It's kinda shocking to see the reviews and the reception this got. Good reviews and reception, yes, but in comparison to Mike Leigh's other 2000s work, it's sort of surprising. Not sure why though, although I guess there's less of a clear narrative to go from here, certainly unlike something like Vera Drake. The performances from mike Leigh's regular, recurring cast are great. It's nice to see timothy Spall and Lesley Manville doing some strong work together. The film is well-done in every respect as well, never really calling attention to itself in any way and allowing the events of the plot, of these characters' lives, to transpire organically and naturally. This is definitely recommended to his fans

A distant companion of the rash of late 90s realist urban films set in London estates, along with the likes of Wonderland, Nil by Mouth and Intimacy. Mike Leigh's film starts, roughly speaking, from a position of tense, impecunious stability and simply slides through the misery gears. It's a very difficult, unrelentingly bleak film to watch with no humour (black or otherwise) to leaven the experience.I suspect that the development Leigh has in mind for Phil's family is that they learn to value one another through the events of the film. The issue I have is that they seem unhappily resigned to a situation of mutual, coexistent alienation in the first place. Unlike Leigh's other films, the drama is externally applied rather than coming from one or other of the protagonists. The acting is of a high standard although the actors are, in this light, pawns rather than agents and I find the film consequently weak. 3/10

On a typical council estate in London, several families live in flats within the same complex. Some rely on drink to numb the days and nights, some don't work and do little other than hand around, some flirt to give themselves worth while others stay in abusive relationships for reasons only they can know. Within this world taxi driver Phil lives with his partner Penny, who works the checkout at the local Safeways. Neither of them are very close and their family live is one of quiet non-resistance. Son Rory spends his life on the sofa and is quick to abuse, while sister Rachel works quietly as a cleaner in an old folk's home. Their neighbours and friends live similar lives, with empty relationships and hopelessness seemingly being the norm.At time of writing IMDb has the genre tags "drama" and "comedy" listed for this title which sees them manage to over and underestimate both genres as it has plenty of the former and barely a scene of the latter. Coming as it does from Mike Leigh, nobody will be surprised to find that this film is a gritty look at the lives of a group of people on a London council estate, sharing flats in the same block complex. There isn't really one story for the most part, although in the final third there is one main event that directs the story; for the majority the film just crawls along at a very slow pace observing the characters and their situations. In this regard the film is very well done because it is utterly convincing. This isn't the world of the deprived and the poor but rather the world of the people who work the basic jobs, eat the processed food, watch Corrie, play the lottery and live in the areas avoided by those who can afford to do so. I'm not trying to generalise but this is where the film is set and even those who just see this world as they drive through or shop in Asda, will recognise it. I was engaged by it, not because the story was thrilling but just because of how very real it was.The downside is that the film is unrelentingly bleak and slow. There is hardly an upbeat moment in it and I did think that this damaged the film because such lives do not totally lack pleasure, it is just that the pleasure is perhaps simple; however the only character I felt got this was Maureen. This aspect of the film will frustrate many viewers who cannot find anything that makes them keep watching, however it will also appeal to others who embrace this wonderful realistic film that is not "commercial". The truth is that both camps are partly right because, although it is a stronger film for being so downbeat and convincing, it is also weaker for making this the whole show. Personally speaking though, I thought the positive side of the approach won out over the slow pace and depressing nature of it.The cast mostly rise to the challenge of the material, producing performances that only serve to make the convincing material work better. Spall is good but I did find him to be all a bit too sad-eyed and pathetic. At the start he was perfect but I felt he didn't grow his character and his "revelations" towards the end didn't totally convince. Conversely Manville dominated the film with a character that she totally made her own and developed really well, to me she was the heart and soul of the film. Around these two the rest of the cast have smaller parts but all do good work. Garland and Corden are both good as the children; Sheen is convincing as the "turned out alright" type; Bailey and Jesson do so-so with simple characters that don't get much beyond caricature. Kelly was wonderfully empty and needy while Hawkins got the council estate flirt just right – sexual and feeling powerful but yet vulnerable just below the surface. Coker, Mays, Hunter and others all do just as well with solid characters. For all that it was depressing, I did find myself engaged by the characters – the convincing sense of unfocused anger/frustration in some, the broken and tired nature of others with nothing behind dead eyes, all of them having fleeting moments of honest emotion that are gone as quickly as they come – these are people I know and people I live beside.Overall then, a film that is slow and endlessly bleak and I understand why some viewers have struggled with it. However it is convincing in its direction, writing and delivery by the cast and it is the feeling of reality that engaged me and held me despite of the script failing to find a real sense of humanity below the bleakness of the council estate life.

I don't know who Mike Leigh is, nor do I care. This movie SUCKS! unless you're a British "council estate" resident, whatever that is. I want to see a movie to "escape from reality" so to speak, rather than be assaulted by depressive, pseudo-normal residents of this English slum. If this is "entertainment" (which is why I see movies), I choose not to be entertained. God, what an ordeal to sit through this entire movie!Hey, Leigh, get in the documentary business, if this is the kind of crap you're trying to pawn off on the viewing public as "entertainment."I was not entertained in the least. I only felt deep sorrow for your characters, and did not have the feeling I should have when leaving the theater in which I first saw it. I want to leave feeling "good," or at least "happy," so if your intent was to leave me miserable, you succeeded.Perhaps you accomplished what you meant to achieve when I left the movie house, but I guarantee you I will never watch another movie with your name associated with it, for I don't wish to spend my diversionary time experiencing the emotions I did after watching this boring piece of crap.I assume your are of the English (meaning England) descent, as I doubt Americans will enjoy this depressive piece of English tripe. Do us all a favor, and remain on your side of "the pond." Thanks.