Fast Food (II) (1998) User Reviews

Confusing at first, but worth sticking with until the end.

[e_bayliss_element98 · 12 September 2000]

In the beginning of this movie, I was really confused about what was actually going on. It was quite difficult to understand who the characters were and how they related to each other. It was also quite hard to understand what there conversations were about. As the film went on though, I became more interested. The plot unfolded really well and soon enough I understood who everyone was. The parts of the film that weren't understood at first became really clear. I thought the film was very clever and slowly I cared about the characters and what they had to say. Overall it was a bit weird to begin with but it was worth watching all the way through.

Food poisoning!

[dougalk · 1/10 · 27 August 2003]

Food poisoning! The only people that could have the bare faced cheek to defend a film as bad as this would have to be it's creators or have contributed to it's production or funding (god help it's investors). The sound and picture quality are appalling and the performances are all OTT and the script is childish in structure and made up of regurgitated cliches. This is a Mac Film, and remember you are what you eat!

Sad, very sad.Not funny.

[sarah-156 · 1/10 · 16 June 2000]

This is the most unfunny comedy I've ever wasted some of my life on. One for the shredder. Not one laugh throughout, the sound levels are poor, I couldn't here most of the dialogue, why does low budget English indie stuff always mean films where you can't hear or understand what people are saying! Sarah-156

Worth a Look

[jebeins · 7/10 · 6 November 2005]

I was surprised how much I liked this film. It's pretentious, funny, violent, kinky, sweet, sensitive, fast-paced, obvious, clever, artsy - you name it but, as a previous poster said, very sincere and somehow it all works most of the time. All of the players are good but Benny and his friends really got to me. I'm still wondering how they're getting along. It's a typical crime exploitation, low budget kind of film so if you're easily shocked it's not your thing but I was rather pleasantly surprised at the quality, in general, and really did enjoy it. I almost rated it a bit higher but all in all it's not gonna be everyone's kind of film experience. Definitely worth a look.

A thought provoking film, by Jove

[leemj_666 · 10/10 · 16 March 2001]

of the few people who have actually seen this film, the vast majority will look down on the film as a poorly done affair - however I found the themes being explored to be quite thought-provoking. The protagonist is caught between worlds, between his hometown and a life of crime. The film's all-important quote is "even the tiniest morsel can sustain a man who has nothing" - think about that, those of you who would judge this film with the slings and arrows of criticism, think also on how the ending fits with that proclamation. I voted 10 on this one because, by gum, nobody else will!

Well I liked it

[hobbes3 · 7/10 · 13 February 2011]

This is one of those films that you later read about as having been financed using the director's credit cards. The budget had to have been close to non-existent and the production values are crap, but it's an engaging story and it's well acted. It is also an amusing look, in that "before they were stars" kind of way at some early work from Douglas Henshall and Gerard Butler. I enjoyed Butler's performance as Jacko, in particular, because it foreshadowed another of his characters, Jackie,Jr. in another little seen independent film, "Shooters" (2002)

The film also made good use of Blur's "Song 2", which was, at the time, relatively new and hadn't yet been overplayed and overused. In fact, the soundtrack as a whole was good. Too bad it's not available.

I don't quite understand the bad rap this film has gotten. Perhaps some aren't able to see beyond the cheap, grainy film quality or the uneven lighting. Someone, somewhere, once upon a time, thought enough of it to bring it to Cannes in 1998, which all things considered, says a lot, especially for a first effort from an unknown director (Stewart Sugg).

you can put a cat in the oven but it doesn't make it a biscuit!

[Tom-5673 · 10/10 · 3 June 2002]

IGNORE ALL THE OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT THIS FILM!!!!!!! They are extremely misleading. Fast Food mixes surreal with disturbing and still manages to make me laugh. From the Princess D bit to the bit with Oleg/Vladimir and so on. If you have a brain you will love this, NOW WATCH IT!

Surreal/a nightmare -----

[Ishallwearpurple · 8/10 · 10 January 2006]

Very interesting dreamlike story or a guy who is returning to his boyhood pals after being away for years. He finds they are still the same drinking, drug taking misfits that he left and he can't fit in anymore.

This is funny/sad/violent and better than I thought it would be. The first conversation when the 4 friends compose a song "Benny's Back" to welcome him is very funny.

These dumb and dumber guys decide to get out of their circumstances by robbing the neighborhood candy store which is really a drug money operation. Their trip to buy guns is very funny. They have a party where Benny is given too much to drink and some drugs and goes into a trance like state.

From here on, even more than from the beginning setup shots, I wondered if we are to see this as real or a nightmare. Guns blaze, people are killed, but we see no cops, no other humans in the buildings or on the streets, no traffic, deserted subways; just the main characters and those they deal with.

All the segments with the girl Letitia are soft focus, through a haze and too much light. Real or surreal? When Benny and Letitia are run down by the car - but in the next frame are up again - real or dream/nightmare?

Some funny lines have worked their way into usage "I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you." And "First rule of robbery? Pillage before you burn." A small film that makes you think - or just turn it off. Take you pick. I liked it a lot. 8/10