Rise of the Footsoldier: Vengeance

Growing up in Southend-on-Sea in Essex, I am old enough to remember the uneasy feeling surrounding the Rettendon murders. The first Rise of the Footsoldier was completely on point with its general tone and laid out Carlton Leach's (true) story in an enjoyable enough manner. The movie won so much goodwill in my mind, that I have been on board for all of the subsequent sequels.

Now six movies deep and running solely with purely fictional storylines, that goodwill has wained quite a bit, especially after the weaker efforts in Marbella and Origins. Vengeance, however, managed to gross the highest box office of the entire franchise, and I am curious to see exactly why.

In case you are unfamiliar, Pat Tate was gunned down in the first part of the franchise. All of the subsequent movies are prequels to this event, revolving around Pat and his cohorts and their escapades in and around Essex. Craig Fairbrass is getting on a bit now, but it still looks like he could punch the head off of a regular Joe. He's not quite as psychotically frightening as he has been previously, opting here more for a more quiet "say the wrong word and I'll smash ya" type performance. Vengeance is a lot less goofy without the presence of Tony Tucker and Craig Rolfe and the bad wig department (who should be thoroughly flogged in the market square for some of the worst hairpieces in a non-comedy movie).

If you're familiar with UK TV, you'll probably make the obvious comparison with Eastenders. And yes, Vengeance does seem like a long, more violent episode of Eastenders. But a revenge storyline is something that's easy to get behind.

Overall, I would say that Rise of the Footsoldier: Vengeance is one of the franchises' more solid efforts. I was under the impression, however, that this would be the last movie in the franchise, yet the finale sets up another sequel which, judging from the box office take, won't take long to greenlight.

Just to be straight, I've loved the whole series of movies (apart from the second one) & it's been well documented (including by Craig Fairbrass) that this series of movies keeps rolling on because the fans love the almost cartoon violence & the bad Essex boy personas. Unfortunately, us fans loved the realistic gang violence & the naughty boy stories that stemmed from the original. We all know Pat Tate was a wrong'un & the previous films have not held back from showing the character he was. In 'Vengeance' he's the main protagonist of the story & made out to be almost a hero. The out of control Tate we've seen in previous movies (hookers & blow in the hospital & the infamous pizza cutter scene for example) is completely tamed down in this & is almost unrecognisable. Like Taken & the Expendables this almost seem dumbed down to reach a wider audience. The story is disjointed, the superb Geoff Bell is criminally underused & unfortunately just doesn't hit the spots that the diehard fans want. I so wanted to love this but ultimately felt mugged off.

So here's yet another Rise of the Footsoldier movie, and again with archetypal Cockney tough guy, Craig Fairbrass, who played a minor role in the classic first flick.

Here's what the producers don't seem to understand: the first Footsoldier movie was successful not only because of the violence and constant use of the c-word, but also because the movie had a strong sense of character and story. You knew who it was about and what it was about. You could follow it from scene to scene, knowing what was going on.

With all these sequels, it feels like a melange of scenes that weren't good enough to go in the first movie. There's barely any throughline to the story. All I got was Fairbrass asking everybody if they'd seen somebody called Billy.

Why is it so hard to make a movie with a discernible plot and characters?

I left a very scathing review of Rise of the Footsoldier: Origins, so I feel it is only fair that I should leave one about ROTF: Vengeance.

I am by no means a fan of this franchise and I sat down to watch this film, expecting the usual - constant swearing, misogyny, drug taking, stilted accents and A-level drama quality acting.

I was pleasantly surprised.

The heavy use of the c word (probably 10-15 in this film) and comedic elements have been replaced with a slow-burn storyline, focussing on character development, and the lighting and set pieces were great, which proves that Nick Nevern has really hit his stride with this instalment.

A minor criticism would be that they seemed to bring back one recurring character too many, and the storyline became a touch confusing because of this.

All in all, a very enjoyable watch - the omission of the ghastly Terry Stone character helped immensely.

As a fan of the franchise this is a disappointment on par with number 2. The other two main actors were missed like with number 2 when it was just Carlton's character. The humour is almost all gone and your left with a film trying to take it's self to seriously. The whole thing about this was always the comedy and violence that blended so well and the great cast, Craig Fairbrass is an amazing actor but this time Pat Tate is all but on one occasion without humour. I do hope they get back to basics and just have a laugh with it as that's what I see as the attraction to the films. They do have an amazing cast but bring back Terry Stone & Roland Manookian!