User Reviews

After an amusing introductory scene that informs you of the club's centuries' old origin, the film turns to contemporary Oxford and presents us with the latest generation of students and Riot Club members. It follows first-year students Miles Richards (Max Irons) and Alistair Ryle (Sam Claflin), both are of 'good stock' but the former is normal and down-to-earth and the latter is a malicious, fascistic sociopath.

During the fresher's activities, Miles quickly befriends the middle- class Lauren (Holliday Grainger), a friendly girl from Northern England; the romantic pair have a sweet naturalism as they playfully talk about and erode their differing heritages. The scowling, aloof Alistair however proves to be not much of a conversationalist.

Both are soon inaugurated into the Riot Club, whose other members include Harry Villiers (Douglas Booth), the pretty boy who struck me as the de-facto leader of the club; Hugo Fraser-Tyrwhitt (Sam Reid), a closet homosexual with an attraction to Miles; Dimitri Mitropolous (Ben Schnetzer), a horribly rich Greek student, and James Leighton- Masters (Freddie Fox), the smug little squirt who's somehow the president of the club. Some have said that it is littered with caricatures, however the film isn't about ordinary Oxford students or ordinary privilege, it is about an elite circle of extreme wealth and aristocracy.

After Miles and Alistair make up the Riot Club's ten members, the group soon have their risibly pompous suits tailored and set off for a night's debauchery to The Old Bull, one of the few establishments they haven't been banned from. By the time this happens, I thought I had the measure of the pretentious characters and the film's narrative and tone, however as the 'dinner' progresses, both the characters and the course of events become veritably loathsome.

As most will know, The Riot Club is inspired by the Bullingdon Club, an Oxford University dining society infamous for its destructive hedonism that boasts alumni such as David Cameron, Boris Johnson and George Osborne. The film's main target of attack isn't the purported anti-social behaviour of such people, the obnoxious decadence we witness is not endemic to the highly disagreeable 'Riot Club', what it attacks is rather the characters' raging, blue-blooded superiority complexes that causes it. Some may disagree with its politics, they may consider it a gross exaggeration; it is indeed vehement in its depiction of class wars, however I think it is undeniably a very well executed piece of filmmaking.

The film is adapted from the stage play Posh by Laura Wade, and the middle section of the narrative, which is one long scene, certainly feels like the work of a playwright. Like Tracy Letts' Killer Joe (2011) and Bug (2006), it is another example of how punchy stage material often makes an excellent transfer to the cinema.

Much like Letts' work, The Riot Club contains a maelstrom within a cramped four walls; the scene goes from embarrassing to plain excruciating as the decuplet, fuelled by alcohol, drugs and each other's presence, become increasingly hateful and immoral, the vile crescendo eventually reaching a climax that's genuinely shocking. It is all witnessed by the unassuming pub landlord. He is initially honoured to host the boys, the sight of him sycophantically at the beck and call of people half his age who look at him the way they would dog mess on their shoe is pathetic in the true meaning of the word.

The worst offender is Alistair, Sam Claflin is excellent when delivering his well-written diatribes with drunken, acerbic hatred. Alistair's genocidal contempt for the working classes and those bereft of prestige bore similarities to Adolf Hitler's loathing of Jews; he gets so angry that he's reduced to saying 'I'm sick to f*cking death of poor people!' Alistair is the most odious example of unearned privilege and arrogant sense of entitlement, he rants about the successes and innovations of the ruling classes and the proletariat's supposed jealousy as if he's had a part in it, after all, what exactly has he achieved apart from winning the genetic lottery? Claflin proves himself as an accomplished villain actor, he gives his character a sociopathic quality; when there aren't flashes of his vulgar jealousy, resentment and massive hubris, Alistair has an unnerving emotional vacuity.

The Riot Club is not simply 107 minutes of pretty boys holding champagne flutes, it is a sharply made thriller that is perhaps politically divisive but rivetingly executed.

For the vast majority of us, The Riot Club is so far removed from our own experience as to be virtually irrelevant. The same is probably true with Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street, but while I spent the first half of that triumph wishing I could have Jordan Belfort's experiences and the second half thanking some unknown deity I haven't, there was something about him I couldn't help liking. In The Riot Cub, however, we are presented with an odious bunch of toffs with few, if any, redeeming features.

Alistair (Sam Claflin) and Miles (Max Irons), both aristocratic and with either latent or pronounced class prejudices, begin their first term at Oxford University. Their social standing makes them attractive prospects for the infamous Riot Club. With a maximum membership of ten at any time, mystery surrounds the exclusive, secret society that has a closer bond than the Masons and a legendary penchant for excess, debauchery and a privileged standing that means the members never suffer the consequences of their hedonism. Banned from Oxford's finer establishments, the Club prepares for their annual dinner and the investiture of their news members.

