Daanish Hussain to start id have to say this is a good film and knowing the conditions under which it was made with little money and in a short space of time i think that the team behind it have done a good job. i do however have a few criticisms one thing that i don't like is the lack of emphasis upon Heatons homosexuality and his feelings towards spike. i think that if it had been made more obvious to the viewer we could have understood his despair and his mixed emotions towards spike better. another thing i didn't like was how the film seemed to lose itself at times not carrying the momentum it started with. this was a bit distracting and removed me out of the experience at times. there were points were the emotion's that the audience were meant to feel weren't made very clear and it was neither laid out or open to interpretation for example the scene were the girl is shot builds tension but then the father lets out a comedic scream which ruins the work before it.overall a good film but i think more time might have helped this picture to become something more. it was however never going to have mainstream appeal with the underlying sub contexts that may have struggled to make an impact on modern audience's. i do not think that it was meant for mainstream cinema anyway so in a way that is understandable, its a shame it wont reach a wider audience but its flaws would stop it from box office success anyway.

rachel-emma This is a film that the mainstream market will probably never be able to access as it doesn't exactly give the viewer easy watching. The story about troubled Spike and his friend Heaton is not exactly a Friday night film yet it has its own unique edge and I found that it was entertaining. There are moments of brilliance given that the film was shot on such a low budget, such as when Spike inhales the aerosol. However I did not really understand the relationship between Spike and Heaton and to be honest it made me spend most of the film trying to work it out. And also I did not like the fact that most of the film is spent with the two friends talking and not really much "action". It is a small film that is complex to watch and that is what makes it appealing.

JoeytheBrit This is quite an intense character study of two men under extreme stress, centred around the concept of loyalty, that grows increasingly absorbing as it unfolds even if it doesn't quite have the depth that writer Simon Beaufroy (writer of The Full Monty) may have been seeking.First impressions weren't good as director Bille Eltringham seems intent on throwing every film-school technique he can think of at the screen. These distracting attempts to add some artistic merit to what is a fairly basic story come and go and, for the most part they are just that – distracting – but when they do work they do so extremely well. The idea of fixing the camera to the end of the shotgun wielded by the child-like Spike (Michael Colgan) works brilliantly, giving the impression that it is the weapon that is controlling the man and also emphasising the fear and confusion of the moment. But the use of blurry PoV shots as the men flee their pursuers is just annoying.Kenny Glanaan plays Heaton, a small-time criminal who collects his friend Spike from prison after a four month sentence. We are given no further information about the two men, other than the fact that Heaton hasn't visited Spike during his sentence, and has written him numerous letters without sending them. From this slender premise a story can wither and die or it can bloom, and fortunately this one blooms, helped immeasurably by terrific acting from the two leads and Eltringham/Beaufroy's success in refusing to allow the story to degenerate into some kind of men-on-the-run action flick. Spike and Heaton aren't hardened criminals, they're the pettiest of criminals, and they're traumatised by their accidental murder of a girl and the subsequent pursuit by a stubbornly determined band of locals (perhaps the film's weakest point is the way the police seem to simply melt into the background without explanation). Early in the film, the two men are often shown in extreme close-up, or are confined to one section of the screen by objects around them, and at this point they are confident and self-assured; it's only when they are out in the wide open spaces ('Is this the countryside?' asks Spike) that their confidence evaporates. It's a nice contrast, this idea that the wider the spaces, the closer the net is tightening around them.The film concludes with a moment of quiet, sublime horror that is incredibly powerful (and vaguely reminiscent of moments in Shane Meadows' Dead Man's Shoes), and a twist that, on it's simplest level represents both the reward for loyalty and the character traits necessary to adhere to its reality.

theo4isobelle I managed to go and see this film at a local university cinema, and I took my mother (not the worlds greatest film connoisseur!) to see it. Result? We both loved it. I appreciated the narrative, disturbing ending and experimental camera work. My mum loved the characters and loved making the links for herself. It was a heavy weight to carry for such a small cast and such a small location, but it didn't need the fancy thrills and special effects of Hollywood. This film stood up entirely on it's own as an entertaining and gripping piece, with a title I adored. After all, that was the reason I wanted to see it (not that I'm superficial)