Filth (Irvine Welsh)

marsha_Cutiepie · 30/09/13 - 22:33

I am a big fan of the author and the book so looking forward to seeing it, the reviews so far have been mixed, some saying fantastic and the others saying not as good as the book - has anyone see it yet?

Sez_babe · 02/10/13 - 01:46

I haven't read the book but I read an interview with James the other day which made me want to see this film even more - it was interesting to read about how he was on set when he was filming etc.

DS gave it 5 stars!

Oicho Throw · 04/10/13 - 23:57

I watched it last night, and have read the book as well.

Here are some thoughts.

- The film was always going to live or die on the performance of McAvoy, and he absolutely nails it. I've never been a big fan and to me he always seemed to have only two modes - dewey eyed sad bloke and smiley faced nice bloke - but he blows it right out of the water in this. Swinging wildly between amusing and terrifying, pitiful and disgusting, laughable and threatening, and at no point does any of it seem forced or contrived.

- The supporting cast are also excellent, but particular standouts are Imogen Poots, whose metamorphosis from loathsome adversarial superbitch to concerned onlooker is totally convincing and shows how mental things are getting, and Eddie Marsan's adorable portrayal of Bladesy. Everyone else is pretty much superb, though, with the possible exception of that one ned whose name I forget.

- Without wishing to spoil too much, the plot isn't quite as tight as in the book, and meanders around in spots. A lot of the film is presented in a rush of vignettes, and while this is perfect for getting across the relentless nature of Robertson it does knock the bottom out of some of the plot threads - Carole's sections in the book were strange and made the reader want answers, whereas in a film as high-octane as this they just seem like weird little sketches, of little import. Similarly the central murder mystery of the book is kind of pushed to the wayside in the film.

- That being said, the plot being a bit flaccid doesn't matter one iota, because this is not a "plot" film. This is a character study of a man going horrifically off the rails and damaging all around him as he does so, and the hectic, higgledy-piggledy bombardment of weirdness and awfulness works really well to give you a view into Robertson as a guy who isn't just an arsehole, but is actually wrong[I/].

- Some of the book's flourishes (in particular the tapeworm) are cast by the wayside, but Broadbent's over-the-top panto villain doctor serves as an adequate replacement. What doesn't work is the line "same rules apply" , which clunked a bit in the book and is an absolute NIGHTMARE in speech. The film makes an attempt to make it a catchphrase at the start and wisely drops it for most of the running time, but this serves to make it all the more grating when it comes back. I lap Welsh up, but the bam can hae a tin ear for dialogue fae time tae time.

- Again, trying to avoid spoilers, the ending 20 mins are a bit rubbish. The film suddenly loses steam and starts treading the same ground over and over, and while I can see why they've done this, it's not particularly fun or interesting to watch.

All in all, a damned fine film, and worth the cost of a ticket. YO.

Flabby_Gut · 05/10/13 - 00:09

Oicho Throw wrote: »

I watched it last night, and have read the book as well.

Here are some thoughts.

- The film was always going to live or die on the performance of McAvoy, and he absolutely nails it. I've never been a big fan and to me he always seemed to have only two modes - dewey eyed sad bloke and smiley faced nice bloke - but he blows it right out of the water in this. Swinging wildly between amusing and terrifying, pitiful and disgusting, laughable and threatening, and at no point does any of it seem forced or contrived.

- The supporting cast are also excellent, but particular standouts are Imogen Poots, whose metamorphosis from loathsome adversarial superbitch to concerned onlooker is totally convincing and shows how mental things are getting, and Eddie Marsan's adorable portrayal of Bladesy. Everyone else is pretty much superb, though, with the possible exception of that one ned whose name I forget.

- Without wishing to spoil too much, the plot isn't quite as tight as in the book, and meanders around in spots. A lot of the film is presented in a rush of vignettes, and while this is perfect for getting across the relentless nature of Robertson it does knock the bottom out of some of the plot threads - Carole's sections in the book were strange and made the reader want answers, whereas in a film as high-octane as this they just seem like weird little sketches, of little import. Similarly the central murder mystery of the book is kind of pushed to the wayside in the film.

