User reviews

Have you ever heard of the phrase "All the gear, no idea"? This film is the definition of what it means. The idea of Shank is a great one and it could have been a brilliant gritty movie but it's executed very poorly. While the movie questions you to ask yourself "what if this decision was made and this happened" and tries to send strong messages about anti-violence and such, it fails to do so and succeeds in doing the opposite, just like 1 Day. So the movie is set in 2015 and the gangs have taken over, the story revolves around Junior who witnesses his brother Rager being murdered by Tugz and so he goes out on a vengeance mission to find Tugz and kill him. Shank had a brilliant idea and it was interesting that it was a British gang culture movie set in the near future but everything about it was just terrible, from the acting to the directing. Let's start with the plot, it's very thin and has been done loads of times before and done much better, you only have to watch Kidulthood or Adulthood as evidence to this. Shank starts off okay with Junior narrating about how tough life is on the streets of 2015 and how he's part of a non-violent gang known as The Paper Chaserz and how his brother, Rager, and his other 'brothers' don't condone the 'postcode war'. That is until Tugz, the leader of a rival gang, stabs Rager, the leader of The Paper Chaserz, and Junior wants to kill Tugz. That was when the movie started to go downhill. It just felt like an excuse to make a movie involving teen gang violence, stealing, drugs and sex. This movie is basically the Daily Mail reader's worst nightmare.

The characters in Shank were just uninteresting, everything about them was unlikeable. Yes they may have did one or two things that the characters did that made you laugh a little but other than that, you weren't bothered about any of them and they remain unlikeable throughout the movie. Also, it seems that they can't make up their minds whether they want to be violent or not. One minute they're saying they don't want to stand and fight and the next, they're threatening other gangs and dog fighting. While we're on the subject about the characters in this movie, the names given to them are terrible and sound a lot like nicknames a ten-year-old would give to look tough. Junior is alright but Rager? Kickz? Tugz? Craze? Whisper? They sound a little bit childish. Also, the gangs were named a bit ridiculous as well: Slaughter Gurlz, Paper Chaserz…what's wrong with the letter S? Is it against the law to use S on the end of names? Personally, changing Kickz to Kicks looks better to me. Another thing that annoyed me about Shank was when Junior introduces characters, he'd always say they're tough, mean or psychopaths. This is supposed to be Broken Britain when gangs are extremely violent and killing people, you'd think you get the picture without him telling us they're mean.

The cast of Shank aren't the best actors in the world and they don't do the best job with their characters. Adam Deacon and Michael Socha do a couple of entertaining scenes as their characters Kickz and Craze but other than that, the rest of the cast doesn't bring much to the screens. The acting isn't terrible but it is quite bad, especially Kaya Scodelario which came as a surprise considering she's a good actress in Skins. The direction wasn't really great either, the whole movie just felt like a feature-length music video (well, it is directed by music video director Mo Ali, what do you expect?). Shank should have been serious, what with the story and the messages but there were a few things in the movie that took the seriousness away. This is because there were some scenes including a dog fight with computer-game beat-em-up energy bars (you don't see the dogs fight, just spectators screaming at the camera) and a confusing Grand Theft Auto-like scene when Junior steals a BMX. Another thing Shank didn't have was a decent script, the lines were very lazy and didn't aspire or mean anything bar a couple of scenes. Shank is a good idea and, in the hands of somebody like Noel Clarke who had written Kidulthood and Adulthood, could have been a great movie but in the end, it was dull, boring in most parts and offers nothing new. I really wanted to like this movie because I thought the idea was brilliant but unfortunately, I was very disappointed with this monstrous mess. Teenagers will probably love this movie but I doubt adults will like it. If you want to watch a better movie than this, watch Crank, The Warriors and Adulthood since it's those movies combined together. I pray British movies do better than this attempt from now on! Read more reviews at: www.dudedazzmoviereviews.wordpress.com

With an opening sequence copied from DISTRICT 13 and an entire storyline and setting copied from KIDULTHOOD, there's nothing remotely original about SHANK. It juts and jumps all over the place, telling a storyline of revenge and brotherhood that's been done to death a zillion times already. It makes you feel like this particular genre of gritty, London-set gangster film is dead in the water, although a film came along a year later that proved there was still life in the genre yet: I'm talking about 2011's ATTACK THE BLOCK, of course.

