User reviews

The cover of this DVD does not really provide an accurate description of the movie. Goodness knows how anyone could review anything based on a cover! I have watched this film and whilst it appears to be a tough youth prison story like 'Scum' and 'Dog Pound' it is far from that. First thing anyone interested has to get to grips with is just how low budget this is. The scenes are sparsely furnished and you often get shots of the outside of dull buildings before the interior is shown. The telephones on desks are from the 50's and not typical of the ones that the GPO provided in the late 60's and early 70's when this was supposed to be set. It is noticeable just how few extras there are in the movie and how few actors there are. The story is fairly average with a few minor moments of violence which were not very convincing. I noticed that the film was overexposed in some parts and that also made the cost factor apparent. Some of the acting was relatively decent and the plot far from full of hostility and violence is quite warm. I doubt if this would be good enough to get a showing on UK Terrestrial TV channels and looks set to be a DVD only release. All things considered the movie is a huge let down if the DVD cover and notes have been the primary buying decision.

Set in 1971 this relates the story of Kris Gray who was sent to Borstal for drugs offences. This is based on the book by Gray and he also wrote the screen play. Then once he gets there he is treated badly by the nasty screws and some of the staff are forward thinking and nice.

He also has his co detainees who are again either nice to him or horrid. He though is an aspiring musician and so his 'rock star' status gains him equal numbers of admirers or haters and one of these becomes a sort of love interest.

Now the first thing that happens in this film is the 'fourth wall' is broken when Gray speaks to the camera stating that he is 'off to borstal' – like we had not worked that one out. This is done numerous times thereafter and is a case of personal preference as to whether this adds or subtracts from an artistic piece. There is also no shower scene – I mean it's the law isn't it?

The other thing is after his groundbreaking announcement we have a montage of what is going to happen to him – this is all the violent bits – and then back to mundanity. Now some of the acting is really good and some is rather poor. The sound does vary a bit but it is not disastrous. We also have a bit of wobbly cam action – and we all know this is done to try to make out the on screen action is actually better than it really is. So for me this left me non plussed – and the sound track leaves a lot to be desired too – so only go for this if you like all indie Brit films or you were in it – this is not even in the foothills of 'Scum'.

If this was a piss take, it would be mildly amusing. But it's not, so it isn't. What is the purpose of this film? Incredible that someone would fund this thing. I think Grange Hill was better!!!

This misses the mark on so many levels... What is it trying to be? This question is core to the films long string of misses...

As has been stated elsewhere, the actors are good, their track records on other mainstream and indie fare is widely recognised and their performances here are what makes this uneven and inconsistent film vaguely watchable.

There is so much potential material in the original story (not that it was particularly well conceived, but... ), that could have been explored and exploited... but it has been muddled into a visionless and amorphous mass...

Forth wall only works when it is juxtaposed against stark reality, consistent plot and character development.

This lacks the direction, dedication and understanding of genre necessary to make it work...

I like to think of myself as a good guy. This is probably defined as "Someone who feels guilty about the things they didn't do rather than the things they did do". Once in a while I do feel very guilty about something I did . Normally it involves one of my reviews hurting the feelings of someone who worked on a film. I once wrote a comment on a film called HOOLIGANS AT WAR NORTH VS SOUTH , and was scathing one of the production team wrote me a very polite private message saying the production was crippled by a very limited shooting schedule and budget. I felt guilty but also pleased to find out later many of the production team are going onto better things. The co-director of HOOLIGANS AT WAR Steven M Smith has just released a new movie called BORSTAL and I felt the need to watch it to see how much he has improved

To be fair to Steven and co it's the marketing that murdered much of the potential of this movie . The DVD cover gives the impression it's going to be a violent prison drama where Darwinian law dictates it's survival of the fittest. The blurb reinforces this too and you're instantly reminded of Alan Clarke's SCUM. As a couple of other comments have mentioned this is misleading and it's impossible not to notice the degree of the misleading advertising

What BORSTAL tries to be is a film about redemption with some feelgood quality to it. Based on a book called TWO'S UP by Kris Gray it involves a newly arrived middle class teenage prisoner called Kris arriving in a borstal. Right away you're thinking he's going to literally fight for his life to stay alive but this isn't how things develop. Borstal was long before my time and I take it TWO'S UP is an auto-biography and if nothing at least the film portrays the inmates as fairly average joes you'd see in the pub. A bit loud , a bit boisterous and a bit dim , but nothing really irremediably evil. In effect just some lads who need a good kick up the backside and in other words a fairly accurate picture of juvenile delinquents

Directorial wise there's something of a problem to all this. Steven M Smith gives the film the look and feel of one of this lightweight dramas you see broadcast on Sunday evenings on ITV and this jars with the use of the F and C words . The casting doesn't help in that the cast all come across as nice guys you'd happily share a drink with . not something you could say about SCUM. The director also bludgeons the audience over the head as to the tone of the scene with over emphatic music that dictates what sort of tone the scene involves . This becomes very annoying very quickly

When all is said and done however it's the marketing of BORSTAL that lets everything down. There's little in the way of viscous , nihilistic violence that made SCUM so unforgettable and cynics might say it's such a nice place populated by such nice guys they built walls to keep everyone else out

What can i say that other reviewers have not covered? just summing it up in a few words this is probably one the worst films i have seen in a while and i rarely turn a film off before its end. usually i get settled in my comfy armchair and loaded with cold drinks and popcorn i stay settled for the duration whatever but this had me choking on my popcorn as i was falling asleep, it was boring in both action and content and the story line was less interesting than people watching in a branch of my local coffee shop. i could not have given a lower star rating than 1 but if i could i would have given it a minus 3.

The acting was terrible and really not sure how Patrick Kirkpatrick turned up here with an English accent as the governor set in the UK in a seventies Borstal for young offenders.

The quietest most orderly borstal I've ever come across. Appears to have a total of about ten inmates divided into two sets of characters. There's the ruffians always spoiling for trouble and the proper speaking good guys. The staff are generally all sergeant major types, barking out their orders. Not forgetting a big showdown between factions which ended by the baddy leader being....pushed.

Need to try harder than this.

Very dull film. Terrible music. I would not recommend it .