Q: Green Street, as it was called in the UK, or Hooligans is a bad film. The story is full of fantastical ideas and premises that anyone who lives in England, has been to a football match or knows the first thing about football will spot immediately.

My first main gripe with Hooligans is the poor casting of the two main characters. Don't get me wrong, I like Elijah Wood and have a great respect for his work, but despite his best efforts he struggled to pull off this role. The main motivation for his character is anger at the system and anger at betrayal, however he spends much of the film placid and cheery, only displaying his pent up aggression in one brief scene towards the end of the film. This linked with his looks and physique make him a thoroughly unconvincing addition to a gang of football hooligans. At no point during the film was I convinced that a) he could handle himself in a fight against such thugs and b) the 'firm' of thugs would accept such a person into their fold.

The other main character is played by Charlie Hunnam. Charlie looks the part, and is fairly convincing as a thug. Unfortunately, being a native of Newcastle Upon Tyne in the North of England, he demonstrates the worst East London accent since Dick Van Dyke tried to go cock-en-y in Marry Poppins. Details such as this probably will not bother an American audience who will be less attuned to regional dialect in the UK, but being from the UK it was a problem I couldn't ignore and it contributed to ruining the movie for me. The supporting cast all gave convincing performances and were well cast, especially the role of Bover. The lad playing this character would have been much more suited to the main role that Charlie played. With a film like this, you have to convince the audience that your characters are plausible, unfortunately, the casting failed. Imagine if you made a film like The Godfather and had Sean Hayes (Jack) from Will and Grace playing Michael Corleone's part. You would not be convinced. The story in Hooligan is also full in implausibilities. I am no football Hooligan, but I am a fantatical football fan. I know how cliquey a group of 'regular' football supporters can be, as such it deem it impossible for a non-football fan, who is not a fan of the club in question, is not from the area in question and not even of English nationality to be embraced by a 'firm' who equate to a secret organisation in some severe cases. My final, and biggest, problem with this film, is the way it portrays football hooligans. I take objection to the film's idea that despite being very violent individuals, hooligans are excused as they live by some sort of code of ethics in their own world and should be admired for being brave and loyal to each other. This is complete rubbish. Football hooligans are complete scum. They take football, the national sport of England and use it as an excuse to terrorise, frighten and intimidate people. They only represent a tiny percentage of football fans but give the whole game and people of this country a bad reputation. They are not brave or loyal, they are cowardly and evil. If the 'GSE' in this film truly loved their club, West Ham, why would the devote their lives to being a stain on its name. Hooligans are an embarrassment to football and to English society. Football hooligans do for the reputation of football what Hitler did to the reputation of Germans. Although this film tries/intends to show the 'gritty' side of football violence. It does nothing more than promote it as some kind of excusable activity for extreme fans of the sport. It does not show the poor innocent by-standers at football matches who have their day ruined by some idiot throwing coins/lighters/glass into the crowd. It does not show the innocent home and property owners who have to put up with graffiti and broken windows. It does not show the REAL fans of football clubs who suffer indignity and embarrassment when their teams supporters are banned from travelling to away matches or abroad to European games because the thugs among them ruin it for everyone. If you want to see a good film about football violence, watch the BBC drama 'The Firm'.
A: negative
Q: The plot is straightforward an old man living off a main road in woodland one day witnesses a man murdering a child in the woods. Soft For Digging follows the old man's attempts to try and convince the police that what he saw was not a figment of his imagination. However, there is a problem each time the old man guides the police to where the murder happen no corpse can be found. Soft For Digging has a diminutive dialogue which reflects the majority of the scenes of the film, an old man living by himself in a house. During the film I found that I was scared twice namely when the murdered child abruptly appears before the old man. The rest of the film I have to admit did not engage me; I found the tempo of the film a little too slow. The limited dialogue was not a problem. However, the development of the story and its conclusions, after watching the film, took too long. I feel more could have been made of the relationship, ghostly encounters, with the child and the old man. Alone in the woods at night unsure of your own mind can lead to some eerie situations, children are always scary as ghosts, see Dark Water.
A: negative
Q: While the soundtrack is a bit dated, this story is more relevant in the U.S. now more than ever. With not only blue collar jobs but everyone's jobs being outsourced by U.S. corporations while the government profits and American suffer.

Peter Strauss is Emory, a steel worker who works the same job his father did for 35 years. His wife is well-portrayed by Pamela Reed, who is very realistic, trying to support the family with two children when Emory loses his job. The mill is closed under the pretext of mismanagement, but there is also embezzlement and cheaper wages where they can pay one steelworker in one month (outsourcing) what they would have to pay Strauss/Emory in a day. Never mind that these men are all good loyal workers who have values and try the best for their family.

John Goodman, Gary Cole (as Strauss' brother) and a few other co-workers are also affected. It is very disturbing and realistic. Some scenes between Emory and his father are moving. Emory hopes his local union will be able to re-open the mill, as they promise to do so.

Emory's brother, Lee already sees the writing on the wall. There are no jobs left in the rust-belt (Ohio) and they must move on. However where in the U.S. can they move to?. Where will it be better for a blue-collar steel worker?.

There is a triumphant scene at the end where Emory and his crew fill the loading dock with steel products. The guard allows them to do this as a final gesture, one of the men committed suicide and he has empathy.

Overall, a good message film about hard times right here in America. Something that few care to face until personally affected. 8/10.
A: positive
Q: Below average movie with poor music considering a movie based on music??? Ordinary Script & Direction with full of blunders. Salman Khan was at his usual acting. Ajay's performance deteriorating with time as his looks,especially his styles as a Rock Star were pathetic. Asin was just a showpiece only. Overall I felt like wasting my money in cinema. Salman Khan remains as immature as 10 years ago compared to Aamir Khan. There were many songs in the movie all boring except "Man Ko Ati". The Most Important Song to impress the UK Music Sponsor was most unimpressive. "Khanabadosh" can be very easily understood by an English Music Sponsor. The other movie I saw last week was "Wake Up Sid" which was simple slow love story with good direction & acting despite average music
A: negative