Sadly, SHANK is nothing like ATTACK THE BLOCK. The script is dead-headed stupid, the characters clichéd and the frenzied editing actually nausea-inducing. The obnoxious leading characters are repulsive in the extreme and their quest to undertake revenge seems to go absolutely nowhere; by the time the film ends, absolutely nothing has happened to any of them. There are no character arcs whatsoever.

I don't know what's worse, actually: Paul Van Carter's wannabe-hip script or Mo Ali's drug-addled direction. Put together they provide a nauseating example of all that's wrong with British cinema when a successful film comes along and the inevitable rip-offs follow.

Walking out of a film half an hour before the end is a gesture I used to abhor. No matter how rancid a film appears to be, you should always see it through once you've started. Otherwise you're not quite in a position to properly criticise it.

I've changed my mind innit. Shank was profoundly unwatchable. I saw it in a theatre with maybe another 50 people; I could hear sighs and groans coming from all directions throughout the picture. Every macho posture, every tedious shouting match, every useless camera jerk, every inept stylistic manoeuvre seemed to audibly destroy a part of someone in there. Myself included, which is why I got the hell outta there.

I haven't seen Bullet Boy or Kidulthood, two other London-set youth violence epics which apparently bear a resemblance to this dirge, so I cannot compare them. I can only say that Shank is a stain on the good name of film. It consists of scene after scene of fantastically unappealing teen anti-heroes yelling at each other in grimy surroundings, punctuated by the occasional flashy chase scene or, in one instance, a dogfight captured in outdated computer graphics. Despite the digitally-enhanced nature of this scene, we don't actually see the dogs fighting, just about 5 minutes of close-ups of the deliriously screaming spectators - the film actually goes out of its way to be boring and repetitive; I simply cannot believe that this was an accident or oversight.

I kinda have a thing for Kaya Scodelario, and the promise of her presence may have been the deciding factor in making me go to see this mush. But she couldn't save it for me; she didn't even show up until the film had battered me senseless for over an hour, and by then I had already accepted that the useless script wasn't gonna give her a chance to display the spunk and sex appeal she delivered in Skins. This useless film wouldn't even let Kaya be spunky and sexy! I walked out shortly after she showed up, when it became clear she was there only for the lead actors to harass her a little bit.

I'm pretty much finished now. Thank you for reading. And please don't give the makers of Shank any of your hard-earned, or even hard-benefited cash. They must learn to try harder.

Menhaj Huda & Noel Clarke have a lot to answer for because without the success of their 2006 film Kidulthood this piece of crap would never had seen the light of day.

The worst thing is we'll be seeing a lot more of this kind of thing as people - I don't know who - are paying to see this, having opened to Top Ten Box-Office in its first week.

I guess I was warned in the opening credits of this film it wouldn't amount to much. How so, well, it features a man taking a dump in the street and thats how I felt having sat through all 90 Minutes.

What I'd like to know is what the likes of Colin Salmon & Robbie Gee were thinking to be associated with this.

Set in a future London that looks a lot like, well, the city today. I'm guessing its supposed to say something about "Urban" life & the street. Ya get me!!

The film I assume is trying to tell the viewer that violence is bad however everything it says the opposite. A dog fight played out as a video game & theft is alright as long as its for your "Fam". Even the climatic fight at the films end is botched cop out.

As I said before we are going to see a lot more of this kind of thing before we see any decent Urban set films.

Don't bother to pay good money to see this don't even get it on DVD. Wait to it shown on TV hopefully at about 1am on a cold Wednesday night.

Absolutely rubbish.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=14198203

OK, this will be a very short review.

Only watch this movie if you are really, really into gang-type movies and just have to watch them all.

And then do so with full knowledge that this might just be the worst you ever saw.

Otherwise, save yourself the waste of time, I wished I had.

And yes, the basic idea of a city like London being extremely divided in a poor and a rich segment is not that bad. But they could have made a way better movie about that if you ask me.

