The first ROTF film hit our screens back in 2007. It was brash, ambitious, epic noisy and savaged (unfairly in my opinion) by the establishment critics. While not a perfect film by any means, I always thought it was very under-rated and gave something to the British Gangster Genre we hadn't seen in a while. From it came a sequel a couple of years ago, continuing on the story of Carlton Leach. Odd then, that the production company decided to go back and tell the earlier story of one of the least likable characters, Patrick Tate, from the first film. (Played by again by Craig Fairbrass)
We get an early insight into Pat's forays into the criminal underworld both in Spain and Essex, his time in prison and the road he would take to eventually meet Tony Tucker and Craig Rolfe (Terry Stone and Roland Manookian complete with wigs reprising their previous roles) which would ultimately result in his demise.
The film starts strongly, taking us back to his earlier enterprises on the Spanish Riveria. The first third focuses on the friendship between Tate and Kenny, though the origins of this pairing are not really explored. Relative newcomer Josh Myers as Kenny, a potential prodigy to Tate clearly understands his acting craft with his solid 'less is more' performance but his character comes and goes and has no real roots in the film, nor do we find out enough about him. Much of the middle act concerns Tate's time in Prison and the rivals he encounters both there and on the Essex club scene. Some good supporting performances (Ian Virgo and Jamie Foreman) inject much needed subtle humanity into their roles along with some unusual casting choices. Even Andrew Loveday, head of Carnaby International, makes an appearance! But contrary to someone else's comments on here I found the actress who stepped into Kierston Wearing's shoes as Kate (Played in the third film by Laura McMonagle) to be solid, a different portrayal sure, but played with emotive conviction.
The main (and obvious) problem with this film, is Tate is simply not a very likable man. We learn nothing of his childhood years nor the beginnings of the journey he took to becoming a criminal, there is just an assumption that he always was a 'wrong un'. He is selfish, self-centred and seems unable to connect with people emotionally except through fits of rage. Tate, as portrayed, has no redeemable qualities whatsoever making it very hard for you to root or care about what happens to him. Sure, films can be made about people from history who are evil (There's been enough about Hitler to give but one example!) but here we only see one dimension to this man. He's just a total arsehole all the time which after a while becomes a little draining. If he isn't taking coke and beating people up, he's on the verge of doing the same and when he thinks he's funny, he isn't and it's at someone else's expense. This is not a person you would want to meet under any circumstances and if the mission of the film was to tell the world they were better off without him, then it certainly succeeds. Apart from a brief moment where he regrets punching a child in front of his father we just don't see any other sides to him. (This was for me one of the most effective scenes in the film and the only time we saw his inner conflict) The other issue is the age of the characters. For a film which primarily focuses on events set before the first film, it is hard to not continually note the age of everyone on screen and this isn't helped by some cutting flashbacks to the original movie, blurred though they may be, we are simply reminded of how much younger everyone was ten years ago. There were also some inconsistencies with the original material. In his scenes here Craig Rolfe feels very much as an equal partner to the enterprises of Tate and Tucker whereas before he was constantly treated as their lackey, the latter depiction would seem to be the more truthful one. As events draw nearer to the inevitable the film just seemed to end. I was expecting to see some consequences of the aftermath. Tate's daughter could have been an interesting narrator for this story, looking back to try and distinguish the myth and reality of a father she never knew.
The film is not without merit - it's well shot, has a thumping soundtrack and good attention to detail on period production design but a stronger more thoughtful screenplay could have made for a much more powerful film. It has the energy that the second film was lacking but doesn't measure up as well elsewhere.
All that said, for the fan of the genre there's much to enjoy. Fairbrass gets stuck into the role, even if we learn nothing new, he is as convincing as before in his portrayal of the drug-fuelled paranoid psychopath that Tate ultimately became. Well choreographed fight scenes and spurts of violence (The moments that are underplayed are more effective than the gore) will keep people satisfied. I have no doubt this film will receive more of a critical bashing than it deserves. Despite my personal gripes, you can see where the hard work has gone into the film to put it in a league above other recent movies of the same genre. It would be fair to say it does what it says on the tin.
