The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael

A promising young violinist wrecks his life by hanging around with the wrong crowd. From taking drugs to skipping school, these lads think they're real hard cases. They won't listen to any authority figure, treat women as disposable sexual play-things and live completely on the outside of society. Nothing new there then. In fact, I think I live down the street from a few individuals just like that. However, I reckon even those scumbags draw a line at what this gang gets up to in the violent climax here...

Oh yes, the controversial ending. Surely if you'd looked up this obscure film on IMDb you must have heard about it. You know, the champagne bottle? The golden shower? The deadly assault with a kissing fish? Yep, it's all very upsetting what happens to this poor innocent couple, but call me a monster if you wish because I felt strangely unmoved. Maybe if the characters were better fleshed out and hadn't been a stereotype of every yob or yuppy I know I would have been sucked into the action more. As things stand though...

This was little more than an hour and a half of teens behaving badly before finally being tipped over the edge by an ex-jailbird, played by Danny Dyer who continues his incredible streak of never having appeared in a film I like. The transformation of these kids from simple garden thugs to murderous deviants is more than a little unconvincing, but at least it livens things up as for most of it's length TGEORC can at best be described as moribund. It feels like a Crimewatch reenactment, using the same actors they get from the programme. If you've ever seen an episode, you know that's not a compliment. Let's face it, if the best thing about a film is it's title, you know you're in trouble. Avoid avoid avoid... 3/10

P.S The final nail in the coffin for me was the quotation they give you, just before the credits roll. It has to rank as one of the most pretentious things I've ever seen, and tries to give the film a layer of substantialness it doesn't deserve. Dear oh dear...

It's a shame that more people who like this movie have not yet commented on it. If you do google the film, however, you will find some more intelligent responses to the film, even ones which are critical of the film's ending. It's clearly a love it or hate film, but I find the lack of any intellectual engagement with film's themes demonstrated in these comments a bit disheartening. If the IMDb is a democracy, people should still think before they write something. One comment in particular seems like it might have been written by a person who may not have even seen the film. I did like and have seen it, so I'll offer my two dimes worth.

I think it is an unusually unfettered and savage critique about the hypocritical way we represent and deal with casual brutality in our society, and the kind of selfish values which are currently in operation. The small coastal town in which the film is a microcosm used to explore and exemplify broader trends in Britain and the West generally. For example, this film talks about the simplistic and dishonest way in which the British tend to view both contemporary and past military conflicts. Through scenes with a well-intentioned, lefty media studies teacher and then later through the juxtaposition of WWII newsreel footage with a savage ultra-violence, we are asked to question the standard version of the Second World War as a glorious fight between good and evil. Through similar juxtapositions of political speech-making and ultra-violence we are also asked to question the official line on the Iraq conflict. In it is totality, (e.g. through its music - Elgar-Birtwhistle - or its downward spiral narrative) the film systematically asks us to question all manner of lazy assumptions about Britannia and the British, and what both supposedly stand for. In a wider sense, I feel it effectively questions our assumptions about civilized people and nations being essentially good.

I also think the film-making is generally excellent, particularly for a first film. The boys in it are very convincing, and the film is a good watch even if a person misses some of its thematic concerns. Only one of two of the side characters are a bit less convincing, it does have a lengthy build-up. It's very, very different from mot British cinema of today which is generally sentimental, conservative and gratingly populist or else falls into the no-longer radical or interesting category of politically correct realism. This is a film which dares to be different, and challenges its audience with its stylish long takes and its uneasy combination of terrible violence and savage satire. If you're not squeamish or intellectually lazy, it's also very compelling. It never falls into the art-house ponderous-dull trap. Its says interesting things about morality and politics without being didactic or using self-consciously high-brow dialogue.

i would like to say i think this film is soulless empty and devoid of any emotional depth, i don't know if that is the point but i thought it was stunning.

