SnoopyStyle John McGill is a bright student and hounded by a local bully. His father is a volatile drunk. His older brother leads a local gang. He is put into the lower class due to his brother's reputation. He gets out at the first opportunity by being the top student of the lower class. As a teen, John becomes more brash and more rebellious. He becomes a volatile leader of the local kids taking on all rivals.I like these two movies and they are two separate movies. John McGill as a kid is interesting in his struggles. Then the movie jumps in years to a teenage John McGill and he's a completely different character. The in-between years is missing. It seems like interesting things happened during that time but it's not on the screen. The teenage years do hold some fascinating violence but it gets a little repetitive and the movie goes on a little too long.

Theo Robertson This is the sort that wins lots of plaudits and it's not difficult to see why . It's like jumping in to the Tardis and finding one self in a distinctive time and place so much so you sometimes find it difficult to believe that you're watching a mere film and genuinely believe you're stuck in the time zone it's set . Then suddenly the social realism of the film starts over doing things a little and the hyper realism starts detracting from the reality There does tend to be an element of British cultural bourgeois mind set called " The cult of the proletariat " . By this I mean the bourgeoisie have an instinctive intrigue of all things relating to the lower working class environment but have a dread of ever experiencing it . It's no coincidence that protagonist John McGill is academically gifted and instead of pursuing the academic dream of attending University starts descending in to a path of crime and self destruction . There's no convincing incitement for any of this and the fact McGill could have been someone instead of a no one is quickly forgotten . All this gives the impression that McGill's life is a Shakespearian tragedy From a technical point of view there's absolutely nothing wrong with Mullen's film and shows what can be achieved with a small budget . It's superbly and convincingly acted by everyone especially by Conor McCaron as John McGill . The problems lie in exaggeration . When the film was released Mullen was on record as saying what violent times the 1970s were and he's not wrong . The strap was commonly , perhaps too commonly used by teachers at school but yet would you ever hear a teacher swear ? The dialogue might be authentic but the Glasgow vernacular constantly using the F word and the C word and ending nearly every spoken line with " Man " will make it very difficult for a non working class Scottish audience and one suspects the working class Scottish proles may not be the target audience

andy green Peter Mullan has produced a film of outstanding beauty, raw brutality, warm humour and real pathos. Even without being unable to understand a fair deal of the dialogue, the excellent acting and characterisation was enough to convey the powerful storyline with ease. This is brutal British cinema at it's best. John McGill, a promising schoolboy in 1970s Glasgow, is a sensitive and gentle child routinely subjected to intimidation. As John becomes increasingly angry and determined to fight back, he begins a descent into violence and apathy that threatens to overwhelm him. Will he succumb to the dark allure of gang life, or will he regain the strength he needs to get his life back on track?

homer-simpson66 As per previous review it is episodic but an excellent piece of film. Throughout the film I was able to reflect on my youth and others I knew. Several segments where exceptional reflection. Characterisation was spot on.Belts whipped out from the shoulder and the flowing gowns - who'd have thunk it wasn't only my school!!! Looks like it ran out of an ending. Should be thought provoking but director should be able to direct to the end. Thrown to the lions is poor explanation for what has went before. Yes the Jesus vision is poor - but this is tempered by the almost anonymous but iconic cameo by the director.Anyone any other insight to the contrived ending?I would like to think that there are some insights that I have not considered that will improve this film scoring in my view. Maybe I just didn't twig to the ending!!!