Rise of the Footsoldier: Part II

The original Rise was told from Carlton Leach's perspective, 'Rise II' doesn't appear to have had a lot of input from Carlton himself as far as story goes it's pretty thin on plot. The acting varies wildly from good (surprisingly, Craig Fairbrass and solid as per from Ricci Harnett) to downright awful - Steven Berkoff, his days have been numbered for some time. Terry Stone is forgiven as although normally the worst of the worst, his performance as Tony Tucker in the original 'Rise', even with the laughable wig, was outstanding. Here he is seen in flashback and it's just about okay. As I mentioned, the plot is thin but at least most of the actors tried to make the best of what they had to work with, in the end it's a by-the- numbers film that barely keeps you interested and then only really by Fairbrass and Harnett. I didn't fall asleep so it must of had something.

The original RISE OF THE FOOTSOLDIER was unfortunate in that it arrived very belatedly in an era when most British films seemed inspired by Guy Ritchie . There's only some much mileage you can squeeze out of a formula so by the time RISE OF THE FOOTSOLDIER came out everyone had become bored by mockney gangsters . That said I found Julian Gilbey's true life crime movie to be rather underrated and if there was a British equivalent of GOODFELLAS that might have been it . Crime doesn't pay ? Tell me about it . Despite this the idea of a sequel seems needless and I can see why this continuation of Carlton Leach's life story came and went without the slightest fanfare

In its favour director and star Ricci Harnett concentrates on continuity with the prior film . Some of the cast are resurrected and we have the same look and feel as the 2007 . There is a slight difference and that where Leach became a very peripheral character in the second half of RISE OF THE FOOTSOLDIER here he appears in nearly every scene and is the constant central character of the narrative

This leads to a fundamental problem though . While the lives of Tate , Rolfe and Tucker were unremittingly violent and made the first film compelling here there's considerably less violence which makes for a less compulsive film . Don't get me wrong , you won't confuse this with Walt Disney family fare but this tends to draw your attention to another aspect - self justification . Carlton you see isn't really a bad man and only maims and beats people who deserve it and the understated violence is only inflicted on people who deserve . Perhaps even worse there's an element of redemption running through the narrative subtext but how does a former West Ham ICF thug and gangster redeem himself ? The answer is he probably can't . It's not a bad film but if you need convincing that crime doesn't pay the message has been spelled out in better films without trying to elicit sympathy from the audience

Disjointed, no story poorly put together cliche fest.

Literally no reason for it to exist just trying to squeeze an extra few quid out of the franchise which was already flagging.

I like that they focus the story on Leach, he's the character I was first drawn to, however they take his arc in an unfortunate direction.

Gone is the larrikin turned gangster, Leach has become something else much darker and the film suffers for it.

I can only assume Berkoff needed some quick money as an actor of his ability should not have gone anywhere near this tosh. This film exaggerates the importance of Carlton Leach in the underworld. The acting is mostly dire but the script they are working to is unoriginal with dialogue that could have been written by a semi literate 12 year old. The direction and accompanying music just grates.