Charlie

In the 60's, London was ruled by two gangs: The Krays...and The Richardsons....Lead by the notorious Charlie. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.........After watching the lastest London gangster film I looked at my watch & said to myself "What a waste of 90 mins". This film really is poor, poor in every way, acting, script, direction, everything, This is the first film by Malcolm Needs that I have seen (I know he's only made two) & I hope it's my last, I was squirming in my seat at every word, what is it with British gangster movies, we just can't do it, When you watch the Americans do it you believe it, you believe the nutters in those films would stab you in the neck with a pen just for the fun of it. This film is "A True Story", will I don't care how true it is, it's rubbish. Malcolm Needs to go back to Film School or Malcolm Needs a head transplant, I Needs a drink !!.

Luke goss shows his worth as charly Richardson the notorious south London gangster who even the krays gave a wide birth so already youve got an intriguing plot with mad frank in the mix, what can go wrong? Well its not bad! It has potential to be alot better but no spoilers its worth a watch.. yet you want a Richardson film watch gangster no1 although lossley based it's a cut above the rest.

The film is about Charlie Richardson and briefly talks about the Kray Twins, the inspiration for James Fox's character in Performance. Organized crime in London.

The film doesn't really offer anything we haven't seen before though. Nothing new here. There are some fairly interesting moments here and there but the producer and director seem to want to focus more on the torture scenes. These scenes are the boldest.

The rest is tired stuff we've seen in 100 other films prior to this. Be better off watching Performance. At least there is more style to that- more imagination. This is actually pretty dry.

The strengths of this movie are Luke Goss as the Charlie, and the truth, or at least believability, of the history. The film shifts back and force between Charlie's life as he tells it, and as it is portrayed by the prosecution during his trial. In one version he is respectable thief, stealing primarily from the government, and all-around nice guy. In the other he is a viscous sadist, torturing anyone who displeases him. In both versions he is charming, clever, and competent.

The movie's main weakness is the way that the story skips through small events without ever giving you the big picture. None of the other characters are developed much, and you don't see the progress of his relationships with the other gang members nor how he builds his business. Although the film is only 95 minutes long, it feels longer because it crams so many short scenes in. But because the scenes are disconnected and repetitive, it misses much of the story.

If the film was fiction, I wouldn't have enjoyed it, but as a true story it is fascinating.

I was not expecting much from this film after the reviews I have read. However, I was very surprised to find myself thoroughly enjoying this film.

It is a very English film with some fantastic dark humour. I particularly liked the part where he is to be conscripted into the British Army.

I am not concerned at all as to the historical correctness of the film as it is not claiming to be a documentary. Although, even if only 10% of the tales are vaguely correct then it gives you some idea what life was like for The Krays and Co.

The acting was 'real' and the choice of Luke Goss to play Charlie turned out to be a very good one in my opinion.

Give it a try - but don't watch it with your Granny!