Jazzy31133 I feel that, like most people, I have begun to rely on user reviews much more than so called "critic" reviews. Before the internet, we were all kind of beholden to what the experts said and many times the reviews were misleading. Large blockbusters were typically panned, and slow indie dramas were universally acclaimed. The reviews were filled with fancy and unnecessary adjectives and never really told us what type of audience would enjoy the movie. And for the most part, user reviews and ratings are much more accurate for whatever reason. So I was a little surprised at the great reviews and nearly a 7 rating this movie has been getting. I think a 5 / 10 is much more appropriate.For me, this movie was much closer to an amateur film, than an indie film. The other reviews and rating led me to believe that the film would be closer the Guvnors, We Still Kill the Old Way, the Sweeny or Football Factory. Violent films of the British underworld that are solid and have respectable acting, but never get to the "classic" level of Lock, Stock or Snatch. These movies are entertaining and keep you engaged, but never achieve the level of your favorites.Anti-social did not deliver based on the other user reviews and its high rating. I try to give films the benefit of the doubt and maybe I am being harsh because of what I expected, but for me this movie would be a pass. The acting is rather stilted and contrived. I have not researched the actors who play the two main brothers, but I have to believe that they are not seasoned actors. The actions scenes were not nearly gritty enough and cut away right when the actual hit would take place. And the ending left me unsatisfied, although I kept hoping for a realistic close.I feel as though the movie suffered from a very small budget and was annoyed the reviews did not prepare me for this. If you do give this movie a try, expect more of a low budget made for TV film, rather than a B movie on teenage gangsters.

kasperdyrendal I will start by saying that I see a lot of movies. So many movies that I always check the description on IMDb and the score. Then I also watch the reviews to see what other people think. There were only two other reviews and they were pretty much bad reviews. But it does have a score of 6 and I could not find another movie to watch. So I thought "I will just give it a try" and I am glad I did! This is a good movie! I don't know what the other two people were expecting from this, but maybe something like "Snatch" as one of the other reviewers compared it to this. I, however, think it's more like "The Town" with Ben Affleck and Jeremy Renner. There are two brothers. They have a really good relationship but they aren't alike. One is really into art "grafitti" and the other is in a gang of four people. The gang rob jewelries and we also see them use guns sometimes. But even though the two brothers have separated lives, their paths still cross as they want to help each other any way they can. I won't give any spoilers and therefor I won't say anymore about the storyline. The acting is great. The camera works great as well. Everyone does a good job. I did not find anything wrong with the ending. We are told everything we need to know. We also see a bit more after the credits have begun - so don't stop the movie right away when the credits begin ;) I give this movie 10 stars out of 10. Don't hesitate to watch it and if my review isn't enough to persuade you, then watch the trailer or something and just give it a go :) You will know from the beginning if this is not a movie for you :)

ericnottelling This movie is a real hard attempt to gain a pop following. The problem is it's done so cheesy it's hard to like it and most certainly will never obtain the kind of fandom a movie like snatch obtained. It starts out in one of the beginning scenes where they are being chased for spray painting a wall and they light the smallest most worthless fire and the guards chasing them stop to put out the smallest fire that has no possibility of growing as it's nothing more than a few sheets of newspaper. At the same time they show this robbery that is so unbelievable it's hard to take it seriously. The opening scene basically shows how poorly put together this movie is. I know, it wants to be Hollywood and anything can happen, but even a Hollywood writer knows better than to add something that lame. At least in Hollywood they would have magically created a real fire to slow down the guards instead of a fire the equivalent of the comics section because frankly the lameness of it made me laugh and say OK that was bad. I am surprised I made it all the way through the movie as frankly the movie was boring, totally unrealistic, filled with clichés, had poor dialog and bad acting. Even the supposedly artistic scenes in the movie are simply uninteresting as they try to make this kid out to be the next banksy with his stencil "street art" that seems as bland as can be. As he is instantly having all his pieces preserved. You become bored in the dialog written by people who don't really know street art because they have never done it trying to sound "deep" in talking about it. I assure you if his works were being preserved it's because they are already worth massive value. Yet he can't seem to make a dime and needs a sponsor to you know help him make money. Logic really starts to fall apart at the end of the movie but i'm not going to spoil it. I gave this move a 5 which frankly is being generous. A lot of effort into a poor script that was badly acted out. There are much better movies to watch and this is 2 hours you won't ever get back.

wrightiswright Anti Social is a rather stupid, inconsequential British film which laughably tries to be 'cool' and 'hard', but just ends up being a bit sad. Despite being far too long at 110 minutes, when it ends there are still more questions than answers... A sure sign of a screenplay where scenes integral to the plot were omitted, and pointless filler which could have been excised to great loss were left in. A mildly diverting couple of shoot-outs and a decent central performance by Gregg Sulkin do not make this posturing ode to violence on the streets of London worth sitting through.Sulkin plays Dee, a stubbly graffiti artist who spends his nights daubing the streets illegally with his artwork. He has an annoying American model girlfriend, and has just been offered a scholarship in Berlin where he can practice his skills in a more productive environment. Alas, his older brother is in with a bad lot... A bunch of hardened criminals who hold up jewellers for a living... And they have a big score planned worth millions. But when Dee's brother gets injured due to a long standing feud between a rival group, the artist himself must take his sibling's place during the heist... And he has no criminal experience whatsoever...In all sounds so simple, doesn't it? But what the above description doesn't cover is the amount of minutes wasted by various unimportant characters meeting up, engaging in boring conversations that serve no purpose to the proceedings, using street lingo that feels as authentic as Pamela Anderson's breasts. I bet you my last Rolo that any half-decent writer could have condensed these events into one episode of the not-really-missed police serial The Bill. Minus the saucy language and buckets of blood, of course.I won't spoil anything by going into great detail with the conclusion, but sufficed to say I have a MAJOR problem with it. Not only is it stretched out beyond all belief, but ask yourself: Would he REALLY be able to leave? Wouldn't he be under major surveillance? What's gonna happen with the booty? And WHY OH WHY didn't we see the deaths of his 'friends'? The climax feels sloppy, slapdash, thoroughly unsatisfying... Just leaves a bad taste in the mouth, basically.*Swills mouth out with Cherry Cola* Ah, THAT'S better. 4/10