Steve Archer OK first up. This film is clearly REALLY LOW BUDGET and I see from the credits of the director it's his first film and was made from a previous short film he made some years before. So going from a short to a feature is clearly a MASSIVE step up and over all I felt he did a pretty good job all being considered. Clearly having a bigger budget would have helped this film as they could have added more action, bigger named actors and better locations/extras, sound track and stunts etc. The DP has done a great job on this as it really helped the film feel edgy, dirty and the low budget feel really helped make it feel like a nasty bleak world! We are all going to Hoxton/Dalston darling!" this film ain't! :-) I personally thought the casting of Jamie Foreman was a master stroke as His dad used to be a real Hackney gangster and was in fact a hit man for the Krays for some years and KILLED A FAIR FEW PEOPLE FOR THEM. Foreman therefore lent the film a greater feel of realism than going for just another east end bad guy boss like other crime films have done. It was also a interesting part for Danny John Jules and bar his deleted extras scene in "Lock Stock" I haven't really seen him play that kind of role before or anything of that kind of low budget nature so I guess he and Foreman must have really seen something different in the realness of the script like for example Bobbie owing Foreman only £10k rather than say £250k which is more of a movie sum of money to kill someone over. In fact the fact he beat him to death himself for such a small sum of money was really shocking for me but again set up this kind of harsh and bleak, true London world. The movie does have it's flaws though it has to be said! There are far too many roles in the film (the cast seems pretty massive), there are clearly not enough extras in the night club which either means it was a real dive of a club or the film just didn't have enough money to really fill out the club scenes properly as they must have all cost money. A bit of both I would have thought. The trance music score wasn't really to my tast either but then I'm no trance fan so that's hard to judge the movie down for that one. Also the club scenes should have been edited a bit more as they did go on a bit. All in all I felt the director did a very good job on his first movie with room for improvement moving forward for future films. The Grind was a very gritty, real and hard depiction of a quickly changing part of the east end. This movie deserves it's place in the collection of gritty realistic low budget crime films. A pretty good job!

anxietyresister Folks, welcome to amateur hour. How anybody who read this script, worked on set or even served tea at the cafeteria kept a straight face is beyond me. You could fill volumes of the Encyclopedia Britainnica listing the myriad of faults here, but let me have a stab:1. There is a nightclub that plays the same two rubbish house tunes throughout, but no-one inside complains, in fact they all dance EXACTLY the same way. Often, there are large stretches with no dialogue, just the camera panning around this dive and somehow always ending up focusing on a blonde girl. Did she sleep with the director to get so much attention?2. The thrust of the plot is of this dude owing money to some boss man, who must be the least intimidating heavy ever. Look at him on the front cover, with his little short arse and the constipated expression on his face. Yet somehow, instead of crushing him underfoot, everyone is terrified of him. Did the 6ft 5 ex-boxer fail to turn up to auditions, so they were forced to use this hobbit?3. There is a scene here when the dude that owes money returns to his flat to find they've smashed up one of his rooms, including sprayed graffiti on the wall (OHH NOO)!! His wheelchair bound mother stumbles on the wreckage first, when she promptly has a heart attack. We then see him again later on in the same room, holding onto a shard of glass until blood drips down his hand. This might not sound like much, but the way it unfurls on screen is absolutely hilarious, especially with the 'tragic' music in the background.4. The dude that owes money works at a generic store. To get the dosh, he decides to rob the safe. He enlists the help of his mate who works at the aforementioned nightclub, who says no. Later on, his mate has a change of heart, and turns up just as the dude's robbery is going belly-up. His mate grabs the gun to let the dude escape, and when the police turn up, pretends he was the one who committed the offense. This is seen as a 'noble sacrifice' in the context of the film. Only problem is, EVERYONE in the store has already seen the dude waving the gun around, so he has no chance of getting away with it. OOPS.5. Danny John-Jules? SERIOUSLY? You couldn't wait a year to start making the new series of Red Dwarf? You had to embarrass yourself, your family, your pets etc till the end of time by agreeing to star in this atrocity? For Shame. FOR SHAME.Basically, it would have been a lot better if everyone had gone home, the script was thrown in the nearest furnace and the £500 budget was donated to charidee. After all, it's not too long to Children In Need... 1/10

Roxanne Knight First of all ignore the negative reviews. There are technical issues with the film, but the storyline is fine! The film revolves around Bobby and his debts to an East End gangster, Dave, played by Jamie Foreman, currently in EastEnders as Derek Branning. I felt Jamie Foreman came across well as the ruthless gangster who demands his debt is paid or else. Much in the liking of his father working along side the Krays brothers in the 60's. The urban feel of the movie came across well in terms of the dialogue and the cinematography. Clearly the Director is a fan of Nil by Mouth. My favourite bit was the overdose on the dancefloor and the dance music suited it well. It could have been edited like a music video, but clearly the slow motion scenes were there to to tell a story and not a 3 minute pop video. The story was clearly defined and the performances could have been better, especially from the co- lead,it was clear to see it was one of his first performances. It also had a very non-Hollywood ending which I wasn't expecting, I guess that was why Jamie Foreman wanted to play the role of Dave. Overall not a bad attempt at a first feature film and I look forward to see what the director does next!

BigBlaster123 I was looking forward to watching The Grind. Having been a fan of Jamie Foreman for years, and his fantastic turn in EastEnders over the last 6 months, this film looked interesting.And was it any good? It was pretty good for a low budget film, to be fair. The story of a couple of mates, with one owing money to the other's boss is a familiar line. Martin Scorsese did this with Mean Streets nearly 30 years ago. But it works here in the Hackney setting. Performances range from very good to poor. Stand outs are Foreman and Danny John-Jules (Cat from Red Dwarf) Production values are good - visually it holds well, having gone for the gritty street realism of Nil By Mouth and Fish Tank. You can see the angle the Director had gone for in presenting a urban, street level feel.The problems are fairly easy to point at. The female characters are underused. The Vince character isn't great, it would have been better to have focused solely on the main character Bobby. And some of the dance scenes go on a bit, so if you like trance, that's great, but otherwise...Having said that, the pluses are there. The director has a strong visual sense, the locations are reminders of what many Londoners live through outside of the glare of the media. Jamie Foreman is at his most serious best, in fact his best performance in years. The story and dialogue is good. So it's a bit hit and miss, but worth a watch, even just to see Danny John-Jules and Jamie Foreman in strong performances, and the evocative settings and visuals. And it's a whole lot better than some of the British dross out there.