Nothing good then? Well, the camera-work is not too bad, and use of colour is reasonable. But that really is it, in my humble opinion.

British film is going down the pan, unless you're one of the few lucky Brits who get millions to play with like Ridley Scott or Neil marshall. All we ever seem to get are British gangster movies and they're always utter s##t, does no one have any other ideas?.

This one in particular was the worst god damn thing iv ever wasted 20 min of my life on, i know team America said every film needs a montage but do you really need one every 5 min? i felt like i was watching MTV base......i was just waiting for that dizzy rascal guy to jump out and spin a rented medallion into the camera. I have no idea if this film got any better and frankly i don't care, every copy should be recalled and burned and anyone who actually spent money on this should get it back, unfortunately we cant get our lives back.

If you have any sense at all you will put this back on the shelf and walk away and spread the word.

I really really try to view a movie on it's merits and go into seeing one with an open mind and watch it to the end. With this i couldn't, what can i say, it's a dog, simple as that, a dog with 4 broken legs would be more apt.

Combine a poor plot, poor acting, great British stereotypes and you have Shank. The director must have been asleep and the editor obviously only did this project for the money, don't ask what the actors did. This would border on some of the worst, if not very worst piece of British cinema i have ever had the misfortune to see. I felt like i was parted from my money under false pretenses.

It's not possible to rate this a 0 but i will anyway. Save your money and rent something else

So i went to watch this film last night expecting it to be ANOTHER urban teen drama, but i was pleasantly surprised.

I do however feel that the whole concept was aimed at a younger audience as the film was set out in a video game style format as the whole plot was like a mission/quest in a video game. Some people may not have grasped this concept but i personally thought it was very well carried out.

This was a breath of fresh air for the urban movie scene as it broke the cliché of serious underground teen drama with its humorous twists throughout. It may have been difficult for some people to grasp that some of the more tongue in cheek scenes of the film were made on purpose in good humour.

However, what let the film down was the suddenness of some of the key events within the film. Rather than building up to them, i felt they were rushed and poorly timed. Yet, some of the events that did cause some tension and ambiguity left me disappointed as the scenes where these buildups of tension climaxed, went in a completely different direction than i would have expected or therein wanted.

In summary i thought this film good although it could have been better. One thing that people have to realise is the message Mo Ali is trying to send across to the younger audience who may be involved in postcode warfare. It tries to educate the youth in thinking about consequences before they act on something. Therefore i see this film as most people see Marmite. You either grasp the concept and comprehend it fully and in essence love it, or you don't grasp it and find some of the scenes pointless and therefore hate it.

I watched this movie with Kidulthood, Adulthood in mind and its not quite on par with noel Clark's productions. I can honestly say i was a little disappointed with some of the characters mainly Kicks (adam deacon), i really enjoyed his performances in kidulthood, Adulthood. However he doesn't shine in this movie like he did in his previous performances. This isn't down to bad acting it was down to screen time he just seemed to be in the background. however Craze (Michael Socha) performance did make up for this in my eyes "bloody northern monkey". The cgi in the movie was poor to say the least, You could see what he was trying to do but the budget must of been way off what he wanted & looked more like something from the 80's. Obviously the writer didn't want to go the "usual" London gangster flick route. Instead it is set in the future (2015) Which for me didn't quite work. I would of much preferred a more real to life story. Be warned if you don't/cant understand London lingo then this will leave you trying to understand what is being said and will just sound like gobble de gook. Even with this in mind i am still going to give this movie a 6/10 just because i enjoy inner city gang films. So to sum up the casting & performances were good including the "New boy." The story was mediocre. the OST was good.

My top 10 Gangster/London Flicks 1.Rise of The Footsoldier, 2.Kidulthood, 3.Bullet Boy, 4.Adulthood, 5.Rock 'n' Rolla, 6.Harry Brown, 7.Sugarhouse, 8.Shank, 9.Essex Boys, 10.Cass

Next review will be Bonded by Blood.

Thx for reading, peace out.

