I started watching this film, and at first couldn't finish it. I was already having a really bad day, and this film made it SO much worse. Basically the story is Johnny is a misfit who rapes a girl. That sickened me, but what was worse was the fact that the producer (Mike Leigh) decided Johnny should be the star of the show. So as if having a rapist as the star of a show isn't bad enough (and therefore implying rape is O.K. in certain circumstances, when in actual fact it of course never is), Mike Leigh decides to add a second rapists just for the fun of it. I was so angry at this movie and its director. Please do NOT watch this film, especially if you have experienced any kind of sexual violence.

A dirty, homeless man depends on the kindness of others for food and shelter and sex, although he acts like he is entitled. As the protagonist, Thewlis spews philosophy and Biblical verses, rapes women, abuses alcohol and drugs, and is unbelievably arrogant for a hobo with no money. Somehow he manages to not only find a bed to sleep on every night but also a woman to cuddle up with. It is unclear why everybody accommodates this ungrateful jerk. He is meant to be charming and intellectually engaging, but comes across as an annoying whiner. Carlidge is equally annoying as a druggie. Only Sharp is likable. There is no plot here. The film is just a vehicle for Leigh's rants.

One of the most powerful British films of the 90s. Mike Leigh directs David Thewlis in an unrelenting, uncompromisingly cynical portrayal of self-loathing and alienation In this, Leigh's toughest, most uncompromising work for cinema, Thewlis turns in a stunningly uningratiating performance. He utterly immerses himself in the role of Johnny, an articulate, disenfranchised angry young man, who's escaped Manchester after a bit of rough outdoor sex turns into something a lot like rape. Johnny flees to London to hook up with an old girlfriend Louise (Sharp). While wandering around the city he gives free rein to his unfocused rage and indulges in some further degrading sexual encounters, notably with the dippy and compliant Sophie (Cartlidge). This is brilliant stuff, but hard to stomach. Once again Leigh proves what a big problem he has with London's bourgeoisie, particularly with his portrayal of the smooth, sexually exploitative Jeremy (Cruttwell). Leigh gives us so little to cling to here. There is barely a symphathetic character aside from security guard Brian (Wright), who dreams of escaping to Ireland. So the viewer is stuck with the edgy autodidact Johnny. It's an immensely powerful film about self-loathing and urban alienation, but, Thewlis' remarkable performanace notwithstading, staying the two hour distance is asking for a lot, even from die-hard Leigh fans.

My favourite film of all time and I don't even know why. It not only is repulsive but at the same time hysterically funny. It makes living in London a distorted pleasure as it is on my mind every day as I walk through the city that inspired such a piece. The theories that Johnny comes up with are not only salient but increasingly prophetic and it serves as a reminder to Mike Leighs brilliance that a film ORIGINALLY intended as a Post Thatcherite comment can now be seen as a highly accurate portrait of 21st century Britain. The dialogue is razor sharp and the thoughts and ideas explored may be too 'In Your Face' for some but it is a film that every adult should see. It makes you face what you are and that may make it an uncomfortable experience but the result is, for good or ill, life changing. For that, it is, to me the greatest film of all time. aonemantidalwave

Just emailed a friend who's in film school about this flick. Something to avoid when making a film - characters blabbering senseless, overwrought, convoluted monologues on screen that are ultimately trite and unconvincing. If the film is an attempt at social realism, these verbal barrages are so over-the-top that they actually draw attention to the film constructed as film and effectively neutralize that intent. Is it the acting, or the script that is bad, or both? The protagonist is also highly unbelievable for social realism - ravenously consuming canonical English literature and the bible while high or hungover and able to produce such profoundly sophomoric soliloquies while intoxicated? And how is such an unattractive, unwashed and verbally noxious character able to bed most of the women he meets within minutes of encountering them? (I had to applaud when one chick finally threw him out onto the street, despite his whining and self-pitying banter). The viewer encounters pretentious references to Ancient Greek literature, Nostradamus and the Book of Revelations. The impending doom of mankind, in the form of bar codes imprinted on our foreheads or right hands in spooky biblical fashion, is presented to a character who is oh-so-cleverly exposed in his role as a guardian of empty space. This flick is over-scripted and over the top - a melodrama clumsily infused with pedestrian "philosophy" about the meaning of mankind, life, etc. It is trite, overwrought and tedious. There are some very fine English films available with content similar to this film. "Nil by Mouth" is an excellent, far more interesting excursion into the lives of individuals in a similar social milieu. Ditto for "In the Warzone." And although the comparison is not even warranted, check out anything by Peter Greenaway, who far more deftly handles dialogue, wit and absurd characters and situations.

Naked-1080P

Naked-720P

Naked-360P

Naked-480P

Shy