Dead Man's Shoes - 2004 - Streaming on Netflix :: SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board

I haven't written a review in a while. My most honest excuse would be sheer laziness. As I'm not writing any scripts at the moment, I figured I might get back into it (though the link to my latest feature, Left Hand Paths, can be found in my sig... an ungraceful plug, I know).

Dead Man's Shoes doesn't make for a particularly verbose review but it is worth checking out and has surprisingly quite a few accolades attached to it despite being relatively obscure in the States. I imagine most of the Brits here are familiar with it though. Along with Shaun of the Dead and Layer Cake, it seems to have been one of the more noteworthy British films of 2004.

Dead Man's Shoes follows Richard, a man who's just returned from the Army to his hometown. Richard lives in an old farmhouse with his younger, mentally challenged brother, Anthony, who looks up to Richard greatly. During a visit with Anthony to a local bar, Richard has a brief but aggressive encounter with a man playing pool. No physical violence occurs but the two do exchange some harsh words before the man opts to mind his own business.

Later that day, Richard seeks out the man and apologizes for his behavior. The man excepts the apology but is left both perplexed and shaken by the experience and runs off to tell his friends. As it turns out, the man is one of a gang of locals who abused Anthony whilst Richard was away. Not long afterward, a man in a gas mask shows up and subsequently trashes their apartment. After other gang members show up with their faces painted whilst they were asleep, the gang agrees that the man at the bar was Richard and that he is now sending a message. Richard confirms this when the gang confronts him on his own property.

Threats are exchanged and what transpires is a pretty intense revenge film, in which Richard kills each of the gang members one by one.

The plot is pretty straightforward and devoid of any sidetracking. It's essentially split between black-and-white flashbacks of Anthony's abuse and the present gang preparing to strike Richard/waiting for Richard to strike. The film follows this format until the end.

I will say, however, that the structure creates an interesting context to the film which sets it apart from other revenge films. For starters, the film focuses on the gang considerably more than Richard. Richard remains ever the film's driving force but is often in hiding and takes on a ghostly presence throughout the film, especially when the violence starts. His goals are plain but he remains a surprisingly mysterious figure for what is basically the film's protagonist.

Additionally, with the exception of Sonny, the gang's violent leader, the gang members aren't universally prone to violence or intimidation. While many agree to engage Richard with violence, others opt for nonviolent warning or alternate methods of handling the situation. Many of them respond with fear and a desire to let the situation go. In the flashbacks, Sonny subjects Anthony to a particularly sinister brand of humiliation but the actions of the others, while morally reprehensible and without empathy, lack the level of cruelty and maliciousness one would expect from the antagonists of a revenge film.

This leads me into perhaps the film's most interesting trait which is moral ambiguousness. The flashbacks are frequent and detailed. Anthony is goaded into smoking weed and dropping acid by the gang who maintain the illusion that they are Anthony's friends all the while. Sonny punches him in the face and threatens him sexually. It's all quite repugnant and naturally, these guys all deserve a sever ass-kicking.

But do they deserve to be viciously murdered? Anthony is present during the first encounter at the bar but barely reacts when he sees his so-called "friends" at the bar. Afterward, he recounts the scene as "weird" but doesn't think much of it otherwise. There's no "moment" between victim and perpetrator. It suggests that either Anthony has been left unaffected by his past abuse or has simply moved on and thus calls into question whether or not Richard is taking his revenge too far or if he's even of sound mind.

On the other hand, the extent of Anthony's abuse (and thus well being) is also constantly in question. Flashbacks, despite their frequency, occur in short bursts and there is seemingly no build in intensity for the majority of the film. A more violent scene, such as Anthony's encounter with Sonny, can follow with one of nonviolence where it seems like everyone's forgotten. The chronology is vague and one is left wonder whether they're consecutive or if there's events not shown in between.

Finally, Richard's a very easy character to get behind. He constantly puts himself in harm's way. In many instances, he's outnumbered and would surely not make it out of a situation alive should the worst possible circumstances arise. It seems he would not risk his life for nothing. And yet, how much screen time does this guy actually get?

What this all amounts to, essentially, is that the film makes it difficult for one to pick sides. Of course, you can't side with the gang members. That's a given. But is Richard really all that trustworthy considering the severity of his actions? Is director Shane Meadows trustworthy? Are you shown enough to make a judgment call or is there something being kept in the shadows?

I don't want to say much about the ending other than I felt the film ended the way it was supposed to. Good? Bad? I won't say. You'll have to see it.

Anyway, I thought the film was excellent all around. The acting is surprisingly top notch for what appears to be a very low budget film. The plot is simple and easy to follow and yet seems to have many facets to it. And it all wraps up in a very apropos fashion.

Highly recommend.

NOTE: I won't be posting any trailer for this because I found the ones I watched to contain moderately significant spoilers. Better to go in fresh.