I'm not sure The Riot Club has anything much to say. Is it a piece of social commentary? If so, we already know there are those who are moneyed, privileged and get away with murder, sometimes literally. If it is to excite us and make us hanker for the greener grass on the other side of the fence, it fails; why would we want that? If director Lone Scherfig (One Day, An Education) is aiming to show us how fortunate we are not to be part of that world, then surely there are subtler ways of doing so.

The Riot Club isn't a bad film; it is just a largely unpleasant one. This is a voyeuristic look through a grimy window at a display of wanton abandon and viciousness at the expense of absolutely everyone who isn't, or wasn't, part of The Riot Club. While most naughty boys think they can get away with scrumping apples, bunking off school and firing catapults at innocent, harmless animals, these are loathsome, obnoxious boys who grew up on a campaign of hatred and swapped their misdemeanours for felonies like vandalism, violence, and rape.

Nice club! Perhaps for those who have been through that educational experience and are part of that tiny segment of society of privileged society it means something. Certainly the man behind me laughed periodically in apparent understanding. He was the only one in our small audience. Me? I felt uncomfortable through most of it, particularly with the pseudo morality of Miles when he apparently tries to do the right thing and rise above it, though his peers do not hold back in reminding him he, too, is there by choice.

The Riot Club is well performed by all, the attention to detail feels meticulous, from the perspective of one on the outside, and, yes, there is a part of me that enjoyed it. It was a fascinating experience that repulsed me frequently and left me feeling rather dirty; a little like the evening I had rotten.com inflicted on me by a long-eschewed former colleague.

I suspect The Riot Club will have a limited audience and most of those who venture out will find something within it to fascinate them. I can't imagine many in my circle of friends wanting a repeat viewing or wishing for a life in the inner circle of society afterwards, though.

Well constructed, fascinating and repulsive, The Riot Club is a classic example of a film that is good, despite the subject matter being thoroughly unpleasant.

For more reviews from The Squiss, subscribe to my blog and like the Facebook page.

The Riot Club is an exclusive hedonistic drinking club in Oxford University with a long tradition. The group needs two new members to complete the ten minimum. Alistair Ryle and Miles Richards are new students with connections. Miles starts a relationship with Lauren from the working class. Right winger Alistair gets mugged and then recruited into the group. Harry Villiers is an older member whose ancestor was the original Lord Riot. James Leighton-Masters is the group's president. Hugo Fraser-Tyrwhitt is Miles' former classmate. They weren't close but Hugo remembers Miles. Their annual dinner at a country restaurant causes mounting rowdiness and chaos.

These are entitled rich brats. None of them are that compelling as individual characters. Most of them are too interchangeable. Their hi-jinx are annoying and not particularly imaginative. It's a lot of drinking and destruction. Throwing in Natalie Dormer as a hooker does help. There is boring boorish talk and a couple of interesting moments. The scene with Lauren in the restaurant is wrong. It's excusable that Miles is drunk but Lauren is too slow on the uptick. Even then, Miles can't be that weak-minded. It makes no sense that he doesn't leave to chase after Lauren other than for the sake of the story. There are a few clunky moments. It's unbelievable that the guys don't do more than a night in the drunk tank. They walk out with their clothes which should be taken as evidence. The only way to make it all work is if the cops are bought off right away. The possibility is there but it's not sharp enough.

It's hard to distinguish what's fact and what's fiction in The Riot Club. On one side secret societies will always have their debauchery and initiations, so a level of trouble-making's to be expected. On the other, TRC exaggerates the misbehavior of a notorious Oxford University group. It's a not so fine line between the two. One single dinner event escalates out of control, subjecting the divide between the rich and the working class. The Riot Club's an infuriating watch, with the majority of the club's members basking in their 'importance', looking down on those they believe to be beneath them. The performances are solid, especially from the club's newest members (Sam Claflin and Max Irons), but two thirds of this film is spent focusing on their petty squabbles than relatable facets.

I found it a really profound storyline. Meaningful. Colourful. A peak into the modern (and ancient) class divides in the UK. And now horrible rich peopls are.

I was captivated as I sat in terror through this movie. Shocked, not by violence, but by the attitude of the memebers of the Riot Club. The lack of empathy, care, humanity.

I enjoyed how the plot shifted and got me constantly guessing who is the antagonist and who's the protagonist. It was also a really beautiful movie. The cinematography was great, but not overly original.