London 2015. Society has split in two leaving the economy and most basic services in the hands of private corporations. The city itself has been split between the well-off and the rest. Within the cut-off squalors of the capital's streets gangs of hoodlums divide and rule the limited wealth. Food has become the most important commodity: munchies are worth life and death. The Paper Runners, led by Rager (Ashley Bashy Thomas), is a small gang of misfits with a knack for getting stuff without bloodshed (don't cause any harm and no harm can come to you). Rager is a role model for his little brother, Junior (Kedar Williams-Stirling), a get-away specialist, as well as the remainder of the crew: Kickz (Adam Deacon), Craze (Michael Socha) and Sweet Boy (Jan Uddin). However in this dog-eat-dog world not everyone has such scruples and youngling Tugz (Jerome Holder) is the worst of the lot...

"Shank" is an explicit orgy of sound and images pasted together with an initial headache reaction. After the initial onslaught the fast editing and video-clip montage on acid does recede a couple of notches, so the story can be fleshed out. But even than we are input sequence after sequence of rapturous music and occasional computer-inspired scenes drowning out the plot and most of the character development. At times the movie actually feels more like a filmed video game (or more like a singular mission/level of it), where occasional power bars and animations fit effortlessly as part of the experience. This all-action approach did however cause many key moments of the movies to lack enough contemplation - Mo Ali was unable to take a breath and let the moment sink emotionally into the viewers. The occasionally uninspiring derivative plotting and/or dialogue don't help to overcome this obstacles either...

Nonetheless this unrelenting storytelling isn't all amiss, as in between this overzealous approach to innovative methods of telling a film story, you find a decent amount of subtexts and brilliant ideas. Unfortunately for Mo Ali his incapability to show restraint (and unwillingness to use some more classical artistic tools) hindered the intriguing concept of a boy being unable to properly identify feelings of emptiness and anguish, instead channelling them into revenge and anger. Also several scenes were extremely inspiring in their capability of mixing emotions or simple storytelling with a modern cutting edge freshness to them. Despite being uneven and at times lazy it does however warrant a look, as there are several gems hidden inside its chaotic shell.

Despite everything said the movie is at least a brilliant score to the movie, which shows that England remains the epicentre of adventurous music.

If you believe the marketing that is what this is. And in a way the marketing guys got it right. This is actually what you should expect from this movie. Maybe they also should have mentioned, that it is an extended music video. Every 3 to 4 minutes there is a song coming up, sometimes played as a story evolution or as a montage piece. But you will hear quite a few music pieces before the movie is over. And if you like the music, at least you will be entertained in one category.

The question is if the director did music videos prior to this (though it seems like a given). The flashy cuts, the music, the style overall would suggest so. I wouldn't go as far as to compare it with Kidulthood. I don't think it could stand a comparison and it would be unfair to the movie. It's nothing big and has quite a few flaws and will only appeal to a certain group of people. But that doesn't mean it's completely bad. It has a few nice things going for it ... you just have to find them (and it won't be easy)

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

From the makers of Kidulthood, proclaims this latest, modest budget slice of 'urban' life, and indeed, we're on very similar ground. Only set in the future, a very depressing, dangerous future that looks only too likely to be a reality, where knife crime and gangs have taken over a decaying London and it's a fight for survival that nothing short of a BNP government might have prevented.

Shank does little to go in any direction other than any other film aimed at the 'yout'' culture of today goes, throwing all the common street lingo, slang and style in the face of it's audience, even the title a hideous term for stabbing somebody. It tries to throw in what it thinks is the odd little inventive touch here and there, but it is little more than another sad reflection of where our young people are today and where they're going. **

First things first, i have seen both Kidulthood and Adulthood and you can not compare them to this film. Although i think they are better films they are not the same therefore not comparable.

I'm a 18 year old black guy, i live in London. I try and stay out of trouble and keep myself to myself, so i found a strong similarity between me and The Paper Chasers.

This film was a complete shock to me cos i never expected what they did with it and actually i'm rather impressed.

The film was designed to show adults why youths of today are so 'out of control'. They designed the film to show adults how London treats us and how WE see London through our own eyes as the youth of London. It was also designed to show the youths that London doesn't have to be a ghetto, just because it seems that way for few years doesn't make it so. The film is like The Warriors, i made that comparison very early in and i love the idea of the Tugz being sorta like the Riffs and Paper Chasers being the Warriors, traveling through London meeting different gangs.