- That being said, the plot being a bit flaccid doesn't matter one iota, because this is not a "plot" film. This is a character study of a man going horrifically off the rails and damaging all around him as he does so, and the hectic, higgledy-piggledy bombardment of weirdness and awfulness works really well to give you a view into Robertson as a guy who isn't just an arsehole, but is actually wrong[I/].

- Some of the book's flourishes (in particular the tapeworm) are cast by the wayside, but Broadbent's over-the-top panto villain doctor serves as an adequate replacement. What doesn't work is the line "same rules apply" , which clunked a bit in the book and is an absolute NIGHTMARE in speech. The film makes an attempt to make it a catchphrase at the start and wisely drops it for most of the running time, but this serves to make it all the more grating when it comes back. I lap Welsh up, but the bam can hae a tin ear for dialogue fae time tae time.

- Again, trying to avoid spoilers, the ending 20 mins are a bit rubbish. The film suddenly loses steam and starts treading the same ground over and over, and while I can see why they've done this, it's not particularly fun or interesting to watch.

All in all, a damned fine film, and worth the cost of a ticket. YO.

]

That's a very good detailed review. I have problems with McAvoy looking about 12. When I read the book I am sure he looked about 45 +

Wouldn't Peter Capaldi have been better?

Possibly Too old I guess.

Oicho Throw · 06/10/13 - 02:04

Flabby_Gut wrote: »

]

That's a very good detailed review. I have problems with McAvoy looking about 12. When I read the book I am sure he looked about 45 +

Wouldn't Peter Capaldi have been better?

Possibly Too old I guess.

I kind of agree with you on that one, actually. When I read the book I imagined Robertson as a big, tank-like bruiser of a guy - in my mind's eye he was like Ken Stott on steroids. One of those guys who's got slab muscle holding up the fatty spread of middle age and debauchery. But McAvoy's able to give his performance such an edge of menace, and he looks so convincingly wrecked, that it doesn't detract too much.

I don't agree on Capaldi, though. He's just a bit too posh and effete, even in full on Tucker mode, to get across the knuckle-dragging brutalism effectively.

[Deleted User] · 06/10/13 - 18:12

Oicho Throw wrote: »

I watched it last night, and have read the book as well.

Here are some thoughts.

- The film was always going to live or die on the performance of McAvoy, and he absolutely nails it. I've never been a big fan and to me he always seemed to have only two modes - dewey eyed sad bloke and smiley faced nice bloke - but he blows it right out of the water in this. Swinging wildly between amusing and terrifying, pitiful and disgusting, laughable and threatening, and at no point does any of it seem forced or contrived.

- The supporting cast are also excellent, but particular standouts are Imogen Poots, whose metamorphosis from loathsome adversarial superbitch to concerned onlooker is totally convincing and shows how mental things are getting, and Eddie Marsan's adorable portrayal of Bladesy. Everyone else is pretty much superb, though, with the possible exception of that one ned whose name I forget.

- Without wishing to spoil too much, the plot isn't quite as tight as in the book, and meanders around in spots. A lot of the film is presented in a rush of vignettes, and while this is perfect for getting across the relentless nature of Robertson it does knock the bottom out of some of the plot threads - Carole's sections in the book were strange and made the reader want answers, whereas in a film as high-octane as this they just seem like weird little sketches, of little import. Similarly the central murder mystery of the book is kind of pushed to the wayside in the film.

- That being said, the plot being a bit flaccid doesn't matter one iota, because this is not a "plot" film. This is a character study of a man going horrifically off the rails and damaging all around him as he does so, and the hectic, higgledy-piggledy bombardment of weirdness and awfulness works really well to give you a view into Robertson as a guy who isn't just an arsehole, but is actually wrong[I/].

