All or Nothing (2002) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

The first half of All or Nothing is a bleak look at the everyday lives of the English working classes. David Spall plays a taxi driver who lives in a dreary housing project, trapped in a loveless marriage, raising two obese children. The lives of this family and their neighbors seem hopeless and loveless until a medical emergency in the second half forces them to look at each other in a new light.

Roger Ebert awarded this slice-of-unpleasant-life drama the rare four stars.

NUDITY REPORT

There is quite a good topless scene from Sally Hawkins

DVD info from Amazon.

  • Widescreen anamorphic, 1.85.

It's not exactly a glamorous, commercial film. In fact, this film may have the ugliest cast ever assembled. How does People Magazine overlook Spall year after year when they choose the world's sexiest man?

It's like watching a documentary about misery. Although it is difficult to watch and an unpleasant documentary for the most part, the ending keeps it from being entirely hopeless, and many critics thought it was a triumph with depth and insight.

The Critics Vote

  • General consensus: three and a half stars. Ebert 4/4, BBC 5/5, Entertainment Weekly B-.

The People Vote ...

  • IMDB summary. IMDb voters score it 7.4/10, Metacritic users 7.4/10, but Yahoo voters come in a bit lower at 3.5/5.
  • A complete bomb. Ebert's four stars had no impact. It grossed a hundred thousand in the USA. It did better in the UK, but was still a poor performer at 600,000. The production budget was nine million dollars, and I don't think the investors will get much back.

 

The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, I call this one a C+. It's an excellent piece of realistic drama with true-to-life characterizations, but frankly not that many people will enjoy this kind of film. It has virtually no entertainment value, and it demonstrated approximately zero commercial appeal.

Return to the Movie House home page