User Reviews

This film tells the story of several residents in inner London. They are from different social classes, ranging from a sport superstar living in fancy mansions, to young man who struggles to break free from being a small time criminal.

I can't even remember why I wanted to watch it in the first place. Perhaps it was because of the two notable stars, Idris and Gemma. They portray a couple who are going through relationship issues, but unfortunately their story is not very engaging. The ending of their story is simply unrealistic and over-dramatised. For the subplot of the young man who wants to embark on the right path, it is the more engaging story. It is sad that his mentor died, but unfortunately the story telling just is not very captivating. This subplot should evoke sympathy and emotions, but it does nothing to me. Maybe it is because the characters in the film have little emotional displays, they just get on with their lives in an ordinary manner. The resultant film is not as touching or affecting as one could have hoped.

Good actors but the stories aren't really interesting and in the end if all feels a bit pointless. This kind of intersecting stories indie type movie can be interesting. Usually we see a New York setting with a bunch of quirky characters and some pseudo drama. Here we have London for a change and that's interesting to watch at first. Idris Elba the finest black actor of his generation is quite interesting to watch as the rugby star who has cheated on his wife (Gemma Artreton) so many times she kicks him out. He proceeds to have various meltdowns drunk and disorderly culminating in a silly rifle stand off. Then there is this couple hoping to adopt. The husband is a taxi driver who accidentally hits and kills a pedestrian. Then there is a teen who is involved with some criminal types. People not from London may need subtitles for some parts!

The characters are not interesting and the stories don't come together cleverly.

Don't bother.

I read some bad reviews for this film but as a fan of Elba I just covered my eyes and ears and said "nananana." I was wrong.

This film is just not good. If you've seen the trailer, that's about it. The whole film is in there.

The production qualities are high, the acting is mostly good, but the film is less than the sum of its parts. They should've focused on one story and expanded on it, instead of getting hints, glimpses and slices of different, completely-unrelated lives.

SPOILER I thought the stories would be intertwined, a sort of cause-and-effect type thing like many films do, but no. The stories happen in parallel. They don't really affect one another. This film could've been presented as a bunch of short films about people in London and they would've been rated poorly. END SPOILER

There simply isn't enough time to deal with all these stories. If you think that 90 minutes is enough time to deal with a failing marriage and affairs, a death, a misfit in a lethal street gang and a few subplots (if you can call them that) then this film is for you.

The trailer made it look to be all about Elba and probably revealed most of the Elba stuff. The rest is just inconsequential. The film consists of several subplots and has no major plot or overarching narrative.

It's sad to waste all the talent that went into this film - actors, director, crew, etc. when the script is so horrendously poor.

100 Streets tells the stories of 3 very different people living within 100 streets from each other in London. The plot line says that they are 'extraordinary' stories, but to me this is just ridiculous sensationalism and grossly exaggerates what is actually on offer here...

When watching this film it's hard not to think of the American film Crash (which presumably this British offering is trying to emulate). Although Crash won the best picture back in 2004 it's a film that I've never personally cared for and this British offering is no different...

Yes 100 streets has the various story strands and all of these strands are established fairly well, but sadly much of what unfolds on screen is relatively uninteresting. I think the worst story arc in this film was the love triangle between Elba, Arterton and her bit on the side. I honestly found that I couldn't care less about any of these characters meaning that nearly every ounce of dialogue that was uttered by any of their characters went in one ear and out of the other. Whilst I kind of understood Arterton's character and the other bloke it was Idris Elba that was a mystery to me... I just found that his character made no sense. He's a bit of a womanising playboy who seemed to be living on past glories and has a troublesome relationship with his wife which he is trying to get back on track. Although he's a bit arrogant and showy I found him a fairly cool customer... but then out of nowhere he starts to descend into a massive downward spiral where he seems to lose all self-control (including drunken rampages and narcotics abuse all before he's due to comment on a Rugby match live at Twickenham which inevitably leads to him making a fool of himself on National TV). This is great for dramatic effect, but it all comes out of nowhere and makes little sense. He then gets it together for a bit only to start brandishing a shotgun a short while later. All this might have made an impact on me if I'd have been given any reason to care for Elba's character or even identify with him, but no such opportunity arises and his relentless selfishness started to grate on me after a while...

So what do we then move on to exactly? Well we then have another couple who are trying to adopt a child, but are having problem doing this due to hubby's past indiscretions. His missus takes part in a fun run and the cabby knocks a woman down (not his fault I hasten to add, but merely an accident). Like the love triangle story arc I also found this thread rather uninteresting and despite the tragic events involving one characters action I felt strangely unmoved...

Finally we come to the third story arc; the thread between Kingsley and Terence - this to me was the most natural and warm storyline and one that was actually worth investing in. In fact my only criticism with this thread was with how poorly Terence was developed as a character. Despite the familiar way that this thread was played out I did appreciate the warm bond that was developing between Kingsley and Terence - the fact that Terence played the only likable character from start to finish did help to make this story arc more endearing in all honesty. I actually found it a bit upsetting when those yobs gave him a good kicking and despite it being hard to watch it did showcase some realism and demonstrated some of the problems that anyone can encounter in some rough inner city areas.

Some of the acting is good particularly from Idris Elba who is far too good for this film; Gemma Arterton and Franz Drameh are also strong in support. However, at its core 100 Streets is rather hollow and most of its story strands are uninteresting. The main problem I had here is that I had seen it all before and I wasn't all that impressed with it the first time round...