- Some of the book's flourishes (in particular the tapeworm) are cast by the wayside, but Broadbent's over-the-top panto villain doctor serves as an adequate replacement. What doesn't work is the line "same rules apply" , which clunked a bit in the book and is an absolute NIGHTMARE in speech. The film makes an attempt to make it a catchphrase at the start and wisely drops it for most of the running time, but this serves to make it all the more grating when it comes back. I lap Welsh up, but the bam can hae a tin ear for dialogue fae time tae time.

- Again, trying to avoid spoilers, the ending 20 mins are a bit rubbish. The film suddenly loses steam and starts treading the same ground over and over, and while I can see why they've done this, it's not particularly fun or interesting to watch.

All in all, a damned fine film, and worth the cost of a ticket. YO.

I was a bit gutted when I found out James McAvoy was playing Robert Bruce as I don't really rate him but I agree with you, I think he was amazing.
I did enjoy the film but think they tried to cram too much in if that makes sense?
Also, they changed quite an important bit from the book and I don't understand why (sorry, don't know how to do spoilers so can't say!)

waterlooenders · 06/10/13 - 20:00

I've never read the book so I can't comment on the accuracy.
I really enjoyed it - it was very weird, but McAvoy's performance was excellent.

NoseyLouie · 06/10/13 - 22:44

I thought it was excellent, when I heard James McAvoy was Bruce I was a bit worried, well he truly broke his fresh faced youngster stereotype with this! He must have some sleepless nights in real life to pull that look off that added 10 years in age.

I liked the fact they did not have the tapeworm, it might have came across as too cheesey. John sessions cracked me up at times as toilie.

9/10 but I want to see it again!

Good audience reaction in cinema, laughing, groaning and gasps!

Trsvis_Bickle · 07/10/13 - 18:25

I really want to see this. I read the book years ago and the abiding impression is that the protagonist is a really horrible character, even by Welsh's extreme standards. I saw the trailer yesterday evening and it looks excellent.:D

Jackapple · 07/10/13 - 21:29

I didnt find the trailer very appealing I have to say, it looked like it was glorifying debauchery and appealing to the idiots who think its cool to get f#ked out of your head and then puke your guts out at the end of a night, having said that the Daily Mail only gave it 1 star so I might just go see it, for McAvoy's performance if nothing else.

sonicshadow · 07/10/13 - 22:41

Jackapple wrote: »

I didnt find the trailer very appealing I have to say, it looked like it was glorifying debauchery and appealing to the idiots who think its cool to get f#ked out of your head and then puke your guts out at the end of a night, having said that the Daily Mail only gave it 1 star so I might just go see it, for McAvoy's performance if nothing else.

The trailer really doesn't do it justice.

Adamsk · 07/10/13 - 22:53

For one being Scottish I would not like to see a trainspotting remake.

For one it left a bitter taste in our mouths unlike the book.

marsha_Cutiepie · 07/10/13 - 23:05

Oicho Throw wrote: »

I watched it last night, and have read the book as well.

Here are some thoughts.

- The film was always going to live or die on the performance of McAvoy, and he absolutely nails it. I've never been a big fan and to me he always seemed to have only two modes - dewey eyed sad bloke and smiley faced nice bloke - but he blows it right out of the water in this. Swinging wildly between amusing and terrifying, pitiful and disgusting, laughable and threatening, and at no point does any of it seem forced or contrived.

- The supporting cast are also excellent, but particular standouts are Imogen Poots, whose metamorphosis from loathsome adversarial superbitch to concerned onlooker is totally convincing and shows how mental things are getting, and Eddie Marsan's adorable portrayal of Bladesy. Everyone else is pretty much superb, though, with the possible exception of that one ned whose name I forget.

- Without wishing to spoil too much, the plot isn't quite as tight as in the book, and meanders around in spots. A lot of the film is presented in a rush of vignettes, and while this is perfect for getting across the relentless nature of Robertson it does knock the bottom out of some of the plot threads - Carole's sections in the book were strange and made the reader want answers, whereas in a film as high-octane as this they just seem like weird little sketches, of little import. Similarly the central murder mystery of the book is kind of pushed to the wayside in the film.