For me the whole point of it was this is what life is like for many, the uber violence of Kubrick clockwork orange was about the future, this is the same in this film but it is about the present.

Those who hate it for this, is a good thing. I personally recognise many of the characters in this film, the fact that they are emotionally underdeveloped is the point.

I thought this film was nothing short of brilliant. It was horrible to watch at times but that doesn't make it a bad film and as for people complaining about a weak supporting cast well ffs i don't think they had a Hollywood budget.

the more films like this the better

Well done Thomas Clay

I am liberal. I have always taken pride in my ability to keep a certain intellectual clarity when confronted by a particularly provocative work of art. I love art - whether movies, paintings or novels - and I believe that art is not art unless it provokes some kind of reaction, positive or negative.

Yet I must confess that "the scene" at the end of this film pushed my own flexible limits of stomachability. I won't describe the scene in any detail - you just have to see it yourself - but let me say that I have never, or may never again, be witness to such a finger-curlingly, teeth-clenchingly HORRIBLE act of violence on the big screen.

The visual presentation of the wine bottle moment was shocking enough, yet it was it's complete unpremeditatedness, it's coming like a knife out of a dark room, (even after the rape) that really threw me.

The film finished two hours ago and my head is still reeling. I will not attempt to rationalize or explain the morality or acceptability of such a closing scene: it is a purely subjective exercise, dependant on the viewer's own values and tastes. This was a point made by the writer and director in the heated Q & A which followed. They refused in any way to give an answer to the most prescient question: WHY? And they're right. The whole point is that the film, as a work of art, which, if flawed, I believe it is, does not answer questions but poses them. Questions not about society or the causes of violence, but about art itself. You cannot watch this film without having to deeply reconsider your understanding of the scope of the much-overused term "Art".

Finally, I would like to say that it's a great shame that the only thing people will talk about is the final scene. The rest of the film is a beautifully shot, clever, and above all, authentic take on life in a debilitated British seaside town, not unlike the town I grew up in. If it had somehow ended differently, I am quite sure it would now be receiving rave reviews from those liberal-minded critics who salivate at the mention of a gritty, British, class-driven drama.

But as it is, a lot of good stuff is about to be swallowed in the growing whirlwind of controversy, and, at best, the film will be consigned to 'risque' or 'cult' territory in our cultural estimations. A shame indeed.

I saw this movie on the film festival of Rotterdam (jan '06) and followed the discussion between director and public afterwards. Many people reacted shocked and protesting. He will get a lot of negative critics. But: the world is cruel like this, and it's not funny. People don't like it. That itself doesn't mean that the movie is bad. I can see that difference. Don't shoot the messenger that shows us the world outside our 'hubble'! Nevertheless I think this a bad movie. Film-technically it's a good one. Nice shots and script, most good fitting music, great actors. The director pretends to make a psychological movie, - the psychology however is of poor quality. Describing such a powerful violence itself is not the art. The art would be a powerful description of the psychological process behind that violence. How does a shy boy come to such a cruelty? The director pretends to describe that, - but is not good in that.

The director used several times the word the 'selfishness' of people, mentioning for instance the teacher. Only: this teacher wasn't selfish,- just someone in several roles, caring for his pupils, ánd worried about his script. I think it's a simplification to call him selfish. The atmosphere in the village is creepy, and the mother made awful mistakes ('you terribly let me down…') but it doesn't become believable for me, that there is caused súch a lot of pain, that the shyest boy comes to such terrible things. In fact, reality is far more complex than the way, this film describes – and it needs far better descriptions. The interesting thing would be: how does it work? Describe that process for me please, so that we understand.

With the written phrase on the end, the director said to point to an alternative way of life. It was the other extreme, and confirmed for me that director and scriptwriter are bad psychologists, promoting black/white-thinking. The connection between violence in films and in society has been proved. Use such a violence gives the responsibility to use it right. There are enough black/white-thinkers in the world, causing lots of war and misery. I hope, this movie won't be successful.