Whats the point?
Yes a worthy film for sure, but isn't it preaching to the converted? not sure any but those who already hate Tories will ever get to see it.
shareYes a worthy film for sure, but isn't it preaching to the converted? not sure any but those who already hate Tories will ever get to see it.
shareWell, speaking for myself and, I imagine, a good few others, its the somewhat futile glimmer of optimism that some people out there who are either on the fence or subscribe to the Conservative party's cutthroat philosophy may have something of a heart or an open mind to consider things from the point of view of the many people that suffer in reality as the characters in this film do. A bit naive sure, but it comes with the passion.
shareWell said Philip, I have seen the trailer and it looks like a bag of crap.
The film is a waste of time. Watch any documentary. Any benefits reality show and we get how some people are struggling on benefits. No need to make a crappy film about it.
Plus the guy in the lead role really irritates me. It would really top the crap if he and the younger woman sleep together.
Love on the dole. Give me a break!
Calm down, you haven't been invited to a screening.
There is nothing in the desert, and no man needs nothing.........
[deleted]
Whats the point? "Yes a worthy film for sure"
Answered your own question?
The work capability assessment in its current form , and that utilised by Mr Loach for this film was introduced to the UK by New Labour almost a decade ago. With the exception of the assessment being transferred to Maximus in the past year or so, the ATOS methodology and the ministers that championed it have creamed off more money from the tax coffers than it would ever have saved.
sharehttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/extinction-wildlife-since-dinosaurs-populations-fall-67-per-cent-wwf-zsl-a7381906.html
Wildlife populations have decreased by 67% in the last 50 years, but all you ever hear from the virtue signalers is them bleating on about a few chavs on benefits.
People like Ken Loach need to get their priorities sorted out.
I provocative post, and from someone who's reared on a diet of tabloid crap and thus has their minds in the gutter
shareI Daniel Blake is one of the worst films I have seen for a long time.
shareRight it's as crude and full of lies as Cathy come home. Cathy these days has several kids all by different blokes, has everything paid for by the state and has a job on the side and is doing very well for herself. Thanks to bleeding heart idiots like loach.
shareAs my Brazilian friends might say: "O quê tem a ver o cu com as calças?!"
Have you seen the film? Daniel Blake is a dignified member of society who, as the last speech says, has paid his dues to society (in the form of taxes and social security payments throughout his working life as a carpenter) and merely wishes to be treated with human decency - something that the despicable Tory elite (and their social security machine) have neither the empathy nor humanity to do.
Daniel Blake is a dignified member of society who, as the last speech says, has paid his dues to society (in the form of taxes and social security payments throughout his working life as a carpenter) and merely wishes to be treated with human decency - something that the despicable Tory elite (and their social security machine) have neither the empathy nor humanity to do.
The point for this film is the point or every film to to send a message to the world, this film is made to teach people a lesson, literally.
Chav has a different meaning depending on where you are from.
North of England def of Chav: Hostile lazy loiterer who only affect the civil morals of society in a negative way.
South of England def of Chav: Same as north of England def.
Conservative South of England def of Chav: Anyone from the North of England.
This film was made to teach the people who have authority over the country, that most of the people on benefits do not want to be on them. It shows that they aren't hostile, lazy loiterers who affect the civil morals of society in a negative way but people who need help.
-AND BEFORE YOU CAST JUDGEMENT ON THE FILM...ACTUALLY WATCH THE *beep* THING.
Don't be like Damien Green MP. He hasn't seen it, but he does have an opinion and authority.
That's always been the problem ... and still, I don't think it's pointless. I haven't watched this movie yet (I didn't 100% like last one i watched, Jimmy's Hall ) but as far as I've read, this kind of movie at the very least strenghtens your awareness, makes you think that you HAVE to keep fighting, that simply you can't afford to give up
shareWhat is the point?
The point is this film is based on FACTS.
The point is this film is based on FACTS
Except it wasn't. The innacuracies were uncountable:
William Wallace: 1270 - 1305
Edward I : 1239 - 1307
So the ending where Wallace (slightly) outlived Edward is off by 2 years.
Isabella of France (wife of Edward II): 1295 - 1358. So she was 10 When wallace died, yet the film makes out they not only had sex, but she bore his child. That makes the film a lie, or Wallace a paedophile...
Braveheart wasn't based on facts, it was based on the ideals of Scottish folk who want independence!