- That being said, the plot being a bit flaccid doesn't matter one iota, because this is not a "plot" film. This is a character study of a man going horrifically off the rails and damaging all around him as he does so, and the hectic, higgledy-piggledy bombardment of weirdness and awfulness works really well to give you a view into Robertson as a guy who isn't just an arsehole, but is actually wrong[I/].

- Some of the book's flourishes (in particular the tapeworm) are cast by the wayside, but Broadbent's over-the-top panto villain doctor serves as an adequate replacement. What doesn't work is the line "same rules apply" , which clunked a bit in the book and is an absolute NIGHTMARE in speech. The film makes an attempt to make it a catchphrase at the start and wisely drops it for most of the running time, but this serves to make it all the more grating when it comes back. I lap Welsh up, but the bam can hae a tin ear for dialogue fae time tae time.

- Again, trying to avoid spoilers, the ending 20 mins are a bit rubbish. The film suddenly loses steam and starts treading the same ground over and over, and while I can see why they've done this, it's not particularly fun or interesting to watch.

All in all, a damned fine film, and worth the cost of a ticket. YO.

Great review thanks for posting.

I meant to go see it this weekend but didn't get around to it definitely next weekend!

One of my worries is that they would tone down Bruce for the movie, in that Bruce in the book was a horrible,disturbed person, so sounds like they didn't shy away from that?

Glad to hear Imogen Poots did well as Amanda, I always thought she was an interesting character in the book, as you are first introduced to her via Bruce's eyes...and then you see what she is really like when she tells it to him like it is near the end.

munta · 08/10/13 - 18:20

I've never read any of Welsh's work so I have nothing to compare the film to, but I have to say that it was one of the best films I've seen this year. And that's saying something since I go once or twice a week.

McAvoy played the anti-hero perfectly. I felt disgust and pity in equal measure as would be expected from someone on a path of self destruction from mental illness. Special praise for the supporting cast has to go to Sessions, Broadbent and Marsen.

The only thing which I would have liked a bit more of was the back story of why Bruce was the way he was. I'm not sure if that's covered in the book but it did seem to be a little glossed over.

ChrissieAO · 08/10/13 - 20:22

What sort of role did Emun Elliott have? Quite a bit different from The Paradise I would imagine..

[Deleted User] · 09/10/13 - 02:19

munta wrote: »

I've never read any of Welsh's work so I have nothing to compare the film to, but I have to say that it was one of the best films I've seen this year. And that's saying something since I go once or twice a week.

McAvoy played the anti-hero perfectly. I felt disgust and pity in equal measure as would be expected from someone on a path of self destruction from mental illness. Special praise for the supporting cast has to go to Sessions, Broadbent and Marsen.

The only thing which I would have liked a bit more of was the back story of why Bruce was the way he was. I'm not sure if that's covered in the book but it did seem to be a little glossed over.

Yeah, there was a lot more in the book about his upbringing and family, also more about his married life.

Oicho Throw · 09/10/13 - 03:44

ChrissieAO wrote: »

What sort of role did Emun Elliott have? Quite a bit different from The Paradise I would imagine..

It's fairly minor. He plays one of Bruce's "rival" cops, a decent enough bloke who is a bit camp.

The Sack · 09/10/13 - 14:54

Without question the best roll James McAvoy has played, i generally like him anyway but in this he was superb.

Really enjoyed it, i haven't read the book so nothing to taint my view guess.

davie1924 · 11/10/13 - 22:58

Oicho Throw wrote: »

I watched it last night, and have read the book as well.

Here are some thoughts.

- The film was always going to live or die on the performance of McAvoy, and he absolutely nails it. I've never been a big fan and to me he always seemed to have only two modes - dewey eyed sad bloke and smiley faced nice bloke - but he blows it right out of the water in this. Swinging wildly between amusing and terrifying, pitiful and disgusting, laughable and threatening, and at no point does any of it seem forced or contrived.