Great acting from Sam Clafin.

But the greatness of this movie is the storyline. Its so good, striking and upsetting that I never want to watch it again.

The Riot Club is for posh boys, who all attend Oxford university. There are only ten of them at a time and they have a notorious reputation, and best of all? They are looking for new members. So I suppose the reel question is will this be Dirty Pretty Things or just Filth? The Riot Club is a film that has a feeling of disappointment, not from me, but from itself, it feels like a movie that had more to give us and wanted to but can never quite get into the right gear with it's own inner mechanics, it's a film that comes across as unhappy with it's own final piece.

The film has a lot of things going for it despite this, it has an INCREDIBLE cast of young men, the whole premise is pitched just right and when it needs to the tension is palpitatable, So why isn't it a better movie? I think we need to take a second look at this to get to the bottom of it properly.

The Riot Club begins as it means to go on, within the first 5 minuets we are shown hard drug use, strong sex scenes, violence and bad language, it never tries to hide or conceal what it is, but then I suppose this is where the problem starts because a movie like The Riot Club (much like A Clockwork Orange really), tries to live in two camps at once, those being the one of class commentary and the other of exploitation cinema. Nobody is going to defend The Riot Club for not being an exploitation film.

I think the thing that The Riot Club lacks most noticeably when compared to both the trailer and the general air of the film is ferocity. When I sat down to watch The Riot Club I expected darkness and debauchery, and what I ended up getting was something mildly unsettling, sure there are flurries of vindictiveness in the film, but they are in the trailer. I wanted to see a film that would justify the tenseness that I felt during some of the periods of the movie, but instead what I came out with was a feeling of confusion to what the hell happened to it all.

The Riot Club works perfectly to a pint, and then during the third act totally loses its way and decides it's run out of time anyway, so brings everything to a screeching halt almost mid flow. That is a crime I can't forgive, to deny me a justified ending to a film I was largely enjoying is wrong.

I feel it goes without saying that film has a superior showing of young up and comers, but what I feel should be said is that aside from the main male dominated teens, there is a surprising mix of other actors and actresses too, this is always a welcomed surprise.

At times The Riot Club is funny, at times it's uncomfortable but it never reaches the depths it desires or needed to for me. The talents on display are strong and that's what lifts it above the mundane.

Founded in approximately 1780, the Bullingdon Club were notorious for booking out a restaurant, trashing it beyond recognition and handing the owner a cheque for the damages on the way out. The unofficial club, which still exists today, consists of a select group of male elites at Oxford University and is the inspiration behind the latest cinema release, "The Riot Club".

The Riot Club begins with the group looking to recruit two new starters, as Alistair (Sam Claflin) and Miles (Max Irons) emerge as possible candidates. However, over the course of a single evening, the club's reputation is put on the line.

The film itself is very much an emotional roller-coaster. Initially, there are plenty of laughs to be had, mostly executed through witty one-liners, though it becomes a lot darker with some shocking scenes that make for extremely uncomfortable viewing. It's the latter which highlights the film's superb acting, as the young cast give genuinely convincing performances. Holliday Grainger, who plays Lauren - Miles' love interest, particularly stands out here.

Playwright Laura Wade adapted the film from her own play "Posh", and it clearly shows, as a large portion of the film is based at the table in the restaurant. While it comes as a slight disappointment that The Riot Club doesn't stray too far from its theatrical origins, it does seem to work in the film's favour, adding to the suspense before the highly dramatic climax.

Wade unsubtly incorporates a number of themes in The Riot Club that are reflective of the society we live in, including the inherited privilege and power culture in the country. There's also a lot of political satire, which comes as no surprise considering some of The Bullingdon Club's ex-members include the current British Prime Minister David Cameron, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne and Mayor of London Boris Johnson.

Overall, The Riot Club is an excellent play-adaptation that makes for a highly gripping film. There's laughs a plenty, shocks a plenty and a great cast. This is a must-see.

REVIEW - THE RIOT CLUB

I have watched many films in my life and many wash over me with no meaning except for a few like I Daniel Blake.

This film is one of those very rare films that is truly disturbing.

The difference between those who have and those who have not, the difference between those born into money and those who earn it.

Horrible, disturbing but essential watching reinforcing the image of we look after our own.

Are the characters in this film true? Do people actually act this way? I will never know and honestly never want to be in the position to find out.

Rating 10 out of 10

They've made an unpleasant film about unpleasant people behaving unpleasantly. Unfortunately, nothing else about The Riot Club is as clean as its tone.

