Nasty Neighbours

After the terminally dull spate of cockney crime capers, it is a relief to see a British film that is more substance than style.

Nasty Neighbours was originally a hit play and surprisingly Isitt manages to disguise its theatrical origins quite well. I would be interested to see what she manages to achieve with an original screenplay and full funding.

Although there are a couple of plotting decisions I disagree with there was nothing that distracted from an always entertaining film.

My only problem with the movie is that although it has funding from Birmingham City council and West Midlands Arts it could be set anywhere. The area of Birmingham, it's set in is the most densely wooded in Europe, Birmingham as a whole has more trees and parks than any other city in Europe.

Even when one of the characters visits one of the most glorious buildings in Birmingham, my local Victorian swimming baths, the angle Isitt uses means we don't see the building itself. I don't expect a tourist video just a little something to counter the ignorant jibes of those who don't know the beautiful city of Birmingham.

The storyline of a flash couple moving next to the neighbourhood busybody is hardly original or worthy of making it to the big screen.

While Ricky Tomlinson, Phil Daniels and co. do play their parts well, and there are several laughs to be had, the story doesn't go anywhere, is largely predictable and just seems like an average play re-staged on a miniscule budget for the big screen.

Set on the drab streets of England's Midlands, and almost entirely in a cul-de-sac and two suburban houses, it looks cheap and miserable, like it has been made with a home video camera.

Would have been better suited as a TV drama. 6 out of 10.

The tragicomic Nasty Neighbours is one of the best film I've seen this decade. Unlike so many others it is not about slick, glamorous yuppies (the kind of films I'm sick to death of) but about an ordinary bloke who is just trying to fulfil the role of breadwinner in an occupation where there is not always bread to be had and in which only the ruthless survive.

In this, modern day,"Death of a Salesman" the British Willy Lowman, played by Ricky Tomlinson, is trying desperately to hold onto the "American" dream of the "he-who-dares-wins" philosophy of latter 20th century Britain. He is failing miserably, unlike his prospering neighbours, the Chapmans (played by Phil Daniels and Rachel Fielding), who consider him and his wife inferior.

Ricky Tomlinson and Marion Bailey are excellently cast as the Peaches - he as Harold, the down-on-his-luck double glazing salesman, she as Jean, his nice but nutty wife. When the family's debts get out of hand the husband refuses to give up his Englishman's castle to the Bailiffs, implicitly believing that he should have something to show for his life's work. With his back against the wall, this follow-all-the-rules guy decides that for once he is going to rebel! The results are both hilarious and tragic.

This film, in my opinion, would be a box office smash hit if only someone would give it the chance!

A dark little movie about the downward spiral of a couple caught up in debt, dead end jobs and neighbours a million miles away from themselves.

Actually, it is difficult to choose from Harold Peach (Ricky Tomlinson) and Robert Chapman (Phil Daniels) as to who is the nastiest neighbour. Their wives are both victims of the obnoxious traits of their husbands.

Well acted and slightly surreal it is well worth a viewing although not recommended for anyone in debt and who is not getting on with their neigbours - they could find it extremely depressing.

Harold and Jean Peach have enjoyed a quiet life in their cul-de-sac for years and now miss their neighbours, the Hodges, who have recently emigrated to spend their retirement in Australia. Harold's job as a double-glazing salesman isn't going that well and he is hiding money trouble from Jean. When their new neighbours move in, the Peaches are a little upset that the Chapman's are not quiet as friendly as the Hodges. Harold can't help but stick his nose in but when his "friendly" instructions about wheelie bins and car parking are met with responses like "b0ll0cks" it starts a tension between the two houses that neither Harold or Robert are willing to defuse.

Partially filmed around where I live in Birmingham, this film is a nice look at tensions between two neighbours who just don't get on. At its heart it is a really good character driven story with the focus being as much on the breakdown of the Peaches as it is about the petty disputes between neighbours. On this level it starts out interesting and does have good touches but it is just too inconsistent to really convince. The plot goes to extremes and it lost me as it did so; the well-observed parts of the characters were lost as they become overblown and unconvincing. Likewise the tone of the piece is all over the place – at times it seems detailed and focused, while other times it is aiming for more of a comic "feuding neighbours" feel'. It doesn't really jump around scene to scene but it doesn't stick withone direction for long enough to really do it well. It is a shame because some of the finer character stuff is interesting but Isitt's script doesn't do it consistently.

Despite this Tomlinson gives his all although I'm sure, having just delivered a touching scene one day he must have worried how it would play out when the next day of shooting sees him dressed as a British soldier on the roof of his house. He is at his best when asked to deliver a frustrated little man, it is just a shame the film did not help him do this. Bailey has moments where she is as good but her character is not as well written. Daniels is given an overcooked character (did he need to be so unpleasant to make the script work?) and delivers it so; he works but I thought he could have been given more to work with. Fielding is reasonably good but, as with Daniels, her character is a plot device and not as important to the script in other ways.

Overall this is an OK film but one that frustrates by its inconsistency. At times it is a great little character story with Harold at its core but then the next scene just seems to throw it a way in favour of overblown plotting that is unconvincing and unhelpful. Isitt must shoulder most of the blame because the script doesn't do the job and her direction can't achieve one consistent feel. An interesting film on some levels but ultimately not one that you need to ask why it has been seen by very few people.