OK, the acting was a bit cringe-worthy at times, the jokes were pretty corny and the plot needed a bit of work, but you have to remember that it is a VERY low budget film, so sometimes you have to let things like that slide. I loved the Kidulthood references, i actually LOLed when the Paper Chasers were on the old bus! I also liked Tempa T and D Double E's performances, i'm a grimekid what can i say! And that Main guy from the Tugz had the most evil smile i have ever seen. LOL

At the end they should have, shown London how it really was and that would have closed the film perfectly for me.

So, this film was a VERY good idea, if only there was a bigger budget where they could have sorted the plot out a bit more and fixed up on the acting a little, this film would be around the 7-8 out of 10 mark, but right now i give it a 6.

Good film, but it has its flaws.

Thanks for reading. P.E. No.1

So i saw this in a completely packed cinema. There was a lot of hype around it and i'd heard about it anyways, so i paid my money to see it on the big screen. My initial reaction is that this is like a modern, urban version of Snatch, like a guy Ritchie movie made by the black British youth. And that's not a bad thing. I was sick to death of the adulthood type films, and the Adam Deacon crowd, but to be fair this is a very refreshing change. There's been harsh word about it, prolly because a) the reviewers don't get the grime scene, b) it is SO different from the adulthood films that some people including my mates didn't no what to make of it, and c) it is TOTALLY a kids film. But i like watching all kinds of films so i gave it chance. I gotta say it did look kind of low budget in a lot of places, but i was surprised by Adam deacon, he did a funny turn in this, Ashley Thomas turned in a strong performance, and the lead kid was very powerful. I do like Kaya Scodelario, so she was a very welcome surprise too. One of the MAIN things that makes this film very different, is that its been written like a video game, there's animations, and computer sequences, and music video bits from Tempa T and others, so in a way, its just taking all the gimmick that Guy Ritchie invented, and updating them for todays generation. I guess if I was a kid watching this it would be half like playing a new video game, and half like wathcing a new movie. Overall I think the director mo Ali has earned his place in new British film, and for a low budget movie i think this could well become a classic once all the hype dyes down. Maybe its kind of corny but then so was Warriors probably when that come out first.

This film has a pretty bad rating considering its not a particularly bad film. It certainly is not a masterpiece, it doesn't really make you think, the acting isn't fantastic and the plot is a bit hit and miss but you know what I've watched this film a couple of times, I bought it on DVD, would i recommend it, yeah, don't go out of your way to watch it but if it's on give it a go! i just feel the rating is far too low for a film that is actually pretty watchable, and at the end of the day if a film is watchable then it fulfils the minimum requirement that can be expected really. The premise of the film is pretty interesting in a post-apocalyptic-anarchic-society way and its a bit funny in parts, it's one of those films that is likely to be trashed by critics but is not particularly bad, not particularly good, but not bad either. Worth a watch, but again, don't go out of your way.

Shank tries to emulate those urban Noel Clarke heavy films and again we have an underclass in tower blocks trying to make ends meet in an urban wasteland. At least Shank is set in the near future in a Britain suffering from economic collapse and food is scarce.

The film follows Junior and his older brother Rager who is the head of the local gang, 'The Paper Chaserz' who have a moral code of refusing to kill and getting involved in violence. However a plan to steal goods from a van goes wrong as a rival gang called the Soldiers take over the attempted theft and as they chase Junior they end up killing Rager. Junior and his crew are now looking for revenge.

The actions starts in a frenetic and heavily choppy edited fashion with Junior doing Parkour moves as he tries to get away from the Soldiers. However as suspected the film runs out of juice, the writer and director seems to think that all the youth of today want to hear is that every other word to have f@@K in it not helped by some too loud rap soundtrack especially near the end when all I wanted to see is the climax of the film and how they will deal with the thrust of their anti violence message if at all possible without being cack handed. Unfortunately cack handed it is as its a circle that cannot be squared. The actors do well especially Kedar Williams-Sterling but they are not helped by the screenplay.