User Reviews

Growing up in inner city Glasgow in the Seventies, gangs are ubiquitous. The stories of stabbings and kickings have an awful, magnetic allure. Jimmy Boyle, mythologised by his lack of presence due to incarceration, like an Anti-Mandela figure, is the archetypal hardman in a town still nicknamed No Mean City. Glasgow's Miles Better has yet to be thought of. And school is not where you learn, it is where you survive.

Like Lynne Ramsey's Ratcatcher, Neds resonates with Glaswegians born in the Sixties who grew up in this mayhem, and now look at it with the benefit of age and distance and wonder how we ever took it for normality.

John is the academically gifted younger brother of a locally respected/ feared ned. His father is mostly missing or drunk, his mother struggles to cope. Like many Scots, the family role model is the one who has exiled herself. Joe's big brother Benny (a charismatic Joe Szula) provides a buffer between him and the worst of the violence - but also gives him a free pass towards initiation. Mean, visceral humiliation from local bully Kanta propels John away from study and towards Benny's sphere of influence. After many trials and betrayals, John survives that, till another humiliation at the point of a crossbow pushes him again to the brink.

Cinematically, Mullen is playful and challenging here. The director says Kubrick and Peckinpah were evoked in keeping with the time; the duct taping of knives to hands is pure Peckinpah, and the juxtaposition of foot-tapping music with jaw-breaking violence recalls Kubrick. The ending is big canvas cinema, but it worked for me. There is also a lovely rhythm here, the gangs running toward and away from each other more often than not. That's how I remember it in Maryhill - big boys always running after or away from other big boys.

Drunk Dads (Mullen in an acting career best), Bolan, six of the belt, winchin' up the graveyard, change on the buses, Provvie cheques - I loved it. But then I grew up with it. Outside Glasgow, and a certain generation, this might be more difficult to access. It will do better in Europe and Asia where the subtitles will help, and the essential coming-of-age story will rise to the fore more.

Neds falls into the broad category of "coming of age" movies that automatically have words like "gritty," "uncompromising," "brutal" and "realistic" pinned on to them far before we're given the opportunity to make up our own mind about them. Set in Glasgow in the 1970's, it tells the story of John McGill, a promising student who falls in with gangs and goes off the rails. Let's start off by saying this; Neds has absolute flashes of brilliance in some parts but is ultimately a very flawed experience. Whilst those who are into their Shane Meadows style dramas will certainly find a lot to like, the rest of us might leave feeling somewhat unsatisfied. Whilst by and large the events that take place in Neds are similar to those of other youth dramas (abuse, violence, searching for belonging etc) and are in part delivered very well compared to its peers, it's difficult to sing its praises purely because of the major flaw that runs throughout the film; the strength of its lead character. This isn't a major sleight against newcomer Conor McCarron as much as it is a comment on the development of John McGill as the crux of the narrative (saying that though I couldn't quite tell if McCarron was meant to look like he was on the verge of bursting out laughing at any given moment or whether this was just a poor job on his part). The real issue for me is that we're never really given enough insight into why John does anything that he does. Some things are made painfully obvious but we don't have the ability to join the dots as we're never explicitly told how they affect John. We know that he has an abusive alcoholic father, but we never really see John reacting to this up until the point at which he snaps. We see that he initially lives outside of the gangs but don't really see much of what it is that leads him to become involved in them; what's driving him? The lust for power? Respect? Control? These questions are never satisfactorily answered and we see John move from one thing to the next without really knowing why he's doing what it is. Unfortunately this leaves the whole movie a somewhat hollow experience: even after we've seen John go full circle and head back to school under the banner of reform, five minutes later he's off beating the sunshine out of someone else and we're never really filled in on the blanks. Don't even get me started on the whole hallucinogenic Jesus scene... The whole package is rounded off nicely (in terms of supporting my previous points rather than satisfyingly) with one of the most bizarre finales I've seen in a movie in a long time. Obviously I don't want to give the game away here, but I'll just say that its attempts at being metaphorical are heavy handed and overtly obtuse. Once again a suggestion is made towards what these events might mean to or show from the characters, but ultimately they're not obvious or relative enough to previous events for you to be able to make your mind up definitively to their meaning one way or the other. I'm all for ambiguity and audience interpretation, but a crucially for both of these things to actually work, you need to ensure that the audience has the right information to base their judgements on, and in this case they just don't. Before I complain too much though, let's consider that it's not all about the narrative, as a lot of this film relies on its Scottish setting. The most obvious thing to pick up no is the language. The swearing in Neds is prolific but, if my experience is anything to go by, is quite representative of how Glaswegians speak. Whilst in other areas of the UK (and indeed the English speaking world) fillers within sentences may take the form of "er," "um," "like" or "you know," it's perfectly normal on the west coast for these to be f*ck or f*cking. These are not usually meant offensively (when used in the aforementioned manner) but those not familiar with its use as such might initially find the language used in Neds a tad excessive. Whilst the language in this film might at first seem a bit over the top, it's fair to say it's a fairly accurate portrayal of Glaswegian dialogue. Even though I live in Scotland and am very accustomed to the accent, there were parts in which I found it difficult to understand what characters were saying; nothing there to spoil the movie particularly for me – but others who aren't as used to the accent might find it hard to decipher what the characters are saying and thus lose some of the film's (oft implied) subtleties. Still, it was in parts an enjoyable watch that perhaps suffers from being slightly overlong and needing better thought in explaining character motivation. Or, if you read every other review I've seen of it so far; it's a gritty, realistic, brutal and uncompromising view of gang youth in seventies Glasgow. Feel free to make your own mind up.

