I’m not a film buff. But if there’s one genre I have a weak spot for, it’s a good drama. Maybe this played out in my favour, but I had close to zero expectations when I went to see Urchin, the new indie film by the first-time director and actor Harris Dickinson. I didn’t even watch the trailer – I just glanced at the description, read the words ‘outskirts of London’ – and was sold.
Mike, played by Frank Dillane, is a drug addict living on the streets of London. Not much is known about what led him to this point, making the film mostly observational. But despite the lack of context, the story captivated me – with only a few exceptions – from start to finish.
Mike’s life is grim. He is a lonely, down-on-his-luck man, forced to sleep on cardboard boxes. He takes drugs, gets into money disputes with a dodgy friend, and makes choices that eventually land him in prison. Yet the tense moments are eased with glimpses of hope. After his release, and with the support of an integration programme, Mike finds a job, receives temporary accommodation, enters a clumsy relationship, and even regains a sense of self-enjoyment through new friendships. I was struck by the genuinely humorous dialogues, which I think are a rarity in today’s cinema. They often arose from Mike’s awkwardness, so convincingly portrayed by the actor. At times, the celebratory scenes set to cheerful music felt a little like a cheap 2010 coming-of-age rom-com and a filler for the lack of story. But I was able to forgive the director as he carried us from one cinematic adventure to the next.
The theme of homelessness is familiar to most of us, but the film made me realise how easily we forget it exists because we simply can’t put ourselves into the people’s shoes. Storytelling from the perspective of a young homeless man, whose character shines through vulnerable facial expressions and almost a childlike longing for a second chance in life, was a good exercise for empathy. Emotionally impactful yet never veering into melodrama, the film made me fully understand the sometimes brutal choices Mike made. When fighting for survival, we turn into a Hobbesian bullring of animals – ignoring that others might actually want to help us.
What made me love the film even more was that it showed me the limits of my own empathy. When Mike relapsed, verbally assaulted a woman, or failed to keep his job, I found myself asking: was it his own laziness, or the lack of tools society provided him? While many films offer a clear answer, Urchin presented a complex character who both disappointed me and made me feel proud over and over again.
The film’s artistic vibe was an added value, making it stand out from other documentary-style dramas. The dynamic camera followed Mike through London’s council estates, high streets, soup kitchens, store fronts, and hostels. It was an immersive journey. It flowed. I loved the realistic colour palette, with its blend of orange, blue, and green undertones. To me, they visually captured the emotions and harsh realities of life on the margins. The director also introduced several fantasy and surrealist elements, which certainly encouraged reflection, but occasionally felt quite misplaced and unnecessary. The music was excellent and I am still desperately searching for the playlist. A bonus? Almost every character spoke with a foreign accent, adding another layer of authenticity.
With 53 ratings, the film scores 96% on Rotten Tomatoes.
According to Los Angeles Times, “Urchin establishes [Dickinson] as a filmmaker to watch: a storyteller willing to look at a thorny subject and admit that there are no easy answers.”
The New York Times wrote: “Urchin doesn’t break the mold, but it’s a confident, quietly affecting drama that strikes above the standard character study.”
After the screening, Natalia Pavlovicova, another moviegoer, elaborated on the plot: “It started in an exciting way, I immediately thought the camera was very good, especially following this character around London and providing us with the insight into everyday reality of existence without home.
“I really appreciated the humour thanks to which we felt close to the main character despite the drastically different circumstances, but I felt like the plot was a bit boring.
“I’m not sure why it actually didn’t work with the incident from the beginning, when the homeless man attacked another guy who offered to buy him food, just so he could then get his watch to sell it off to get some money. This could have been the main plot line exposing layers of the whole incident and its aftermath, the psychology of the homeless man behind his behaviour and maybe even some systemic issues with dealing with homelessness, but the film basically missed out on this opportunity only to continue to follow this character of the homeless man through various situations, none of them really going any deeper.
“The only worth-mentioning bit was the, at points, obscure aesthetic of some scenes, but unfortunately, that didn’t do the trick for me and it just felt randomly placed, coming out of nowhere. I’m talking about the fantasy-styled elderly women, probably representing death, or the scene basically ripping off Trainspoting where the camera diving into bathroom drain, zooming onto some death skin cells. Overall, it was a decent film with good music, sense of humour and good aesthetics but it just failed to fulfil its potential.”