A group of young men in an Oxford society that is a thinly-disguised Bullingdon recruit new members and set in train their initiations and various japes. This culminates in a welcome party that skips from debauchery into Dionysian rage. The two new recruits are an odd couple, a kind of good snob/bad snob pairing who share a tutorial and have facile arguments along Tory/Labour lines. The problem with all the chundering and punting antics of these spoiled clowns is that it is too easy a target. The Riot Club wields too blunt a scalpel to be incisive social commentary. And it just isn't funny or bizarre enough to be biting satire. The ten members all seem to flounce around in a similar fashion and become indistinguishable from each other. Thank the stars one was Greek which allowed for a degree of differentiation. Live long enough in the UK and you will come across arid, prickly Oxbridge graduates with their insular sneering and extensive on-parade vocabulary. They form a particular insidious tribe in UK society and the system of boarding schools and privilege that breeds them is ripe for excoriation. Unfortunately, this film takes aim and misses by a ridiculous mile.

Before watching the movie, I would suggest to read a little bit about the Bullingdon Club, which this movie is based on. It's always better to watch a movie with a little bit of context.

That said, the writer, Laura Wade, explores some very complex issues regarding wealth and peer pressure. While these themes have been depicted in movies over and over again, she does not imply that the entire upper class is a bunch of arrogant pricks, who think they can buy their way out of everything. Clearly, they can, you can't really fault them for that, but the Riot Club is not inherently an evil society. They are rich, they drink, and they sometimes lose control, as we all do. The difference is that there are no consequences for them, so they can keep on doing it. I liked how peer pressure was depicted in this film and how the guilt and responsibility of some of the members was shown. It really made me consider how we act in situations we have very little control over and how responsible should we feel in these kinds of situations.

My only complaint about the movie would be the main character (Miles Richards) being a flawless Mary Sue - rich, handsome, witty, intelligent, kind and well meaning, as well as some of the other positive characters being presented as these morally superior beings. That felt very strange for a movie, the main idea of which is that not everything is as black and white as it seems, and we all just try to justify our own actions while doing what we feel (not think) is best.

A cast of outstanding young British actors all acting superbly, together with several very fine, and already established character players, a 'name' director and a successful West End play so why isn't "The Riot Club" more engaging than it is? Probably because there's very little on the screen to like. "The Riot Club" is said to be very loosely based on the real life Bullingdon Club and is about a group of thoroughly unpleasant, extremely rich young men at Oxford, members of the club of the title, who have dedicated themselves to decadence and debauchery and really just being absolute shits.

It's very well done though I'm not sure it tells us very much about the state of the nation that we didn't already know. All this movie really does is reinforce an already held belief that being stinking rich is basically tantamount to being totally objectionable and getting away with it. It's a hateful picture but a hatefully compelling one, nevertheless.

This is a typical gritty Film Four presentation. A look at the seedier side of society groups and making us look at a side of people that we like to believe doesn't exist really but deep down we know they do. Very gritty , very thought provoking watch this knowing that you will be shocked .

A secret Oxford University club where if you have to ask to join you can't be a member who are all from affluent backgrounds and think they are better than anyone beneath their social standing.

We see how the club begins from its origins to modern day with the group needing new recruits . We see the process and induction of the new members and quickly realise that they are raucous to the extreme. They are preparing to book the annual meal and have to leave Oxford and end up in a beautiful family orientated gastro pub.

As the drink flows and the drugs are consumed the behaviour of the group becomes excessive. A pre arranged prostitute refuses to co-operate which infuriates the members further.

A violent assault tests their loyalty to each other and is played out with the involvement of outside parties.

Miles and Alistair are a couple of privileged freshmen at Oxford University. Miles becomes romantically involved with a working class student called Lauren, while Alistair has delusions of grandeur and several loose screws. Both are invited to join a club devoted to drunkenness and debauchery, and after enduring some juvenile initiation rites, the two novices join some veteran student hedonists for a bacchanalian feast in a country pub's private dining room.

The second half of the film observes the tedious antics of this aristocratic rabble at their interminable blow-out. The spoiled brats exhibit the sophistication of soccer hooligans as they over-indulge in various intoxicants, insult the pub's staff, get rejected by a prostitute and trash the joint. After Alistair lures Lauren to the gathering, the entitled yahoos insult and assault the girl. Unfortunately, the dramatic effect of this pivotal scene is diluted by the scant time previously devoted to Lauren's relationship with Miles, compared to the endless depiction of drunken mayhem. Despite some decent acting, the film misses several opportunities to make a deeper impression as it focuses on the evening's degeneration into an orgy of excess.