Neds tells the story of John, a Catholic teenager growing up in 1970s Glasgow. The story line follows John's involvement with his city's Ned culture and the consequences of it on his teenage years. The movie won Best Film at the San Sebastian Film Festival in January 2011.

Good points: The characters were well portrayed and gave a good performance, making it realistic and a good representation of how life would have been like as a young Scottish boy. Also, the music that is played in the movie is well suited to it and is the correct year when released.

Bad points: The accents were very strong, at some points I couldn't understand what they were saying. The ending, might have had a good meaning to it, but was a disappointment as I was expecting something that was exciting. Also the film is over two hours long, which was too long.

Overall: I would give the film 6.5/10, because the acting was good, along with the representation of teenagers in1970's Scotland, but the film was very long and the overall story line could have been better scripted.

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?

Mullan has provided us with 2 excellent films in Orphans and the Magdalene Sisters but NEDS is disappointing in the extreme. I went to the cinema expecting a hard-hitting, funny and accurate portrayal of school and life in the 1970s in Glasgow. There were some funny moments and some brutal moments but the major letdown of NEDS....was the story. Were we really to accept that a young, quiet, bookish lad who excels at Latin and at school in general turns into a knife-wielding thug within the space of 4-5 weeks in the school holidays because his friend's mum takes a dislike to him? We also get very little character development for many of the characters. Mullan plays the typical Glaswegian drunk father but Mullan the director never takes the time to give us a clue why he has become a menacing lush. (You people in Glasgow in the audience who laughed at the father's drunken abuse of the mother -shame on you as this was not funny nor was it intended to be.) The film has been commended for its attention to detail and portrayal of Glasgow in the 1970s. I'm sure some of the detail was right for a Glasgow seen through Mullan's eyes but in no other school did teachers smoke in the classroom. I think a bit of fanciful mis-remembering is going on there. The feel of the 1970s didn't come across and at one point the main character 'John' calls himself a 'ned' - not a term used by ordinary people at that time. I agree with one of the early reviews that at 2 hours, the film is far too long.

*****MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS******

N.E.D.S is a fantastic coming-of-age story with remarkable authenticity and outstanding performances from a young and untrained cast. Peter Mullan has captured the essence of Glasgow gang culture impeccably while challenging oft-heard current notions of "it wasn't like that when I was a boy".

The film is brutal, touching and, thanks to an excellent script which oozes with the tension and volatility of the darker side of Glasgow's character, it carries an ever-increasing level of tension which culminates in an explosion of violence and emotional turmoil that is heart-breaking as much as it is disturbing.

The dialect is definitely a potential stumbling-block to the film's chances of appealing to a world-wide audience, despite it's themes of tribal-like warfare on the streets ringing true in all corners of the world. However, those who can deal with the relentless (and utterly realistic) F & C-words and interpret the thick Glaswegian lingo will be rewarded with a hard-hitting experience that will evoke hugely varied responses.

Interestingly, I found moments in the film very funny when they quite probably shouldn't have been. An uncomfortable laugh of recognition for these types of character and their "poetic" use of language. Many's the time while growing up that I saw people like this hanging around the streets or witnessed these animalistic and unprovoked square-offs or challenges for dominance between young guys protecting their turf of the local play-park (which also served as an under-age drinking/smoking area). An innocent boy passing by and being threatened with violence, merely for existing it seems, by a lad (often smaller than him) trying to prove how "hard" he is to the other members of his pack was a regular sight.

