16 Years of Alcohol

2003 "Trainspotting meets A Clockwork Orange"
16 Years of Alcohol
6.2| 1h42m| en| More Info
Released: 01 October 2003 Released
Producted By: Tartan Works Ltd.
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

16 Years of Alcohol is a 2003 drama film written and directed by Richard Jobson, based on his 1987 novel. The film is Jobson's first directorial effort, following a career as a television presenter on BSkyB and VH-1, and as the vocalist for the 1970s punk rock band The Skids.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Tartan Works Ltd.

Trailers & Images

Reviews

bastard wisher I really loved this, even though I guess I have to admit on some level it had quite a few flaws. It was very much in the tradition of British "Angry Young Man" films, but at the same time clearly infused with a lot of influence from Wong Kar-Wai and Terrence Malick. Considering how I love each of those styles very much, it was really no surprise that I dug this quite a bit. Sure, the overtly "poetic" voice-over narration wasn't pulled off quite as well as when Malick does it (but then again, who else does?) and considering this film was shot on digital video it couldn't hope to capture Wong Kar-Wai's lush visuals (although, that said, it is easily one of the best looking digital productions I have ever seen, looking almost completely film-like most of the time, and in 2.35 aspect ratio at that), but it really overall held up amazingly well. I would be lying if I said the film wasn't at times blatantly indulgent in the way that only debut films can be, but the indulgence never seemed too contrived, but rather oddly enduring. The director obviously put his heart and soul, every idea he had, into this film, and it shows in a good way, even if the results are sometimes slightly clunky. In another context, some parts would theoretically have played very badly, but here I more just find myself admiring the director's sheer obvious ambition and passion for what is clearly an extremely personal work (it is based on the director's own autobiographical novel-length tone-poem, apparently), so much that he is almost entitled to any indulgence he feels like including. Apart from the cinematography (which really is of the level that any digital film should hope to aspire), I also really thought the soundtrack was very well-done. Clearly it was one of these situations where the director carefully chose each song and incorporated them into the scenes, in a way that makes them integral to the film. Not only is the music good, but the way it is used adds to the overall feeling that you are watching one person's meticulous creation, that the film is something extremely personal, and not only that, but that the director knows exactly what he wants to achieve. That alone is more than I can say for a lot of films, so despite it's occasional hackneyed indulgence, I overwhelmingly respect this film and it's director for, if not avoiding all the pitfalls of an extremely personal passion project, than at least indulging himself exactly the way he wants to and doing it well.
vdg I really don't understand how come some people trash this movie! There is nothing wrong with: the acting is quite good, the direction is quite fresh, the music rules and the story is reasonably good.Yes, there are same scenes taken from Kubrick's work and the whole story is NOT original, but the setting in Scotland's capital is quite nice. I was pleasantly surprised by the actors,quite natural acting helped probably by a story that is very familiar to some of them:)Overall this film is well worth it and would expand your horizon of good European movies.A well deserved 7/10.
stensson One can't say that Scottish films about the 70s come to often, but this is one time too many. Kevin McKidd does the Edinburghian skinhead, who can't fight his past (or maybe that is what he actually does, beating people up). The past is a father who cheats on his mother and the son who never really get involved, never takes part in anything.He is somewhat rehabilitated, or is he really? There is an intellectual narrator voice here in contrast to the violent acting of McKidd. Everything becomes too obvious, but that doesn't make things easier to understand.A failure and only halfway interesting.
reflectionsvideo If I gave out Oscars, this film would collect them all !If I was nitpicking, I would say the dialogue was the best part ( but only by a little)I wonder if it will be as good on the second viewing ? Maybe I won't watch it again, cos it was so perfect !!Ian.p.s. whats this crap about minimum 10 lines ????Should I pad it out with nonsense ?? Should I go on about the beautiful soundtrack ? Shouls I go on about the wonderful camera work ? what a hassle to post a comment !!!!