This is a tale of some loosely connected lives in London. Max Moore (Idris Elba) is a famous ex-rugby player and a player. He likes his coke and women. His wife Emily (Gemma Arterton) is having revenge sex with a photographer (Tom Cullen) and plans on getting back into acting through her old friend Terrance (Ken Stott) who also does community service. Terrance meets Kingsley (Franz Drameh) who has committed a misdemeanor and is preforming community service at a cemetery. Kingsley sells pot and is trapped in the streets. He wants out, but doesn't know how. At the cemetery we see George (Charlie Creed-Miles) a singing cabby and football coach. He wants to adopt children with his wife Kathy (Kierston Wareing) active in community service.

The stories were somewhat interesting and I wished they had connected George better than what they did. They all came to some sort of closure, but I failed to see the point in all of it, other than we are all somehow connected, a theme of which I have grown bored .

Guide: F-word, sex, nudity.

This film continues the never ending stereotyping of black people mostly black males in the inner cities of USA and here in England. This is a very disturbing film, but not for the story that it presents but for the unfair depiction of black males. The white filmmakers who are guilty of this stereotyping of black people have their black actors in their films use excessive profanity. The black characters in their films are also very angry and confrontational. So is the case in this film. The two major black characters here are Max (Idris Elba) a former Rugby star now a ghost of his once famous persona. And Kingsley (Frank Drameh) a street gang member who finds himself living in a world of crime and no opportunities for him to get out of his ghetto lifestyle.

Both characters in this film are very violent and use excessive profanity. While the white characters in this film are very civil and calm and do not use any profanity. This depiction in this film was created and written by screenwriter Leon Butler a Caucasian man. As many of these stereotyped films showing blacks people as drug dealers, gang members and even everyday people all using excessive profanity and having confrontational personalities are created and produced by white men. There is a theme that these white filmmakers emphasize, that the white characters in their films are civilized and superior to the black people who are depicted in an inferior manner. There are many civilized calm mannered black people in the USA and in England who do not use excessive profanity, some even prefer the ballet or symphony music to rap, or golf to basketball.

Yet writers like Mr. Butler continue to present black people in the most negative manner. I know there are black people who are in very dire situations in England and the USA. Yet this film does not have any positive black characters in the film. Either police officers or anybody! The film story sets the pace to slowly show how the main black characters Max and Kingsley each deal with their problems by using excessive violence with graphic loud profanity.

The story has an interracial marriage between Max and Emily (Gemma Arterton) an ultra-conservative white woman who could pass for the wife of a politician. Their marriage is very strained because of Max's affairs with other women and other vices. Whenever Max shows up at Emily's home (Max has an apartment) she treats him with aloof disgust with a quick hi and goodbye attitude. Early in the film we are rooting for Max to get his life back in shape and reconcile with Emily. It's interesting to note that this is the 50th anniversary of the *controversial film (*for the 1960's) "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" The first major film that showed a black man played by Sidney Poitier meeting the parents and his future in-laws played by Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn. Their young white daughter played by Katherine Houghton. Sidney Poitier's character in this film is civilized and mild mannered as the white characters in this film. Poitier playing the black man set to marry their daughter, he uses no profanity nor does he even have an inner city urban accent.

In "100 Streets" Max is a man in self-destruct mode. He claims it's all about his and Emily's kids that he wants to make his marriage work. But even when Emily gives Max another chance. He has sex with other women, gets drunk in public and snorts coke, before he is to appear on live TV as a Rugby commentator, because of his coke addiction he has to leave the TV studio. Emily was seeing another man but not secretly. He is Jake a civil white man who is very caring and mild mannered. Much like Sidney Poitier's black character some fifty years ago. When Max mistakenly believes that Emily is picking Jake over him. Max goes ballistic, he appears in Emily's home on her balcony without a shirt on waving a rifle shouting profanity to all the white spectators on the street below. Emily on the phone with Max using a calm caring voice trying to get Max to surrender before the police sharp shooters kill him. Emily's kindness is met with the most graphic violent rage and profanity. As Max hurls hatred at Emily. But Emily prevails and is successful in having Max surrender as he is arrested on the scene.

How the depiction of black males has degenerated in fifty years since Sidney Poitier character appeared in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner." It is refreshing that new black filmmakers are now releasing films that show black people not as drug dealers or violent characters who have to use profanity. But as positive black characters on the theater screen.

I suppose melancholy would be a perfect term to describe what it is really. The experience of watching this was almost voyeuristic because of the manner with which is was shot, it was a very intimate portrait on the lives of seemingly everyday people just dealing with the trials and tribulations of everyday life and making the most of it. Life happens to all of us whether we like it or not.

I take issue with the reviewer who felt it was unfair to black people.yes the poor living in the projects were typical of the pressure put on the poor to join crime.however the single mom was a great role model for her son setting limits and consequences.He didn't see that. the sports hero displayed how the adulation and substances can take someone down a bad path,regardless of color. the love between the cabbie and his wife ,though struggling was so uplifting,what a sweet character.

the whole plot of the film depicts that people can be capable of greatness despite being flawed. the white man who saw potential in Kinsley that recognized his talent and I understand his anger at beating the perpetrator. one can learn a lot from this movie!