F

In North London, the teacher of the Wittering College Robert Anderson (David Schofield) is hit on the face by a student and is forced to take three months vacation to be not sued by the parents of the kid.

Robert is affected by the incident and a couple of months later, he is emotionally disturbed, alcoholic and separated of his wife Helen (Juliet Aubrey). Their daughter Kate (Eliza Bennett) lives with her mother and has classes with Robert, but she does not respect her father. The principal of Wittering College, Sarah Balham (Ruth Gemmell), loathes Robert and wants to get rid of him, but the Union does not allow her to fire him.

When Robert reads about violence in another school, he sends a memo advising the employees of the school and he is considered paranoid and delusional by everybody. One day after hours, Robert notes some strange movements outside the school and he advises the security guard James (Finlay Robertson) that does not give much attention to the discredited Robert. But sooner Robert realizes that the Wittering College is under siege of a gang of hooligans and he need to find Kate to protect his daughter.

"F" is a film with that had potential to be a great movie. Unfortunately the inconclusive story is shallow and does not develop the characters that are unlikable or the situation, and has a weak ending.

Robert is a looser and emotionally unstable; Kate is a bitch; Sarah is another bitch; Helen is also a bitch; James is coward; Kate's boyfriend Jake is a douchebag. Robert seeks out Kate in the school without any weapon (a piece of wood, a ax or whatever) to defend himself and his daughter from the gang. The conclusion is absolutely disappointing. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Adolescentes em Fúria" ("Teenagers in Rage")

I made an appearance at a preview of 'F' in Cambridge recently this year.

Though it wasn't a fantastic horror and yes there were some clichés and repetitive moments, I was still thinking about it when I left.

I was thoroughly surprised at the 18 certificate because you rarely see any of the violence taking place, just the gory aftermath, yet this is where the brilliance lies.

Everything was suggested through the camera work. Tension built, shocks revealed and moods created through the use of one camera. The close-ups became reasonably annoying but it is impossible to deny that it was well filmed, very well filmed. The soundtrack was very good and was consistently played which is reminiscent of John Carpenter's films. 'The Thing' comes to mind.

David Schofield carried the film, especially compared to the rest of the cast. His performance was solid and believable. As has been said before, the rest of the cast members were a bit too bland to empathise with, some even used as cannon fodder.

The lighting was brilliant as well, successfully evoking the tension out of its viewers. Additionally, although there was a trick, the 'Hoodies' were fantastically lit, keeping them faceless. The 'Hoodies' are where I feel a lot of people misunderstood the film.

The 'Hoodies' are faceless forces of evil. They are silent, deadly, malicious. They are a symbol of todays violent youth (take the student protest in London recently as an example). The 'Hoodies' were an enigma, a force within and apart of the school. This is where I had the most fun in the film, watching these things cause chaos. When the 'Hoodies' were looming we would know, and that made them ten times creepier.

The ending, love it or hate it, was different and strangely invigorating.

'F', despite the minor clichés, it's slight dip into repetition and bland characters (apart from a couple), and I suppose the lack of a substantial plot, is a fresh film. It is entertaining with some moments of horror and some genuinely brilliant filming, especially when the 'Hoodies' are looming.

Most importantly, there are horrors churned out by Hollywood these days that are skid marks in comparison to this. So if you're a person that enjoyed those terrible remakes such as 'One Missed Call,' or 'Prom Night,' which this film shouldn't really be associated with, then this is definitely worth a watch, in fact it is utterly fantastic compared with those.

One bit in particular is worth watching if you're a Hollyoaks fan... or hater. 6.5 / 10

In "the making of" on the DVD the writer/director claims it took him 2 years to write the script. One can only conclude that he lost most of it and ran out of money before he'd finished shooting it.

The acting and horror are all at "Hollyoaks" level. This mess lasts a pitiful 75 minutes including titles AND HAS NO ENDING.

A school is attacked by hoodies except the hoods are completely pitch black with nobody inside. And you're never going to find out who they were or what their motive was because the film just ends.

Complete dreck and a waste of time. Even the digital grading has been messed up - it's a green/yellow mess.

