Nitpicking

We took our daughter to see this when it was new and I've just seen part of it on TV.

This film just doesn't seem to know what its trying to do at all. Its confusing.

One of the young fairies seems to idolise Tooth but we are never shown anything to confirm this, we are supposed to take it on trust.

You can see scenes that are meant to be funny, if one steps back, but they aren't at all.

Characters are lame, the jokes don't work, people are muttering indistinctly all the time. Its dull.

Only see this sporadically over the years, it pops up on TV every so often.

Another reviewer, Colin Liddel, said this: "growing up in Scotland myself i still don't feel that the movie is regional and anyone who is able to see it please do so." I can only agree, I grew up 300 miles south of Colin in southern England, yet this film evokes a certain time, the late '70s/early '80s for me, I feel at home watching it. The school in it could have been my school, it even looks the same. The children look like we did.

One thing I've always wondered about...

Gregory (John Gordon Sinclair) is attracted to Dee Hepburn, fine, nothing wrong with that. He in turn has Clare Grogan fancying him, and doesn't realise. Again nothing odd about that, its happened a million times before. Thats all right there in the plot, on the screen.

But to most blokes of my generation (esp. the John Peel listening types interested in Clare & her band Altered Images) the idea that Gregory would even NOTICE Dee Hepburn with the delectable Clare Grogan around seems bizarre.

Was this deliberate casting? That Gregory somehow fixated on Dee and didn't notice the elfin princess Clare? Or was Dee genuinely seen as fantasy material and Clare as the homely girl next door character?

Jamal, the black kid, under performs at school (though not at taking tests) and makes a point of showing an interest in basketball to maintain his standing with his friends. Not to seem too academic you see, basketball being an acceptable activity to them.

Back in the heady days of 2000 the prevailing theory to explain relatively poor black educational performance was still Fear of Acting White (do a search). Jamal is a means to illustrate this theory, carefully hiding his intellectual and academic prowess from scrutiny from his peers.

These days the Fear of Acting White theory has fallen out of fashion. Now hip educationalists and sociologists have a new theory. Stereotype Threat (do another search) - this puts the blame for relatively poor black educational performance on black students buying into negative stereotypes. They are expected to do badly - so they do.

I'm not sure a movie has been made yet utilising the Stereotype Threat concept, it might be a bit more difficult to portray perhaps, lets keep watching.

Not to worry about that though, as the movie shows, when you get down to it, narrow minded white folks are to blame either way, either for creating an academic stereotype that black kids fear to emulate or for creating negative stereotypes that hold them back.

Some may have noticed the problem - what is the predictive power of these theories - given that they largely contradict each other. In fact therein lies some of their power, since neither stands up to much inspection both are still in circulation happily contradicting each other.

Back to the movie - Sean Connery plays the no-nonsense tough guy author. That role appeals to liberal types, fancying that they would act in the same way in the same situation. With the same conviction that somewhere buried inside those seemingly threatening black youths on the street are bookish, nerdy, white kids struggling to get out. And those black kids would understand their white mentors tough approach is in no way racist, just telling it like it is.

Bonus marks here for interracial love interest and cynical elite/white dominated school exploiting black kid for his basketball prowess.

I happened to see this the other day and was pleasantly surprised.

Thought it was going to be a barely watchable TV movie but it was well above average.

Better than two dimensional characters and some clever plot twists.

I cannot be the only person who has seen this and assumed it was the pilot for an on-going TV series, maybe it was. But looking on IMDb this seems not have happened, no sign of a series. Thats a shame because if the same standards had been maintained it would have been worth a look.

Being an (English) Brit I have to point out the subtle anti-English bias though. The boys (of the title) largely operate out of a pub called the Sir William Wallace and the unwholesome bad guy is English. Just a coincidence? Still enjoyed it though.

I've only seen a couple of episodes so far but I love it.