The film captures these incidents with a style that is bordering on documentary it is so authentic and I simply couldn't help myself but laugh at these moments. Others, such as two gangs standing at opposite ends of a foot-bridge "tooled-up" with anything sharp or heavy enough to inflict injury, taunting each other with "verbals" about each others' mothers and preparing for battle, before stopping to allow a lassie with a pram to pass through unharmed, carried a dark sense of humour about the rules of engagement adopted during these fracas. Indeed these battles reek of ancient battles such as Stirling Bridge or Bannockburn and carry a bloody brutality that echoes with the same passion and hatred for challengers to territory.

Despite a couple of dips into unnecessary weirdness, such as the Jesus- vision, the film maintains a solid pace and, while a little long for some, it captivated me well enough that I never became disinterested. The characters are magnificently portrayed and the break-down, attempt at redemption and ultimate open-ended journey of the leading man is pulled-off tremendously.

The film is visually as raw as the content of the story and has a very Ken Loach-style to it, which aids in giving a much more stomach-churning impact to the violence and the effects it leaves behind.

The film concludes with a lack of real resolution for the character, but rather an almost frustrating sense of uncertainty about what is in store. He is left (almost literally) thrown to the lions, unsure about where he will go and what he will do, dragging the ball and chain of his previous atrocities behind him with no-one left to turn to, no-one to back him up, everyone has given up on him and left him behind.

Peter Mullan has delivered yet another fine film with N.E.D.S and one that will no doubt bring mixed reaction through both it's realistic and uncomfortable portrayal of Glasgow youth and its unwillingness to adopt a sweet and audience-satisfying end which gives a conclusive answer to all that has gone before. Having met Peter Mullan while I was at university, I know that he is not one for happy endings or giving the audience what they want. He is far more in favour of showing what happens in the real world. Frankly, it doesn't always end up nice and Rosy.

The Glaswegian accent is not too hard to understand. Nothing a couple of Irvine Welsh novels can't fix.

I did enjoy most of this film, but was left wanting. I get that his 'genius' persona is clashing with bureaucracy and family history, but as it is the main theme, it should have been explored more.

His transformation from model student to thug after witnessing a bathroom dust-up, was a bit of a stretch. Why follow that up with throwing fire-crackers into a friends house?

Granted, I was into my 8th Té Bheag when the third act started, but what a mess. Is he a kid again and meets his delinquent future self? Was he really having an existential epiphany? How does that help an otherwise entertaining story? Was I just drunk? Help me out, I really wanted to like NEDS.

Another powerful drama after The Magdalene Sisters from Peter Mullan, set amidst the adolescent gang culture of 70s Glasgow, and loosely based on personal experience. John McGill, played with both menacing brawn and sensitive intelligence by McCarron, turns his back on his academic successes in favour of his older brothers gang lifestyle after experiencing prejudices within society and hypocritical, violent authority figures.

The film doesn't hold back on the violence that gang mentality stirs up, often contrasting the boys as softly spoken individuals from decent homes against their violent gang behaviour. It's genuinely disturbing to see a good kid at heart fall so low, but Mullan's real stamp on the material separating it from countless other grim rites of passage social realist films is an almost comic absurdity. Highlights include Gary Wells as a piggy-back offering teacher, a kicking from Jesus himself in John's lowest point, a safe passage through a group of genuine predators and in the films most intense sequence John turning into a cross between Travis Bickle and Freddy Krueger.

It is to Mullan and his actors credit that such deviations in tone don't unbalance the powerful, realistic drama at the heart of the film, even if they start to confuse and put into question the main characters state of mind.

Set in Scotland in the 1970s, the film centres on a promising young Scottish boys initial advancement through secondary school followed by an unrealistic regression in to a border line psychopath who has a "canny" grasp for Latin. He returns to school after a 6 week summer break more like a pre-borstal Scotish version of Carling (Ray Winstone) from Scum. Quite unbelievable that 6 weeks is all it takes for him to turn to the dark side. On a plus note the acting was solid and I suppose if you were born and bred within that particular environment then the film would have more resonance. Bleak with a heavy dose of realism, this film does not sugar coat life in the Glasgow ghetto.