Hey look, a socially relevant and disturbingly accurate horror/thriller! You don't see a lot of those, that's for sure. Well okay, only the basic premise and main themes behind Johannes Roberts' "F" are realistic, while the further events in the film are pure fictional and exaggeratedly sensational… And thank God for that! But as said, the synopsis immediately grabbed my attention. Not a day goes by without hearing depressing reports on the news about chaotic riots or shootouts on school grounds and senseless violence against people who are just doing their jobs, like teachers, bus drivers and train conductors. "F" suitably opens with devoted English literature teacher Mr. Anderson taking a punch in the face from a frustrated student after flunking his exam. The school's board of directors refuses to support Mr. Anderson and even forces him to go on sick leave because the kid's parents threatened with a lawsuit. I don't intend to sound overly embittered and old, but sadly this "fictional" intro gradually turned into a saddening fact! Kids used to answer to their parents regarding bad school grades and unacceptable behavior, but nowadays teachers risk to be held responsible for their disrespectful and uncontrollable attitude. One year later, Mr. Anderson still teaches his class but metamorphosed into a completely different person, struggling with alcoholism, paranoia and a torn apart family situation. One evening, when keeping his daughter in detention, a pack of criminal students (?) hiding their faces underneath hooded caps invade the school's premises and relentlessly begin to terrorize the remaining staff members without apparent motive.

As a social statement, "F" is definitely one of the most remarkable genre movies of the past ten years. The subject matter is relevant and the main characters are identifiable, which automatically puts the film in a league higher than your average and typical slasher movie about a bunch of idiotic teenagers heading out to the remote backwoods and getting butchered by inbred hillbillies, or something. Purely talking in terms of cinematic value and impact, however, "F" unfortunately is too much of a flawed and incoherent accomplishment. Writer/director Roberts does a terrific job generating a tense and involving atmosphere, through detailed character drawings and a terrific use of ominous music, but the movie narrowly collapses as soon as the school invasion truly breaks loose. He wants to intentionally remain vague and distant regarding the hooded hoodlums' identity and motives, presumably in order to keep everything more disturbing, but he overlooks the fact that the viewer expects a minimum of insight. The invasion, clearly influenced by John Carpenter's "Assault on Precinct 13" comes across as too random and implausible. The northern London area obviously suffers from troublesome kids, but there weren't any hints at well-organized criminal gangs to my knowledge. Who are these hoodlums? Exactly how many of them? Are they even students at Mr. Anderson's school? They could be a bunch of circus acrobats gone berserk, for all we know, because their speed and flexibility to move across the hallways and climb atop of school infrastructure is deeply impressive. And also, these assailants aren't just insignificant youthful thugs… Judging by the crimes committed here, they're incurably and dangerously deranged psychopaths! If you see what they do to the principle's head or how they mess up secretary Roxanne McKee's cute face, I sincerely doubt we're dealing with rebellious school kids here. Not even the serial killers on death row are this cruel and sadistic. The film actually contains very little on screen violence, but the suggestive cruelty and imagery is more than enough for sensitive people to avoid watching. The ending is a huge letdown and, like many other reviewers already indicated, it looks as if there are fifteen minutes missing and/or Johannes Roberts completely ran out of budget all of a sudden. I think I understand the deeper meaning behind the open ending, but this simply isn't the type of movie for that. It's a worthwhile attempt, but unfortunately not destined to become a cult gem/classic.

Where to start? No on-screen violence. No identities for the hoodies or any real reason why they decided to kill everyone. Not a single likable character. The protagonist is an alcoholic who hits his own 16 year-old daughter! There's no one to root for, I wanted them all to die. It's a disaster.

These 'hoodies', you still can't see any part of their faces even in scenes where there are big fluorescent lights above them! Logic check! If you go by the start, they are also supposed to be 'F' grade students taking revenge (although this isn't clear), but they must have 'A' grades in Athletics because they run about on large bookcases in the library, fall from the ceiling at every opportunity, they act like stealth ninjas from start to finish.

The ending. Well, there isn't one. The few people that had actually stayed in the cinema just muttered "What?". It's all a very confusing and badly put together mess. Avoid.