I'll Sleep When I'm Dead (2004)

Just perfect...

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

I bought this movie solely because of Clive Owen being in it. However, this movie was a swing and a miss, and not even Owen could manage to salvage the pieces of this wreck of a movie.This is essentially a revenge movie, but not a good one, to be bluntly honest.The story is about Will, a former criminal now on the virtuous path to righteousness and a life free of crime. But when his brother is found dead under dire circumstances, Will sheds his newfound life and returns to his former dark past, seeking vengeance upon those whom wronged his brother.The concept idea seems fairly adequate, although generic and something that has been seen numerous times before. However, director Mike Hodges just managed to steer this movie off course and turn it into a very flaccid experience of a movie.The acting was adequate, although the actors and actresses very limited by the script, and it was showing on the screen.And the slow progress of the storyline also really hindered the movie to the point where it was becoming a drag to sit through. And I must admit that I was close to fully giving up on the movie twice, but I managed to stick with it to the very end.Clive Owen couldn't save the movie, nor could Malcolm McDowell.I was bored senseless with "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead", and as such, then this movie scores a meager three out of ten stars.

As an exercise in portraying the low life of London, this film does not offer much that is new and features an array of stock "underworld" characters that, because we have no experience (most of us anyway) of knowing such people, we have to accept that "this is what it must be like". On the other hand it is all very well done and because it is not a documentary but a cinematic entertainment, then that mission has been accomplished pretty well. The production values are good and the direction and editing preserve a dark and menacing mood throughout. The two main standout features of this film that are possibly different from most movies of this genre are (1) the graphic and clinical descriptions of male rape and (2) the surprisingly attractive notion of living a nomadic life in a van, a small space that is currently receiving much media attention here in the UK, being promoted as a desirable and proper thing to do.

This film is a bit like a cheap cowboy book. You know the type I mean. The protagonist discovers his sister has been raped and it takes the whole book for him to find the perpetrator and exercise brutal justice. All very raw and predictable . This has a slight twist in that the cowboy is modern day ex villain, and he has a brother rather than a sister who is raped by a man. The raped brother does a Roman bath thing and there are some grizzly explanations for this.The film then pretends to be moody and at the same time slowly tries to develop character. It fails to do this and all the characters are just as superficial at the end as when they started out. In addition, the whole film lacks pace. The only thing that kept my interest was that I kept asking 'why' throughout and eventually the answers were not very satisfactory. The plot was as I predicted.Having said that the DVD cost me a mere £1 brand new - so I can't complain too much.

Since everyone involved in this... uh.... "movie" is sleepwalking their way through it. Actors, directors, editors, cinematography, lighting, score, it's all just so utterly God-awfully trudging and dull that I had - and I jest not - I had to switch over to a Stephen Seagal film to stay awake.I'd synopsise the plot, but there doesn't appear to be one. I'd critique the acting, but there isn't any. People just stand, or more usually sit, in front of a camera, and read lines from a script without any inflection or passion.Every scene is twice as long as it should be, and three times longer than it needs to be. After the fiftieth long, lingering 'establishing' shot, the tone is established. A competent cinematographer would move to a denouement. Not so here, where we're treated to scene after scene after scene after scene after scene of utterly pointless nothingness, leading to completely irrelevant dross.This is a damp, grimy film, with no purpose other than to BE damp and grimy. It looks like it was shot in the 1970s, for TV. Rampling is a ruin, and casting her as a potential current love interest rather than one from the ancient past is just grotesque.Avoid, unless your idea of fun is to invent meaning and content that simply isn't present in the original footage. Long. Staccato pauses. With nothing. In them. Are. Not evidence. Of hidden. Meaning. Just the. Absence of. Meaning.