I was not aware of other incarnations of We Are Klang so I'm not coming to it with preconceptions. This has a bearing on another's comments, We Are Klang predates the Inbetweeners, just not in its TV form.

It's largely based in the offices of Klangbury Council but at the same time its a stage show, hence the Department of Audience, no 4th wall here much of the time.

Analysis would show, I suspect, comedy DNA sourced from the Will Hay/Moore Marriott/Graham Moffatt movies, The Goons, Monty Python, The Goodies*, Vic & Bob, Bottom** and Father Ted. If you like some of those you will probably like this.

*Explicit reference to The Goodies in one episode.

**Recurring references to Greg Davies looking like a fat Rik Mayall, which he does.

I have vague memories of this movie being funny.

Having seen it again either I have changed or I was thinking about a another film altogether.

It seems as if we are supposed to be sympathetic to Jackie Mason's character however nothing in the movie actually engenders that emotion. Its notable that he is really the only person accorded tender dialogue with loved ones. No-one else's character is allowed to rise to the status of even vaguely human.

I don't even like golf but as the film went on I found myself really rooting for Robart Stack and the club guys, really hoping they would repel Mason and Chevy Chase.

This comment was at one time deleted by IMDb based on an abuse report filed by another user. So I've edited it a bit.

Three youths from disparate racial backgrounds united against the "real" enemy - the police and therefore, by extension, French society itself. The kids together fighting The Man. Right on!

The attitude of the outcasts may be correct and the film has great style but I always suspected this film was a liberal fantasy, it has taken ten years but recent history has shown it for what it is. The recent riots in France have shown that. Where were all the Jewish youths burning cars along with the Muslim youths? Nowhere it seems.

I see since I first posted this 4 out of 5 people weren't happy about it. So what is the point of disagreement? Are Jewish youths in fact fighting the police in France and burning thousands of cars every year? If they are I would be glad to have some factual evidence of that.

So when the evidence shows up for whites and Jews joining Arabs and Africans in the daily violence in France I'll be sure to add it to this comment.

Indeed where is that evidence? Not forthcoming so far.

I saw this and assumed straight away it was an American product re-voiced for the British market.

But on inspection I see that its in fact a British production that could be re-voiced for the US market, maybe thats already happened? Genie in the House is based on a similar marketing concept. It happens to be made in the UK with British actors but could easily be sold in any market. Careful attention to universal themes strips it of any local relevance.

Its blandness and political correctness (a black nerd kid for instance, there seems to be one in every children's prog these days).

How does the commenter who thinks its not politically correct come to their conclusion?

Enjoyable series that never made the prime time in the UK. Anyone viewing it and familiar with The Professionals would soon spot the similarities.

Grizzled older authority figure sending the younger guys out to do the legwork. Another carry-over was the use of Ford vehicles (did the producers have a deal?). Bodie & Doyle had their boy-racer Escorts and Capris. The Special Squad had their Falcons - looking to British eyes like a Granada (though actually a somewhat different vehicle I found out later, superficial similarities only).

It seems to me (thinking back 20 years!) that the credits listed Professionals producers Brian Clemens and Albert Fennell but IMDb.com does not mention this, maybe I'm mistaken.

OK its England and everybody (almost) is dead or infected. Very scary too. The two main survivor characters are Selena (a black girl) and Jim (an Irish bloke), well thats very English. OK thats plausible but just why those group representatives exactly? (This is not to belittle the actors playing of their roles)

Not to worry though along come the British army, most of them are English, including their leader Christopher Ecclestone. IMDb tells us that:

"Christopher Ecclestone and the other soldiers in the film had a three-day training programme with real soldiers to help them learn how to carry themselves believably."

Believably?! Really? Or did they (Boyle, whoever etc) instead just have Ecclestone play the part of a crazed fascist and the squaddies act like a rabble of football hooligans in uniform. Hey, you really confounded our expectations there.

There is a more sympathetic soldier character but, just so we get the message, he is Scottish not English.