movie is over. And if you like the music, at least you will be entertained in one category.

The question is if the director did music videos prior to this (though it seems like a given). The flashy cuts, the music, the style overall would suggest so. I wouldn't go as far as to compare it with Kidulthood. I don't think it could stand a comparison and it would be unfair to the movie. It's nothing big and has quite a few flaws and will only appeal to a certain group of people. But that doesn't mean it's completely bad. It has a few nice things going for it ... you just have to find them (and it won't be easy)

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.

With an opening sequence copied from DISTRICT 13 and an entire storyline and setting copied from KIDULTHOOD, there's nothing remotely original about SHANK. It juts and jumps all over the place, telling a storyline of revenge and brotherhood that's been done to death a zillion times already. It makes you feel like this particular genre of gritty, London-set gangster film is dead in the water, although a film came along a year later that proved there was still life in the genre yet: I'm talking about 2011's ATTACK THE BLOCK, of course.

Sadly, SHANK is nothing like ATTACK THE BLOCK. The script is dead-headed stupid, the characters clichéd and the frenzied editing actually nausea-inducing. The obnoxious leading characters are repulsive in the extreme and their quest to undertake revenge seems to go absolutely nowhere; by the time the film ends, absolutely nothing has happened to any of them. There are no character arcs whatsoever.

I don't know what's worse, actually: Paul Van Carter's wannabe-hip script or Mo Ali's drug-addled direction. Put together they provide a nauseating example of all that's wrong with British cinema when a successful film comes along and the inevitable rip-offs follow.

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