Urchin

It is difficult to care about Mike, the main character, since he screws over people who are kind and good to him. Whether he is mentally ill, just plain evil, or just a narcissist without a moral compass, he doesn't learn from his mistakes. And so there isn't an arc.

However, it is a realistic portrayal of a person lost and maybe not worth finding. Maybe everyone can't be saved in this lifetime. That is an important verity that most people would not like to face. They don't want to know that there are people who keep screwing up their lives. They want to have hope that everyone can be a viable human who is not a parasite, but pays the price.

In the old days, harmful non-contributors to the good of the tribe would have been cast off and have to make their way alone in the wilderness. They wouldn't last long. But Mike is turned out into the streets, where he remains a pitiful menace.

With his debut, Dickinson wants us to finally see society's invisible man. It's not pretty. The even more uncomfortable truth that perhaps not everybody can be saved? That some people can't be helped?! Insane takeaways from a drama piece about a startling social issue, but you can't say it's not blisteringly real. At every point in Urchin, someone is offering a genuine lifeline. There are so many chances for redemption in this film. Kind characters try to tell him this, the SOUNDTRACK tells him this. This judgment isn't what I go to movies for, nor is it where my values lie...but it's one hell of a honest, brutal character piece. Whatever salvation is being offered in this movie, it's clearly not enough. He could've kept his job if he hadn't walked away from an employer who clearly has his back. His foster parents are described as lovely people without elaboration. His momentary love interest tries to tell him that there's more to life than money. You dismiss it at first as well, she presents as a stereotype. But she's right in that his rot isn't exclusive to his class. He would be this person no matter what hand life dealt him. He's a person with his own agency like any other. And though the ending might be truly too cruel for me in the point I think it's making? This film has more respect for the unhoused than it seems. No stereotype here. Just someone diving into said stereotype without reflection or regret. It won't infantilise disaffected people. They're still adults who deserve chances. If they don't value those chances, things get painful. Painful movie. Dark movie. More unique movies please, Mr Dickinson.

This is the first film that I'd been in and heard about four people exclaim "F**k" when the first of the credits appeared on the black screen.

The mix of the effects of addiction and being stuck in a loop were somewhat depressing.

But, the story of Mike's life probably echoes real life for many people living with the same experiences.

The most moving scene for me was the restorative justice meeting when the whole of Mike's life appears on his face for a couple of seconds and you almost feel everything that he's been through.

Some of the metaphorical scenes seem a little out there so Im looking forward to hearing some suggestions from Messrs Kermode and Mayo.

A film that documents the current times but not an uplifting watch.

Actor Harris Dickinson's 2025 directorial debut (which he also wrote) is a social drama which features Frank Dillane as Mike, a young addict living on the streets who after a mugging incident and prison fails to adjust to rehab and employment, and ends up going down the pan. Your not really sure what the point of this perhaps vaguely symbolic drama is, and whether it's helpful in any way. The first half is stronger and more focused than the more rambling second half. But even the first half has it's issues, being a not entirely convincing portrait of a rather middle class seeming 'Homeless Rough Sleeper Victim', who is pictured in a rather negative light. The socio-economic crimes committed by society against the deprived and desperate by the society they live in are not tackled, and indeed the film sometimes seems a little like victim blaming. Is anything ever really a homeless person's fault Harris? I speak from a lot of experience.

This is going to sound weird but I felt their was a slight disconnect between the homelessness I see on the streets of London and the homelessness presented in the film. Mike's clothes were pretty clean and he was pretty lean and in good shape which did not seem realistic. It was as though the filmmakers have never actually seen a rough, dirty homeless human before.

This to me overviews my general feeling, a slight disconnect between the issue of homelessness, and the polished, filmic metaphorical elements which distract us somewhat from the horrors of this daily existence. Was it needed to have these metaphorical tangents, why not simply portray homelessness for what it is, viscerally horrifiying, without the fluff.

The film on many levels was good though, it was at times subtle and you did empathise with the cyclical nature of addiction. It just felt as though if you are going to do a film on homelessness, get visceral. I felt at a distance, as though I was watching a film about the subject, not in the subject.