Dead Man's Shoes

Dead Man's Shoes has been compared to Get Carter by critics, which while a good comparison, Dead Man's Shoes is a different breed of revenge film.

Naturlism is the order of the day, a common feature in Shane Meadows' films (A Room For Romeo Brass, 24/7) where Richard, an ex-marine, returns to his home town to exact revenge on the petty drug dealers that abused his retarded brother. Far more than your average revenge movie, Considine elevates it into a terrifying area, electrifying every frame he is in. You will laugh at the drug dealer's talk of porn and "al fresco" - but the minute Considine enters, the laughter stops. Totally believable, and the drug dealers (Gary Stretch and others) are fantastic support too.

The story is not as developed as I hoped it would've been, sometimes creating frustrating anti-climaxes here and there, but this is only a minor problem. The killings are well thought out, scary and well paced throughout. The plot, although simple (initially) does become a more twisted prospect towards the end - so it is a highly rewarding movie. Being only 86 minutes long helps a lot too, as the movie runs at a brisk pace, just right for it's genre.

Along with Get Carter, this is one of the best revenge films, and one of the best thrillers to come out of the U.K. The cinematography is bluntly physical and realistic, the music well implemented and the acting spot on. To add variety, the movie adds dark humour to create a great film. People who are expecting a blood-fuelled rampage of retribution ala Kill Bill will be disappointed. Dead Man's Shoes is an expertly delivered thriller, with subtle tension and great performances.

Well worth a watch.

8/10

If you do not like dark, challenging films, don't bother.

If you are ready for something unlike anything you've ever seen, and are not afraid to confront difficult emotions, give this film a go, you won't be disappointed.

From the start the tone is set. A bleak town in Northern England, like many bleak towns in northern England. With petty, small time drug dealers, like petty small time drug dealers everywhere, vicious and stupid. Then into their lives comes a mysterious figure, in a green parka. And nothing will ever be the same.

It's difficult to describe the movie without spoilers, and I do not want to spoil a single second of what is possibly the most powerful and emotionally wrenching film I have seen for a decade and more (made all the more powerful by the haunting music). Paddy Considine (who wrote and stars in the film) is stunning as, for want of a better phrase, an avenging angel, albeit a fallen one. The menace and tension builds and builds (including perhaps the best depiction of a bad LSD trip ever set down on film - it's an extremely discomforting experience if you've ever been on the wrong end of a bad trip, believe me) until the harrowing climax. This is not a nice film. This is not a fun film. This is, however, an exceptional film, and perhaps more importantly it is an honest film, a true film if such a thing can be said of fiction.

If you want smiles, or empty action, or to put your brain on hold, this is not the film for you.

If, however, you want a film with genuine emotional depth, that makes you think and resonates far after the end credits have finished, then this may be what you're looking for.

Just don't expect an easy ride.

An overused word, but the closest I've seen to a masterpiece for many a long year.

It doesn't rely on CGI or explosions, small town, small budget but an epic film. The acting is superb, the plot is fantastic. I've rewatched several times now and it never gets old. A must watch. 10/10

'Dead Man's Shoes (2004)' might just be one of the bleakest films I've ever seen, a near-nihilistic revenge story in which there are no real heroes and violence begets no satisfaction. It really is grim, putting Paddy Considine's angry ex-army-man on a path of no return and painting him as just as much a monster as the thugs he's after. A large part of this is due to the fact that lots of screen-time is given to the no-good, small-time gangsters who find themselves hunted by the protagonist. Even though they're nowhere near likeable - or, even, empathetic - you can't help but identify with their sheer terror as they're picked off one by one in an unrelenting, merciless fashion. The violence of the movie truly is shocking, yet never overly gratuitous. It's frank, ferocious and, sometimes, difficult to stomach. It's also never glamorised, even if it is focused on somewhat. The effect of the picture is palpable. It isn't enjoyable, per se, but it's compelling and challenging. Without offering so much as a sliver of hope, the piece pulls you into its seedy world of wrongdoing and revenge and doesn't let you out until it's well and truly finished with you. 7/10

Having left the army, Richard returns to the rural Midlands where he grew up. His brother Anthony is mentally a bit slow but has suffered at the hands of a group of small time pushers and dealers. Calming sleeping rough with his brother in a ruined farm just outside the sleepy little town, Richard makes first contact with one of the men before making his intentions clear. As the warning shots end, Richard begins to cut through the group that harmed his family.

There are plot holes here; there are gaps in "real world" logic that, if you want to, you can pick at and annoy yourself before dismissing the whole film as nonsense and going back to the telly to watch action movies. Several reviewers on this site have done that and I'm not entirely sure why. I didn't feel I was allowed out of the grip of the film for long enough at any point to start to think about these things because to me it was dark, gripping, very well written and complex enough to keep me gripped throughout. The story appears to be about revenge, but it is as much about an avenging force as it is about revenge – the latter sounds harsh and emotional, Richard is cold and cleansing. This aspect of the story is interesting mainly because it is tense and quite gripping, but the film works so well because it is only one of the aspects that works. The flashback scenes are gripping in the way that we don't know where they are leading but we know how very serious it must be because the actions led us to this place. Meanwhile the film's main triumph is that we spend most of our time with the dealers and users – the "baddies". Doing this stops us just rooting for Richard and seeing them as "bad men" who we just want to see dead; by getting to see their characters, we may not care for them but we certainly don't see them as fodder.

The cast are roundly good and play it very naturally and convincing as real people. The script helps them a lot of course but I got the impression that a lot of it came from them. Considine has a complex character and I won't pretend to totally understand who he was but I thought he great a great job leading the film – I suppose writing it must have helped a little bit! Kebbell is also strong, not allowing Anthony to just be a character of pity but one that we do feel for. Support from Stretch, Bell, O'Neal, Sadot and the others may seem basic but their "chav" clichés are actually convincing characters (sadly) and their emotions, fears and pain is convincingly real. The main star for me though was Meadows, who has done a great job structuring the film and also delivering it with a great deal of style – but not to the point where it gets in the way of the film.

Overall this is a dark, compelling film that has great writing, acting and directing. It has plot holes if that is what you want, but I was so gripped by the film that I didn't mind. An impacting film that is like a breath of disturbing fresh air compared to what is usually in the multiplexes.