Ratcatcher (2021)

I wanted to but couldn't!

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Grim social dramas and kitchen sink dramas are a stable of the British film industry. There are ever present in some form or another and Ratcatcher served as Lynne Ramsay's directional debut.In a rough housing estate in Glasgow in the 1970s James Gillespie (William Eadie) is a 12-year-old boy who accidentally kills another boy during a fight. Despite his guilt James hopes his family can move to a new housing estate and way from the urban decay and poverty of his home area as rubbish builds up on the street. During the course of the film James befriends an older girl, Margaret (Leanne Mullen), who is used as a sex toy for a gang of local thugs, sees the anti-social behaviour and social deprivation of the area.Ratcatcher is certainly a grim film as we see the world of urban poverty, whilst Ramsay also adds some artistic flashes. Ratcatcher is an art-house film that film scholars would eagerly dissects every scene and shot with glee. But as a story there is no real narrative throughline, as elements are more loosely connected. There are obvious themes about a young boy coming-of-age, losing his innocents in a number of ways, his sexual awakening and wider themes about urban decay, social commentary about ignored estates and how authority is distrusted as we see it through a child's eyes.There are many story lines that could easily have worked as their own films, whether it is a whole story of a young boy trying to hide what he did whilst also struggling alone with his guilt, or a film about why Margaret is abused and the impact on the girl or even seeing more through the boy's eyes.Ratcatcher is a very well-acted film with the young cast and Ramsay does not shy away from the more controversial aspects of the film. Ramsay does showcase a very cruel environment that is tough to watch (and it meant to be). Ramsay also has more dreamy quality to some of her scenes and shots, such as when James is running in a field. But there is a sequence with a mouse floating when tied to a balloon which was really out of place.Ratcatcher is a solid debut film from Ramsay, but it is a film that is lacking a real story or drive. There are better films with this type of setting and have more of a story, including the Glasgow set Red Road.

(Spoilers) This is the story of a few weeks in the life of twelve-year-old James. The setting is Glasgow in 1973, toward the end of a nine week garbage collector's strike. James lives with his two sisters and parents in a lower-class neighborhood. I would say that James' family was working class, but I could never tell whether his father had a job--his main interests seemed to be drinking and watching television. The rat-infested bags of garbage lining the streets is a good backdrop to punctuate the squalor that James has been born into.James has no male friends to speak of, but he does take up with Margaret, a young girl who is used by the local boys for sexual escapades. I found the extreme realism worked against the movie in many ways. Given James' bleak environment, it is no wonder that his emotional dexterity had been checked. As James, William Eadie effects a remoteness that is believable, but a remoteness that kept me at a distance from connecting with him.There is a little relief offered from the downbeat story line. There is a scene that has James taking a bath with Margaret where the two are enjoying themselves in non-sexual playfulness. On occasion James goes to the outskirts of town to visit a housing project under construction. Beyond the project is an open wheat field that James runs through in a state of ecstasy, delighting in having escaped the claustrophobia of his life in the city. These scenes are effectively filmed to give testament to James' desires for freedom and a better life, desires that his fate will prevent.I give the movie credit for style--the colors and music help with providing emotional content for the episodes. Unfortunately the emotional content was predominantly depressing. I ask myself what I am to take away from a movie like this. I can appreciate the artistry of the presentation, but any further value is hard to come by. I know that poverty exists and lots of people are living dead end lives trapped in miserable situations, so I don't get any better understanding of that. Is a movie like this a plea for some action to be taken to provide more opportunity for such people? Are state-funded housing complexes part of a solution, as hinted at here? I think that if James' family were to get into one of the housing units, they would simply be situating their problems in a better environment. The grim ending shows that director Ramsay is playing this for real, but it's a reality that left me with a sense of hopelessness.

All the praise heaped on this film puzzles me. I found the cinematography to be beautiful, but the storyline, once established, droned on and on with no end in sight. That might have been the point, however. One positive is although it contains the stereotypical drunk father, at least he wasn't physically abusive. You are left with a general sense of pity for many of the characters, but the mood is passive. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be appalled by the poverty or accepting of it. I think the director failed to connect the characters, and in turn kept the audience from connecting. The ending was a leaden mishmash of fantasy and overt symbolism. Not recommended. I understand that this film is semi-biographical, but I felt left out in the cold.

i saw this film last night on criterion and couldn't help but notice it's curious similarities with David Gordon green's highly inventive but slightly over-rated "george Washington". Terrence Alick has indeed casted a very long shadow on today's young film-makers. the key for them is to, like Terrence Malick, devoid their films of intellectual and emotional pornography. similar to works of Terrence Alick and other 70's filmmakers in general, this film is just another one of the films that are adding on resurgence of 70's type personal cinema (and my favorite type at that, the slow and lyrical films devoid of over-bearing plot). i think Lynne Ramsay has been in some ways been unfairly overlooked by critics. but she is going to go far, you can just tell with some people. for those who liked this might wanna check out: anything by Terrence Malick, David Gordon green, Kim Ki-duk, Errol morris, Hans Petter Moland, "the return" by Andrei Zvyagintsev and classic McCabe and Mrs. miller.i'm sure i'm missing a lot of names but these film explore in someways similar narrative style.