Movie Review
Dead Man’s Shoes

By: Josh Timmermann

Posted 10/10/2006 - 07:17:33 AM by PeteGuy:
 This is up there with that guy's 'The Smith's are shit' review, for waste of space and time. Congrats!
Posted 10/10/2006 - 08:13:04 AM by eldarko:
 You're entitled to your own opinion, of course, but I think your review is a pile of horseshit. This is a great, deep, profound British movie. Not everybody gets it - but if they, don't, they usually don't slate it. Makes you look pretty ignorant. Again, that's just an opinion, of course...
Posted 10/10/2006 - 08:37:56 AM by Defacto:
 Someone who has clearly no intention of understanding what this subtle film is about and instead blithers on inanely about other 'revenge' movies, coming across like some tepid media student. Shane Meadows is a fine director, whilst Paddy Considine is one of the UK's most promising actors - I suggest you watch 'A Room For Romeo Brass'. Not enough credance is given to British independant filmaking, and your pig-ignorant thesis only goes to demonstrate this.
Posted 10/10/2006 - 09:03:08 AM by konatus:
 Did this guy even watch the film? First off, Paddy by no means plays off a one-dimensional character. In fact Paddy is the driving force of the film, he displays a great range of emotion and I found his performance very unsettling. Second, you can't throw in a reference to Kant to try and lend some gravity to a lazy poorly thought out review. Calling it a review is quite generous actually seeing as it appears to be a feeble diatribe against revenge (or revenge movies)itself.
Posted 10/10/2006 - 11:48:22 AM by shady_lanes:
 This is by far and away the most inaccurate review I have seen anywhere in the last 5 years and I have to say it has left me gobsmacked and seriously questioning the intelligence and competency of the reviewer. When I first saw this two years ago it blew me away like nothing else I saw that year and since then I have made it a mini-mission of mine to make as many people as possible see it. Not one person thought it was anything less than stunning and having seen it 3 times now myself I am certain that in time it will be recognised as a masterpiece of tight directing by Meadows (I second the Romeo Brass comment from above) and for Considine's terrifying unhinged portrayal which is nothing short of magnificent and confirms him as one of the greatest actors currently in the business. For anyone who hasnt yet seen this film DO NOT let this review put you off as it is so far wide of the mark as to be laughable.
Posted 10/10/2006 - 01:34:32 PM by murdo2002:
 Shit review. The film is quality. Paddy Considine is quality.
Posted 10/11/2006 - 04:54:17 AM by meatbreak:
 I never usually make comment when I consider a review to be bad, but this is contemptible - it really is the most naïve piece of writing to have graced these pages and demands my response. So Considine is one dimensional, yet you refer to a car chase as one of the most suspenseful moments of the millennium and you say the little brother was bullied and taken advantage of “to some degree”. To some degree?!! Are you fucking numb? Clearly you have never taken LSD or considered it’s effects nor known anyone with learning difficulties, leaving you with no empathetic abilities for the situation. You deign to mention Braveheart in this review for reasons I cannot fathom, exposing your favoured and limited frames of reference to be Hollywood fodder (First Blood, Memento, Shyamalan: pffft. – yet a look at your all time Top Ten says something completely different – I call your bluff; top tens are easy to fabricate, it’s your essaying that reveals you). Perhaps this is why you were hoping for this film to be “quirky and modest”, because the kind of severe mental trauma this film produces is just way too far out of your comfort zone. I expect you consider Irreversible to be nothing more than shallow controversy-courting amateurism too. Let’s just delete this review from the records and give you a clean slate, eh? After all, you did give Dogville an A.
Posted 10/11/2006 - 09:45:50 AM by eldarko:
 I keep coming back to re-read this review. It's so obscenely embarrassing that it's kinda addictive...!
Posted 10/11/2006 - 09:58:17 AM by meatbreak:
 Yup. Less a hatchet-job, more a car-crash.
Posted 10/11/2006 - 02:02:00 PM by shady_lanes:
 Totally with you on the beauty of coming back to re-read this turd of a critique - it has a hypnotic quality of utter ineptitude that simply beggers belief.
Posted 10/12/2006 - 03:22:59 AM by olavbjortomt:
 This review is a bloody disgrace (as Midlands resident Brian Clough would no doubt say). The small town milieu of petty drug dealing criminals has never been better portrayed (I've met a few of those scummy twats) and Paddy Considine has never been more forceful and utterly shit scary. It got to me in a unique way quite unlike the fun tripe that is cited like First Blood. Why did you even bother to review this film? It seems that you couldn't even be arsed in the end.
Posted 10/12/2006 - 05:02:27 AM by eldarko:
 It still makes me laugh whenever I think of the lines: "What's al fresco?" "Al fresco? That's anal, innit?!" Brilliant...
Posted 10/15/2006 - 02:46:52 PM by Hexagon:
 You're a total idiot, Josh.
Posted 10/23/2006 - 09:21:27 AM by meatbreak:
 Hi Josh. Just popped in to say your review compelled me to go buy this film to remind my self of how amazing it is. i watched it yesterday.

Yup. Still amazing. That emotional thumbscrew had me gripped end to end, and probably will again. Thanks for reminding me.