All or Nothing (2002)

You won't be disappointed!

Instant Favorite.

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Aside from Naked, I've been left disappointed in Mike Leigh's films and all for the exact same reason – sub plots and sub characters that are more interesting than the main plot & characters but don't get developed and are left as loose ends.This has been a reoccurring theme in the 3 Mike Leigh films I have watched recently (All or Nothing, Meantime and Life Is Sweet). In each case, there are characters and sub plots that come along and start to look interesting but just as they seem to be going somewhere, they are forgotten about as the main characters & storyline take over for about the last 20 minutes and everything else is just left unresolved. I have finished each of these films thinking "why??!" What is even more perplexing is that the sub plots and sub characters are usually more interesting than the main plots & characters. But even if they weren't, it's not very good writing or film making to start a storyline and just leave it mid air. It doesn't make any sense and yet it seems to be a theme in his films.Aside from that, I struggled to enjoy All or Nothing. James Cordon's character was great and interesting, but the remaining 3 family members were dull, weak, mopey and annoyingly subordinate. I found the reconciliation between the wife and husband at the end to be weak and unconvincing.I wish there had been more time spent on the 2 trashy girls who live in the same block of flats. Both them and their families were a lot more interesting.

A distant companion of the rash of late 90s realist urban films set in London estates, along with the likes of Wonderland, Nil by Mouth and Intimacy. Mike Leigh's film starts, roughly speaking, from a position of tense, impecunious stability and simply slides through the misery gears. It's a very difficult, unrelentingly bleak film to watch with no humour (black or otherwise) to leaven the experience.I suspect that the development Leigh has in mind for Phil's family is that they learn to value one another through the events of the film. The issue I have is that they seem unhappily resigned to a situation of mutual, coexistent alienation in the first place. Unlike Leigh's other films, the drama is externally applied rather than coming from one or other of the protagonists. The acting is of a high standard although the actors are, in this light, pawns rather than agents and I find the film consequently weak. 3/10

On a typical council estate in London, several families live in flats within the same complex. Some rely on drink to numb the days and nights, some don't work and do little other than hand around, some flirt to give themselves worth while others stay in abusive relationships for reasons only they can know. Within this world taxi driver Phil lives with his partner Penny, who works the checkout at the local Safeways. Neither of them are very close and their family live is one of quiet non-resistance. Son Rory spends his life on the sofa and is quick to abuse, while sister Rachel works quietly as a cleaner in an old folk's home. Their neighbours and friends live similar lives, with empty relationships and hopelessness seemingly being the norm.At time of writing IMDb has the genre tags "drama" and "comedy" listed for this title which sees them manage to over and underestimate both genres as it has plenty of the former and barely a scene of the latter. Coming as it does from Mike Leigh, nobody will be surprised to find that this film is a gritty look at the lives of a group of people on a London council estate, sharing flats in the same block complex. There isn't really one story for the most part, although in the final third there is one main event that directs the story; for the majority the film just crawls along at a very slow pace observing the characters and their situations. In this regard the film is very well done because it is utterly convincing. This isn't the world of the deprived and the poor but rather the world of the people who work the basic jobs, eat the processed food, watch Corrie, play the lottery and live in the areas avoided by those who can afford to do so. I'm not trying to generalise but this is where the film is set and even those who just see this world as they drive through or shop in Asda, will recognise it. I was engaged by it, not because the story was thrilling but just because of how very real it was.The downside is that the film is unrelentingly bleak and slow. There is hardly an upbeat moment in it and I did think that this damaged the film because such lives do not totally lack pleasure, it is just that the pleasure is perhaps simple; however the only character I felt got this was Maureen. This aspect of the film will frustrate many viewers who cannot find anything that makes them keep watching, however it will also appeal to others who embrace this wonderful realistic film that is not "commercial". The truth is that both camps are partly right because, although it is a stronger film for being so downbeat and convincing, it is also weaker for making this the whole show. Personally speaking though, I thought the positive side of the approach won out over the slow pace and depressing nature of it.The cast mostly rise to the challenge of the material, producing performances that only serve to make the convincing material work better. Spall is good but I did find him to be all a bit too sad-eyed and pathetic. At the start he was perfect but I felt he didn't grow his character and his "revelations" towards the end didn't totally convince. Conversely Manville dominated the film with a character that she totally made her own and developed really well, to me she was the heart and soul of the film. Around these two the rest of the cast have smaller parts but all do good work. Garland and Corden are both good as the children; Sheen is convincing as the "turned out alright" type; Bailey and Jesson do so-so with simple characters that don't get much beyond caricature. Kelly was wonderfully empty and needy while Hawkins got the council estate flirt just right – sexual and feeling powerful but yet vulnerable just below the surface. Coker, Mays, Hunter and others all do just as well with solid characters. For all that it was depressing, I did find myself engaged by the characters – the convincing sense of unfocused anger/frustration in some, the broken and tired nature of others with nothing behind dead eyes, all of them having fleeting moments of honest emotion that are gone as quickly as they come – these are people I know and people I live beside.Overall then, a film that is slow and endlessly bleak and I understand why some viewers have struggled with it. However it is convincing in its direction, writing and delivery by the cast and it is the feeling of reality that engaged me and held me despite of the script failing to find a real sense of humanity below the bleakness of the council estate life.

A drama about the working poor in London highlighting the kinds of problems a lot of people with limited resources face, such as alcoholism, obesity, and teen pregnancies. It takes the viewer down a pretty dismal path but does so in powerful and touching scenes. Timothy Spall, as the taxi driver and father of two overweight adult children, is a complete natural in his performance, looking like he's beaten down, but inside carrying a lot of human warmth that just needs an opportunity to show itself. The film has plenty of drama and courage, giving us the unglamorous characters with the kind of lives that would challenge anyone to locate the positive.