- The supporting cast are also excellent, but particular standouts are Imogen Poots, whose metamorphosis from loathsome adversarial superbitch to concerned onlooker is totally convincing and shows how mental things are getting, and Eddie Marsan's adorable portrayal of Bladesy. Everyone else is pretty much superb, though, with the possible exception of that one ned whose name I forget.

- Without wishing to spoil too much, the plot isn't quite as tight as in the book, and meanders around in spots. A lot of the film is presented in a rush of vignettes, and while this is perfect for getting across the relentless nature of Robertson it does knock the bottom out of some of the plot threads - Carole's sections in the book were strange and made the reader want answers, whereas in a film as high-octane as this they just seem like weird little sketches, of little import. Similarly the central murder mystery of the book is kind of pushed to the wayside in the film.

- That being said, the plot being a bit flaccid doesn't matter one iota, because this is not a "plot" film. This is a character study of a man going horrifically off the rails and damaging all around him as he does so, and the hectic, higgledy-piggledy bombardment of weirdness and awfulness works really well to give you a view into Robertson as a guy who isn't just an arsehole, but is actually wrong[I/].

- Some of the book's flourishes (in particular the tapeworm) are cast by the wayside, but Broadbent's over-the-top panto villain doctor serves as an adequate replacement. What doesn't work is the line "same rules apply" , which clunked a bit in the book and is an absolute NIGHTMARE in speech. The film makes an attempt to make it a catchphrase at the start and wisely drops it for most of the running time, but this serves to make it all the more grating when it comes back. I lap Welsh up, but the bam can hae a tin ear for dialogue fae time tae time.

- Again, trying to avoid spoilers, the ending 20 mins are a bit rubbish. The film suddenly loses steam and starts treading the same ground over and over, and while I can see why they've done this, it's not particularly fun or interesting to watch.

All in all, a damned fine film, and worth the cost of a ticket. YO.

Read the book at the time it came out and watched the film last night. Pretty much agree with everything you say there!!

Millie Muppet · 13/10/13 - 03:00

Adamsk wrote: »

For one being Scottish I would not like to see a trainspotting remake.

For one it left a bitter taste in our mouths unlike the book.

Speak for yourself, I'm Scottish and loved it. :rolleyes:

J105 · 15/10/13 - 02:28

Saw this today and thought it was fantastic.

TexAveryWolf · 17/10/13 - 01:37

Just saw this trhis afternoon.

Still recovering.By turns satirical, horrifying, appalling and exhilerating.

And never having been a McAvoyeur, this performance will no doubt enter the ranks of Great Performances That Never Won An Oscar.

Ideal first date movie......

[Deleted User] · 19/10/13 - 18:20

Finally got around to watching this last night. Found it quite difficult to watch, initially with how repulsive the main character is, and then with the awful way his mental illness was affecting his life, but undoubtedly an excellent film I'm glad to have seen. Tempted to read the book now but put off by the fact it's written in the way you would pronounce words in a Scottish accent.

Sez_babe · 20/10/13 - 18:57

I saw this yesterday - James was amazing and the supporting cast were all brilliant too.

I was just willing him at the end of the film to listen to the answer machine and know that things didn't have to go the way they did. However, I know that wouldn't have been in-keeping with the rest of the film!

SapphicGrrl · 21/10/13 - 04:58

Flabby_Gut wrote: »

]

That's a very good detailed review. I have problems with McAvoy looking about 12. When I read the book I am sure he looked about 45 +

Wouldn't Peter Capaldi have been better?

Possibly Too old I guess.

Perfect age actually! I think he'd have been great in it.

Trsvis_Bickle · 26/10/13 - 15:35

Adamsk wrote: »

For one being Scottish I would not like to see a trainspotting remake.

For one it left a bitter taste in our mouths unlike the book.

Nah, that's the Buckie, Jock.:p.

Honestly, what a stupid thing to say - how can you pretend to know that he majority of Scots felt that way about Trainspotting?

Hey there!

Quick Links

Filth (Irvine Welsh)

Comments