I saw this film at the 2014 Toronto Film Fest and it was the standout in a lineup that included such excellent fare as NIGHTCRAWLERS and WHO AM I - NO SYSTEM IS SAFE. I saw all three on the same weekend, and a couple of days later it was clear that RIOT was the one that lingered. It's an impressive stage adaptation that adds both an effective opening act and an epilogue with a real sting. This while not letting the central event -- an annual hedonistic dinner for the titular club, consisting of the ten most aristocratic, spoiled-rich blue-bloods of Oxford -- bog down with theatrics.

The cast is uniformly excellent. You can tell that everybody was really into their part, what with all the wretched excess being enthusiastically depicted. It should be noted that Natalie Dormer's top-billing is misplaced. She's quite good as a call girl who (very astutely) refuses to service these sub-Joffreys, but it's strictly a supporting role. The co-leads are Max Irons and Sam Claflin, who play Oxford freshmen who become the two newest club members.

Irons is solid, but when your character's defining characteristic is spinelessness, it's hard to generate a lot of excitement. It's Claflin who gets to shine, playing the worst of the worst, no easy feat! (Sort of like Michael Madsen in RESERVOIR DOGS or Alan Ford in SNATCH in this respect.) Kudos, Sam, for taking it to the limit on loathsomeness and earning a spot on my elite IMDb "Scum of the Earth All-Star Team," alongside such luminaries as Pacino, Freeman, Pitt, Kingsley, Gambon, Plummer, Crowe, Penn, Hopper, Oldman and Spacey.

Most dead-on tag line I've heard so far: "A wakeup call for fans of Downton Abbey."

The film deals with lessons that cannot be learned at school, in the elite of British private societies, where all men are not created not be equal.. The pic is set in both the fantasy and nightmarish aspects of university elites and ends up being terribly violent and with a terrible finale, leaving the viewer breathless for a finale showing no one will ever pay for the terrible facts committed (as a matter of fact more crimes than facts). In the end the guys attitude and behaviour their seeing everything as a commodity, their considering such incidents as "scrapes," leaves the audience (at least it had that impact on myself) with a total lack of hope for the future.. However, regardless of the moral opinions the film is very well acted.

Gripping in the repulsiveness of its main characters. Not inconceivable that this sort of thing really happens in Britain. Horrific if so. A sort of upper-set Lord Of The Flies.

To me, this movie is entertaining with great storyline and acting. That's why I gave a 9 for it. However, I kind of understand why this movie doesn't get very good reviews. Because It was portraying a group of young, rich and stupid people who were behaving so arrogantly and most general (middle class) people who watch it would feel strongly disapproved and, as a consequence dislike this movie. I think it is quite difficult to differentiate the opinion regarding one issue with the movie itself.

Even though I also feel disapproved and dislike their behaviors, I can see that this movie is trying to communicate something. I believe they try to show the hideous aspect of UK's elite system that has long been an important part of British society and it has carried on till the modern time. Many people admire and look at the UK as equivalent of being posh and sophisticated especially in those prestigious universities. But in fact, they are likely to do more harm than good. The movie really shows how rich kids and even elite adults can be out of touch with the world and think of themselves as superior than the rest, which I believe there are still many like that in the UK.

It gets me thinking that it is probably the culprit that drags the UK behind other countries. The UK is now behind the war-defeated country like Germany and the country of similar size and characteristics such as France, even though it got so many advantages such as speaking the world language, once the most powerful country with so many colony and all. I believe the main difference between France, Germany and UK is that the UK elite system, including the monarch, is so strong and overly important. As an outsider it looks interesting and cool but I wouldn't want the same for my country. I think it is kind of bad for the country in a sense that many resources could have been pulled away for more practical purposes and wasted on the flamboyant parties, fancy clothes and palaces.

We will just leave it at that. Started out a lot of fun for the most part but then...we cannot be allowed to have too much of that, right? Not with all the political angst about.

Some bits are just hard to watch.

The film definitely could've been something grander in the hands of someone else. But that doesn't mean it's not worth it, by any means. The screenplay is a bit all over the place, but the acting is particularly fantastic. In particular, I'm talking about Sam Claflin. He's absolutely mesmerizing, in his quiet hatred and resentment and then later on when he's given more dramatic, outer material. I'd always liked him in The hunger Games but here he's truly something else. I'm now officially a fan and I really hope I see him in more things to come in the future, he has a lot of charisma that's really well built in. I think because of him I'm giving the film such a high rating.