Rise of the Footsoldier: Vengeance

I'm a big fan of Rise of the Footsoldier. This effort ...The story is so slow that if it went any slower it would stop. Craig Fairbrass plays the normal characterisation he always does. Dialogue just doesn't hit the mark for an East End gangster movie.

It does link, well sort of, with the other films in the series. Joey is back from Origins, even though in the last one they near enough killed him and told him to get out of London.

Really, the film is just a reason for Fairbrass to be violent and either kill or brutally injure people.

The actors in the ROTF series need to understand that they are all older since the original in 2007. How can they portray younger characters when they are over 15 years older than the original film? Just waiting for "Rise of the Footsoldier - Zimmer frame " to be released.

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 am usually not one for the east end, London based, geezer type movie. Most of the actors in the movie would make me close the curtains if they were performing Rise of the Footsoldier Vengence 2 at the bottom of my garden. However I decided to give this a try. And was pleasantly surprised.

As a result, I am now probably going to go back and watch the previous instalments, all thirty seven of them. Lol.

Craig Fairbrass is a decent lead actor in a movie like this and it is surprisingly well made with plenty of gritty action and intrigue along the way.

I didnt understand the ending much because I haven't seen any of the others so don't follow my example and let this be your first venture into the series.

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!

Ok, this franchise is really silly and most of the characters in it are violent psychopaths. And the real people they're based on must have been vile.

But these are movies, so let's put that to one side.

In this one, the tone is markedly different from before. It's a "proper" film and leaves out the relentless mindless violence and swearing that numbs you that characterised the previous movies.

Here - somehow - is a film that's technically very well put together indeed. The acting is good, the story is ok if a bit too convoluted and the way they keep holding off on a big reveal a few times too many gets annoying.

But the actors in this one are properly acting for the most part, and the camerawork and editing is very very good.

8 "faaaahkin caaaahnts" out of 10.